6 ms·

I don't know, friend. I am not a moral absolutist. There's nothing that makes my heart tremble like starting the propeller of a small GA airplane. On that mome

I don't know, friend. I am not a moral absolutist. There's nothing that makes my heart tremble like starting the propeller of a small GA airplane. On that moment I reconnect with my nine year old self. You may call me evil, vulgar, stupid, shallow, vicious even. I know what I feel inside. The rest of the world can disappear on that moment. Sorry.

Alpha3031 29d ago
Not many people buy GA aeroplanes, so it's a sensible decision for those to receive a lower weighting than other consumer goods in a general purpose index like the CPI. There is a divergence between the prices of goods the US produces and those that consumers purchase, as measured by the GDP IPD and CPI respectively, but that is not something that is appropriate to measure using one highly idiosyncratic good, nor even a basket of goods like "things I personally want to purchase", if one is wishing to produce numbers that others agree are reflective of the average experience of many.
- sssilver 29d ago
  Yes. But also, the very point of this entire thread was that even these highly idiosyncratic goods were orders of magnitude more accessible to the median American household back in 1975. Despite that very same household being orders of magnitude more productive in 2026, thanks to GPS (and the rest of technology).
  - Alpha3031 29d ago
    "Idiosyncratic" doesn't mean "we expect it to me less accessible", it means "we expect it to behave in its own special way so just taking a random one of them doesn't tell us anything about the average experience". Given the number of goods and services there are in any given economy, you can probably find at least one good of each of the following categories: A) that was very inaccessible in the 70s, and accessible now, B) that was very accessible in the 70s and still very accessible now, C) that was very inaccessible in the 70s and still very inaccessible, and D) that was very accessible in the 70s and very inaccessible now (in addition to the one that you already picked) None of those four tell us anything about whether "things people usually purchase" or "things the economy generally produces" have gotten more or less accessible, because different goods have gotten more or less expensive at different rates. You can easily point towards increasing inequality, which shows that the median American is getting a smaller share of income, and the divergence between CPI and GDPIPD, which serves to show that what people purchase on average (CPI) are getting more expensive faster than what the economy produces on average (IPD). (by about 30% on average according to FRED) Insisting on intentionally using less useful evidence to support your claims is like making a strawman of your own argument, when clearly a stronger argument exists. [FRED]: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/the-differences-among-price-indexes/ https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/the-differences-amon...
rexpop 16d ago
No, only shallow. ;)

Alpha3031 29d ago

Not many people buy GA aeroplanes, so it's a sensible decision for those to receive a lower weighting than other consumer goods in a general purpose index like the CPI. There is a divergence between the prices of goods the US produces and those that consumers purchase, as measured by the GDP IPD and CPI respectively, but that is not something that is appropriate to measure using one highly idiosyncratic good, nor even a basket of goods like "things I personally want to purchase", if one is wishing to produce numbers that others agree are reflective of the average experience of many.

sssilver 29d ago
Yes. But also, the very point of this entire thread was that even these highly idiosyncratic goods were orders of magnitude more accessible to the median American household back in 1975. Despite that very same household being orders of magnitude more productive in 2026, thanks to GPS (and the rest of technology).
- Alpha3031 29d ago
  "Idiosyncratic" doesn't mean "we expect it to me less accessible", it means "we expect it to behave in its own special way so just taking a random one of them doesn't tell us anything about the average experience". Given the number of goods and services there are in any given economy, you can probably find at least one good of each of the following categories: A) that was very inaccessible in the 70s, and accessible now, B) that was very accessible in the 70s and still very accessible now, C) that was very inaccessible in the 70s and still very inaccessible, and D) that was very accessible in the 70s and very inaccessible now (in addition to the one that you already picked) None of those four tell us anything about whether "things people usually purchase" or "things the economy generally produces" have gotten more or less accessible, because different goods have gotten more or less expensive at different rates. You can easily point towards increasing inequality, which shows that the median American is getting a smaller share of income, and the divergence between CPI and GDPIPD, which serves to show that what people purchase on average (CPI) are getting more expensive faster than what the economy produces on average (IPD). (by about 30% on average according to FRED) Insisting on intentionally using less useful evidence to support your claims is like making a strawman of your own argument, when clearly a stronger argument exists. [FRED]: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/the-differences-among-price-indexes/ https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2023/03/the-differences-amon...

rexpop 16d ago

No, only shallow. ;)