23 ms·
The data provided in my link shows 4-6% average, I was referring to the most recent spike in real inflation that is not showing up in the BLS data. At the lower
by shirkey 12y ago
The data provided in my link shows 4-6% average, I was referring to the most recent spike in real inflation that is not showing up in the BLS data. At the lower end, you'd have 48% price growth compounded annually over that 10 year period, at the higher end is 79%, so not sure why you extrapolated that at 7% over ten years.
- mikeyouse 12y agoI'll admit, I didn't even click on your link, but rather went by your claimed range: > Government stated inflation based on chained CPI and other new measures to reduce inflation may be at around 2%, but previous formulas used in the past to calculate inflation would show a much higher rate (6-10%) I'm not here to quibble about inflation ranges, but to point out how idiotic their 'methodology' is. Don't take my word for it; James Hamilton (CV: http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilton/ http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jhamilton/) - http://econbrowser.com/archives/2008/09/shadowstats_deb http://econbrowser.com/archives/2008/09/shadowstats_deb Greenlees and McClelland (Who actually designed the CPI methodology) - http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/08/art1full.pdf http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/08/art1full.pdf Or my favorite, via the libertarian blogger James Parsons. If you actually use Shadowstat's inflation ranges, you can 'back-calculate' the price of assets to show how insane they actually are: * If shadow stats inflation assertions are correct, the 'real' value of housing has dropped 60% since 1980! [1] - http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/03/shadow-stats-debunked-part-i.html http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/03/shadow-stats-debunked-part-...