Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: Rumpelstiltskin <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:49:34 GMT
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 07:07:56 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
A rigid, no-subs policy obviously results in a higher CPI, which is
obviously good for SS receipients. However, it doesn't accurately model the
inflation in the economy.
If it "obviously" results in higher CPI, doesn't that
mean that the current situation is "obviously"
understated? Unbiased substitutions shouldn't
all trend the same way if they're really unbiased.
I do buy frozen ground beef, but right now "steak"
is on my shopping list for the next trip to Costco but
hamburger isn't, even though I still have some of
both in my freezer.
Maybe we should have a pet-food index, counting
the number of people who are living on pet food
because it's cheaper, today versus ten years ago.
(I've never known anybody who does live on pet
food, but I'm assured by urban-legendists that there
are some.)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: mg
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: phil scott
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: John Galt
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- References:
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: phil scott
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: mg
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: John Galt
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: John Galt
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: John Galt
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- From: John Galt
- Re: Fraud in the CPI
- Prev by Date: Re: A woman needs to own her own mule
- Next by Date: Re: Lets assume the CPI is accurate.
- Previous by thread: Re: Fraud in the CPI
- Next by thread: Re: Fraud in the CPI
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading