Do you believe in CPI reported by ABS?

Over the last decade I've head many happy reports about CPI, and all were saying about 3-4% growth in average (or even less) for the last 10 years.

But do you believe in this?

Do you remember the prices for groceries, petrol, transport, education, building, and etc 10 years ago? Can you say that over the last 10 years the prices for everything have doubled? (well, at least)

If yes, then 100% price increase for the last 10 years equals to 8% annual inflation, but not 3.5%, even not 4%.

So, how that corresponds to the data reported by ABS?
 
Yes but how much cheaper are plasmas? :)

Do you buy plasmas every week?

I was trying to grasp things I have to buy or spend money for. To sustain the same living standard, not just to survive.

PS.Talking about new technologies, the gudgets are cheap, but the service is a killer. I did not spent so much money on mobiles, cable and wireless, as I do today.

PS.PS I suspect TVs will be free soon. So we can hear more news about low CPI ;)
 
Max, I think you are following the Yank commentators a little too much. They decry the use of hedonic adjusters which say a computer which only costs a little more this year is actually cheaper because it is better. When this logic is applied to thousands of consumer items, and food and power are considered non-core then I accept that the US inflation rate is understated.

I am yet to be convinced that it happens here to the same extent. But I'm open to debate. LOL It may be happening.

Correctly, you say we don't buy a plasma screen every week, but with ever cheaper Chinese goods and the strong A$ the cost of manufactured goods is absurdly cheap, and becoming cheaper. Most won't believe this but the dollar cost of new cars (a significant impost on a family budget) has hardly risen for many years. And, for those who are a little down the pecking order, good used cars have never been so cheap.

But if you wish to argue that inflation is higher because asset values are inflating rapidly, then I must agree.
 
If you aren't an an owner of appreciating assets then you are tracking backwards in this country in my estimation. Inflation: The silent tax.

A small sample size I tested recently from shopping receipts from 1999 and 2007.
 

Attachments

  • shoppingbasket.jpg
    shoppingbasket.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 187
And another ten after than with various conspiracy theorists using their sample group of one science to show why it must be wrong.
 
The CPI figures are correct GIVEN THE METHODOLOGY. As you said, Mad Max, the figure can be distorted because it includes things that a normal family doesn't buy every year. However, like it or not this is the official number.
Alex
 
If you aren't an an owner of appreciating assets then you are tracking backwards in this country in my estimation. Inflation: The silent tax.

A small sample size I tested recently from shopping receipts from 1999 and 2007.

Take out the mushroom buttons and the % isn't all that much different.
 
Well spotted!

They do skew the results, but it's still a significant difference above CPI. Which is not meant to represent just groceries anyhow.

So it's not a great test on that data.

I still believe my original statement, though would like to test it further at some point.

** also there was stealth inflation by smaller product sizes for most things, which I adjusted for.
 
In the real world, inflation, as measured by an increase in the price of goods and services, has gone through the roof in recent years. I still find it amazing that inflation rates are mentioned in the 2-3% per annum rate, when "on the ground", it is obviously fallacous and much higher.

I havent studied the methodology, but "logically", surely the greatest weighting would apply to goods and services that you regularly purchased...food, petrol etc, as these consume quite a high proportion of disposable income. These have undisputably gone up dramatically in recent years.

To argue that plasma screens and consumer products have any significant bearing on the cost of living(and therefore inflation rate) is ridiculous. An average family might spend the equivalent of $1000-2000 per year(averaged out) on consumer products, whereas they would spend possibly $10000pa on food bills, and maybe $3-5000 on petrol.

I have to admit haven't studied the methodology, and this is something I will have to enlighten myself on.
 
In the real world, inflation, as measured by an increase in the price of goods and services, has gone through the roof in recent years. I still find it amazing that inflation rates are mentioned in the 2-3% per annum rate, when "on the ground", it is obviously fallacous and much higher.

I havent studied the methodology, but "logically", surely the greatest weighting would apply to goods and services that you regularly purchased...food, petrol etc, as these consume quite a high proportion of disposable income. These have undisputably gone up dramatically in recent years.

To argue that plasma screens and consumer products have any significant bearing on the cost of living(and therefore inflation rate) is ridiculous. An average family might spend the equivalent of $1000-2000 per year(averaged out) on consumer products, whereas they would spend possibly $10000pa on food bills, and maybe $3-5000 on petrol.

I have to admit haven't studied the methodology, and this is something I will have to enlighten myself on.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/6401.0Explanatory Notes1Mar 2007?OpenDocument

Knock yourself out :)
 
I was chatting to my business finance tutor about this (he's an economics post grad) and he was saying that the RBA created 11% more money last financial year (or some similar figure) and that this was the real rate of inflation in an economy.

He defines inflation as the creation of more money not the general increase in price levels, though you could probably argue they are the same thing.

Aparenty this information about extra money being printed is freely available on the RBA website.
 
Seems lots of people think printing more money is the cause of inflation.

But shouldn't the RBA print more money to represent

1. the value of foreign money borrowed and now circulating in the country i.e. like the foreign funds Aussies have borrowed during the last boom to blow the price of Aus property from $900 billion to 3.4 trillion. After all, we don't buy houses with Yen or Yuan, even though that's what we borrowed to inflate Aus property.

2. an increase in the value of goods and services produced, thus increasing GDP. If GDP goes up 10% in a year, couldn't the RBA print 10% more money and keep the AUD's underlying value constant (excluding changes in current account and net foreign debt)?

I mean just imagine if Australia still had the same amount of dollars as in 1910 or 1950.
 
Sorry I dropped off discussion for some time, as being flatten in getting a builder. I've found some interesting readings from US site. I have a reason to believe, that what is happenig with a big brother very applicable to us as well.


http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=343Despite a long quoting, but I would recommend to read the whole paper.

The CPI was designed to help businesses, individuals and the government adjust their financial planning and considerations for the impact of inflation. The CPI worked reasonably well for those purposes into the early-1980s. In recent decades, however, the reporting system increasingly succumbed to pressures from miscreant politicians, who were and are intent upon stealing income from social security recipients, without ever taking the issue of reduced entitlement payments before the public or Congress for approval.

...

Elements of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) had their roots in the mid-1880s, when the Bureau of Labor, later known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), was asked by Congress to measure the impact of new tariffs on prices. It was another three decades, however, before price indices would be combined into something resembling today's CPI, a measure used then for setting wage increases for World War I shipbuilders. Although published regularly since 1921, the CPI did not come into broad acceptance and use until after World War II, when it was included in auto union contracts as a cost-of-living adjustment for wages.

The CPI found its way not only into other union agreements, but also into most commercial contracts that required consideration of cost/price changes or inflation. The CPI also was used to adjust Social Security payments annually for changes in the cost of living, and therein lay the eventual downfall to the credibility of CPI reporting.
...


In the early 1990s, press reports began surfacing as to how the CPI really was significantly overstating inflation. If only the CPI inflation rate could be reduced, it was argued, then entitlements, such as social security, would not increase as much each year, and that would help to bring the budget deficit under control. Behind this movement were financial luminaries Michael Boskin, then chief economist to the first Bush Administration, and Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Although the ensuing political furor killed consideration of Congressionally mandated changes in the CPI, the BLS quietly stepped forward and began changing the system, anyway, early in the Clinton Administration.

Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a constant standard of living.

The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak, instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.

...
Hedonic Thrills of Using Federally Mandated Gasoline Additives

Aside from the changed weighting, the average person also tends to sense higher inflation than is reported by the BLS, because of hedonics, as in hedonism. Hedonics adjusts the prices of goods for the increased pleasure the consumer derives from them. That new washing machine you bought did not cost you 20% more than it would have cost you last year, because you got an offsetting 20% increase in the pleasure you derive from pushing its new electronic control buttons instead of turning that old noisy dial, according to the BLS.

When gasoline rises 10 cents per gallon because of a federally mandated gasoline additive, the increased gasoline cost does not contribute to inflation. Instead, the 10 cents is eliminated from the CPI because of the offsetting hedonic thrills the consumer gets from breathing cleaner air. The same principle applies to federally mandated safety features in automobiles. I have not attempted to quantify the effects of questionable quality adjustments to the CPI, but they are substantial.

Then there is "intervention analysis" in the seasonal adjustment process, when a commodity, like gasoline, goes through violent price swings. Intervention analysis is done to tone down the volatility. As a result, somehow, rising gasoline prices never seem to get fully reflected in the CPI, but the declining prices sure do.
...

sgs-cpi.gif





Here is our own achievments:

http://www.bis.org/publ/bisp05_p5.pdf

MEASURES OF INFLATION AND INFLATION TARGETING
IN AUSTRALIA
Lynne Cockerell#
Reserve Bank of Australia


Measures of core inflation first appeared in the 1970s as policy makers and academics came to grips with the implications of food and energy price shocks for understanding the general direction of inflation. In the U.S., as in many other countries around the world, ‘core’ inflation became synonymous with a measure of the CPI excluding food and energy prices. In Australia, the Federal Treasury constructed a measure of ‘core’ inflation which excluded components of inflation based on a wider set of criteria; the excluded components representing more than 40 per cent of the consumption basket.


And now we have this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1924752.htm

Retired public servants are angry their pensions have not been safeguarded by the Federal Government and are threatening to take action at the election.

They say they will target marginal government seats in their campaign to improve pension entitlements.

They want wage-based indexation rather than the consumer price index (CPI) used to calculate pensions, which they say will reflect more fairly the cost of living.

Ewan Hazell from the Superannuants Association says they lobbied unsuccessfully for a change in last week's Budget.

"The average Commonwealth Superannuation pension for a couple is about $21,000," he said.

"The aged pension's well above that now, for a couple. Not a fairly happy state of affairs.

"Over the years, we've lost considerable amount of ground.

"Each time we raise the issue they beat us back and say, 'the CPI is good enough for you.'"

Mr Hazell says the CPI does not accurately represent the increase in the cost of living, and he is calling on the Federal Government to do more.
;)
 
I was chatting to my business finance tutor about this (he's an economics post grad) and he was saying that the RBA created 11% more money last financial year (or some similar figure) and that this was the real rate of inflation in an economy.

He defines inflation as the creation of more money not the general increase in price levels, though you could probably argue they are the same thing.

Aparenty this information about extra money being printed is freely available on the RBA website.

Sounds like your post grad economics business finance tutor is going to re write economics textbooks all over the world.
 
What good is there to come from arguing that CPI is really 8% or so?

Absolutely none.

High inflation justifies even higher interest rates under the current inflation-targeting regime.

You don't want to go there.

M
 
Seems lots of people think printing more money is the cause of inflation.

But shouldn't the RBA print more money to represent

1. the value of foreign money borrowed and now circulating in the country i.e. like the foreign funds Aussies have borrowed during the last boom to blow the price of Aus property from $900 billion to 3.4 trillion. After all, we don't buy houses with Yen or Yuan, even though that's what we borrowed to inflate Aus property.

Yes, someone borrowing Yen @ 0.5% who wishes to profit on the interest rate differential between Japan and Australia (the "carry trade") must sell his Yen and buy A$ and the RBA must create that money or allow competition for limited money to cause it to appreciate and ruin our exporters. Naturally they take the easiest course. Why do you think property loans have been so easy to get? The Banks don't really give a rat's about your retirement plans, so there must be another reason.

2. an increase in the value of goods and services produced, thus increasing GDP. If GDP goes up 10% in a year, couldn't the RBA print 10% more money and keep the AUD's underlying value constant (excluding changes in current account and net foreign debt)?

I mean just imagine if Australia still had the same amount of dollars as in 1910 or 1950.

Yes again, but our real GDP increases at about 3% p/a while our money creation is about 14% (that's what I hear) so we have 11% inflation. Cheap imports and a competitive market has kept the retail prices in check so we have asset inflation instead. Everybody hates :mad: price inflation but loves :) asset inflation so who cares?

We should because things that can't go on forever, don't.
 
Yes, someone borrowing Yen @ 0.5% who wishes to profit on the interest rate differential between Japan and Australia (the "carry trade") must sell his Yen and buy A$ and the RBA must create that money or allow competition for limited money to cause it to appreciate and ruin our exporters. Naturally they take the easiest course. Why do you think property loans have been so easy to get? The Banks don't really give a rat's about your retirement plans, so there must be another reason.

The RBA is not the only entity that can 'create' money. Fractional reserves banking means that any Australian bank that lends money out can and does create 'money'. Not in the M1 sense of notes and coins (which only the RBA is allowed to create) but certainly the broader measures that include credit. Obviously there aren't currently enough notes and coins in existence to represent all of our bank deposits. The system works precisely because not everyone will want cash at the same time.

So the RBA just doesn't naturally create money to match demand: if they could do that they could also control credit, and they can't. If they could do it the RBA wouldn't be complaining that people are borrowing too much: they would simply limit it. Much of money creation is in the form of credit, outside the RBA's direct control and we have a free banking system. The RBA only has one big stick: interest rates, and it's not a very efficient tool.

Property loans have been easier to get because we have a fairly unregulated foreign exchange and capital system. The development of new technology, new financial products (mortgage backed securities were only developed in the last 30 years or so) and ability to source foreign funds (US pension funds, etc) have been key to being able to sell our mortgages overseas. Arguably the RBA has done nothing to foster this except for benign neglect.

Of course the banks care nothing about your retirement (though the govt goes, for its own selfish reasons). They're there to make a buck. As investors we can use that to our advantage.
Alex
 
Back
Top