Live data from Hacker News

Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

forbes.com

131–140 of 461 posts

Re: Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

#131
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Headline consumer sentiment is polluted by junk like this article. People report their personal household situation is fine and they expect it to continue being at least this good or better in 1 and 5 years. But they've heard so much shadowstats horseshit on the radio that they are compelled to stake out a negative view on the economy as a whole. In the latest UMich consumer survey majority of respondents expect thei…

>But, further down the February results, you can see that record numbers of people report hearing negative news stories about prices, way way way higher than in 1980! Which is totally crazy if you were here in 1980! If you had taken a moment to consider the data presented in the article instead of dismissing it out of hand because it offends your sensibilities, you would realize it states that it obviously implies it…

> because it shows inflation is worse nowadays than in the 1980s.

Obviously you didn't live through the 1980's, because that is obviously false to anybody who has.

Re: Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

#132
post #3

[flagged]

[flagged]

I want to be able to read flagged comments.... why is it no longer possible, /u/DANG? Because most of the time I don't agree with the flagging anyways.... and it is important to look at opposing views.

Re: Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With inflation, we want to know about the change in value of the dollar only. By "we", you are referring to you and others who want to know only this. Some people (not many) want to know what is going on comprehensively, and in fact . For example: I would like to know if there is any strategic changing of formulas to improve appearances going on, like there has been at pretty much every single job I have ever worke…

> By "we", you are referring to you and others who want to know only this. Right. I am referring to all those who want to know only this, along with everyone else. Because those who want to know something else would use another measure. Those complaining that inflation doesn't give you some other economic indicator is like someone complaining that temperature is not a good measure of distance. Well... duh. > Some peo…

> Right. I am referring to all those who want to know only this, along with everyone else.

"along with everyone else" is incorrect, because you have no way of knowing what other people want (and worse, maybe no way to know that). And the only way you "know" what "all those who want to know only this" is because it is a tautology, it is necessarily true. Though, you have no way of knowing what percentage of the population thinks like you do, so it is not particularly informative knowledge.

> Because those who want to know something else would use another measure.

Some people (me) would like to see all methodologies maintained indefinitely on a chart, so we can see how different versions of The Truth vary over time. I am interested to see if changes in methodology tend to correlate with changes in the "vibe" of the cost of making ends meet people are experiencing. I prefer this approach because it is more transparent, and because I do not trust my government, or the perceptions of my fellow Westerners (because of the way they think: how it "is", is how it seems to be....which tends to correlate quite nicely with how it is said (repeatedly) to be).

> Those complaining that inflation doesn't give you some other economic indicator is like someone complaining that temperature is not a good measure of distance.

It is also "like" someone whining about how appliances don't last as long as they used to, but "is likes" are often more misinformative than informative (perhaps why they are so popular?).

> Well... duh.

Are you blaming others for the way you think?

> Absolutely. Which is why we have many different ways to look at inflation.

And also why I do not want historic "truth discovery" methodologies memory holed.

> In fact, don't White House economists use 30-some-odd different measures of inflation throughout the course of their work?

Don't know, but I do not trust them.

Also, "in fact" terminating with "?" is a rather interesting approach.

> But eventually you are going to want to put it to practical use, mathematically, and our formulas require a single number.

Maybe we should get better formulas, because reality does not fit so nicely into simple, reductive, misleading models.

> CPI is the one we picked to standardize on

No, "we" did not pick it, someone else picked it "on our behalf"...according to "democracy" we are trained to believe, though it is not both flawlessly true and not misinformative.

> (but, of course, you can choose another if you want).

I can't get it published as "fact".

> It won't be 100% accurate – determining that is fundamentally impossible and you know that going into it – but it will be good enough.

Good enough to satisfy people that want to be satisfied, but not good enough to satisfy all.

Re: Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

#134
post #16

I recommend people use many different indicators to get a mental model of inflation, and you will notice that CPI does not represent inflation well. The memes of Arby’s 5 for $5 becoming 4 for $10 are more informative than the CPI numbers. Don’t let the shock at the grocery store wear off – it’s real and painful despite what the news tells you. True inflation would measure the amount of prosperity achieved per hour w…

> Remember in 1963 only the man was working, and typically supported 4 kids, a wife and often parents in the home. This is a ridiculous exaggeration: the average US household was 3.7 people in the 1960s, not over 6[1]. There are good reasons to hold politicians to task for recent abnormally high inflation. But this comment is more of an atavistic fever dream of the past than an expression of those reasons. Edit: anot…

Ok putting the fever dream aside, even at 3.7 people per household the 1963 to 2024 numbers as it relates to income vs cost of living is pretty eye opening. You are not really disproving the general point by getting fussy over the numbers.

Re: Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

#135
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is at least a bipartisan hobby, to go searching for any alternative numbers whenever there's good news for your opponent. Though this is an impressive amping up: "previous" is 1983. This isn't some dastardly bit of math by the present administration. This dates back to Reagan. Of more interest is that consumer sentiment is indeed grumpy, and that is a big deal with an election coming up. They don't really need thi…

mendacious explanations What specific lie are you calling out here?

The fact that he hasn't described all possible formulas, but instead included exactly the one that affirms his known preconceptions. He would not have published this thesis had it not supported him. He'd have looked around for some other metric.

Re: Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

#136
post #32

That seems subjectively accurate, looking at my grocery store receipts and $13/lb meat. Certainly more accurate than “3.5%” bullshit the “free press” is asking us to believe.

Meat was already expensive a year ago, it isn't unlikely that the price increased about 3.5%. And then of course, they often report monthly numbers on an annualized basis.

We’re at a point where my bigtech six figure circles are starting to notice and switch to chicken. But by all means do please continue to deny reality. Because by the looks of it we’re headed into a Carter style stagflation for the next 15 years.

Re: Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By "we", you are referring to you and others who want to know only this. Right. I am referring to all those who want to know only this, along with everyone else. Because those who want to know something else would use another measure. Those complaining that inflation doesn't give you some other economic indicator is like someone complaining that temperature is not a good measure of distance. Well... duh. > Some peo…

> Right. I am referring to all those who want to know only this, along with everyone else . "along with everyone else" is incorrect, because you have no way of knowing what other people want (and worse, maybe no way to know that). And the only way you "know" what "all those who want to know only this" is because it is a tautology, it is necessarily true . Though, you have no way of knowing what percentage of the popu…

> No, "we" did not pick it, someone else picked it "on our behalf"

With a gun to your back, eh? We can use whatever source of inflation we want. Nobody is selecting for us. But, as it happens, CPI is the one we've chosen as the default. If we change our minds, we don't have to default to it forevermore. It's up to us.

> Are you blaming others for the way you think?

I don't think. You do enough of that for all of us. No need for me to duplicate efforts.

I relay the state of the world to the thinkers so they don't have to. The efficiency of specialization!

> Good enough to satisfy people that want to be satisfied, but not good enough to satisfy all.

Which, again, is why we have many sources of inflation. Pick a different one if need be. Indeed, there is good reason why there is more than one.

And if inflation isn't the right tool for the job, which is probably the case, use a different economic measure. There are many tools in the toolbox. You don't have to measure distance with temperature.

Let's be real, the only reason we talk about inflation at all is because it is shares a relationship with interest rates. Interest rates are what people actually care about here. As principal value declines with inflation that makes borrowing more attractive, thus interest rates need to compensate, thus a change in inflation rate serves as a useful leading indicator of interest rate movement. If it weren't for that, it is doubtful that anyone, economists and statisticians aside, would even know that inflation is a used measure.

Beyond interest rates, it doesn't mean much to Average Joe. Average Joe is more worried about things like cost of living. Inflation isn't meant to be useful to Average Joe, though, it is for economists who need to look at much more than Average Joe. Average Joe is free to use it if we wants, but it's funny when he starts complaining that it doesn't work right when misapplied.

Re: Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remember in 1963 only the man was working, and typically supported 4 kids, a wife and often parents in the home. This is a ridiculous exaggeration: the average US household was 3.7 people in the 1960s, not over 6[1]. There are good reasons to hold politicians to task for recent abnormally high inflation. But this comment is more of an atavistic fever dream of the past than an expression of those reasons. Edit: anot…

Ok putting the fever dream aside, even at 3.7 people per household the 1963 to 2024 numbers as it relates to income vs cost of living is pretty eye opening. You are not really disproving the general point by getting fussy over the numbers.

The current average US household has 3.1 members. There’s an important discussion to be had about cost of living and stagnant wages despite productivity, but as I said in another comment: that conversation needs to be factually grounded. Vague reactionary handwringing about the good old days isn’t going to cut it, especially when the good old days weren’t all that great by contemporary standards (or for contemporary American demographics).

Re: Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

#139
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 153 million more people in the U.S. today than in 1963. The reason these neighborhoods are exclusive to the wealthy is that housing there is scarce despite growing demand due to job growth. Housing in places like the Bay Area is such a big portion of monthly expenses that stuff like Arby's 4 for $10 or whatever isn't whats hurting people the most. Lots of these issues just come down to housing and restricti…

95% of zips in 1963 were safe and livable. Now everyone is competing to live in 15% of zipcodes You address the supply side of the "housing crisis", what about demand?

> 95% of zips in 1963 were safe and livable.

I've been trying to give your comments the benefit of the doubt, but now it's abundantly clear that you're fundamentally unserious about having a conversation grounded in reality.

Re: Summers: Inflation Reached 18% in 2022 Using the Government's Previous Formula

#140
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “one income household” model of the 50s worked for two reasons. 1) the rest of the world was in ruins, so for 50s-60s US was sole industrial power more or less. 2) artificial labor “scarcity” where POC and women were banned from many occupations. The remaining available labor (ie white men) had more leverage.

Is the argument that true inflation should be worse than CPI because it helps with diversity?

It has more to do with a hidden class structure below your average white family, working for much less, providing goods and services at a discount. Inflating the means of the average white family in a way that wouldn't be possible today because we're not as purposefully racist or sexist as we used to be.

In order to make a better comparison one should compare what was affordable to the average black family in the 1960s (or whatever previous time period you choose for which we have figures) to today.

There's other factors like the aftermath of WW2, the real and "soft" power the US held back then in comparison to today, and the role women played in the economy.

Today's world is a lot different from then but the truth is that the wealth and power we've amassed since then should have us in a better position, not worse. The factors at play in today's economy are not benefiting the common man nearly as much as they should.

We're beginning to look more and more like a post-scarcity economy every day yet our laws, regulations, and culture are not evolving with the times. The fact that land and homes are vastly inflated compared to regular every day goods and even the "durable" kind is strong evidence that our entire economic system stands on precipice of great change.

Either we're just getting started on a great collapse or a great sea change in politics and economic systems. I very much doubt things are going to go back to the way they were... Ever.

We as a society can decide to spread our prosperity around or we can increasingly suffer for the lack of it by continuing the status quo.

Post reply on HN