[zmgsabst]

This is a nonsense reply.

You’re committing a fallacy of “Appeal to Authority”, even though your comment doesn’t make sense — obviously we need a consistent measure across decades if we want to compare inflation across decades. Comparing two numbers that measure different things is an apples-to-oranges comparison. (Which is what you’re arguing we should do.)

If you use a consistent measure from a 1980s basis, you’ll see that person is correct — as measured using the historic means, we’ve had ~40% inflation in the past few years and the highest rate of inflation in 40 years.

This chart uses the historic measure and bases in 1980.

https://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

[roenxi]

The Shadowstats numbers are deeply suspicious though; the graph makes it look like Williams is just adding [0] a constant to the BLS figure, which undermines his credibility. I'm also pretty sure he changes his constant every so often because I remember at one point his data implied absurd drops in the GDP and it appears the website has been changed since then.

I'd suggest just referring to the M2 [1]. It is easier to understand, and more available for analysis. Apparently it also gets rid of the stupid "real" price rises that inflation pretends gold is experiencing [2]. It suggests prices should be about 40% higher than pre-pandemic (I checked 2019-11 -> 2023-12) which coincidentally lines up with what justinzollars is reporting.

[0] Well, smoothing in. But the two lines wiggle the same way which suggests we're just using the BLS + an adjustment that is changing in a boring way over time.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL#0

[2] https://ingoldwetrust.report/chart-m2-gold-ratio/?lang=en

[findthewords]

If anyone is wondering why wealth inequality is skyrocketing and at record highs in the US in centuries, this is why.

High inflation for consumers, access to low cost of capital for asset holders.

In addition to the erosion of progressive taxation.

[gumby]

> wealth inequality is skyrocketing and at record highs in the US in centuries...

Wealth inequality today is growing and is unconscionable, but just to look at the numbers it was far worse in the gilded age (and of course far far worse during slavery). Knowing that is no excuse for not fighting it, but let's not rely on hyperbole to make a point on HN.

> In addition to the erosion of progressive taxation.

I assume you mean that the progressive nature of the tax code is fading away, in which case I agree with you and consider it a terrible problem. In some states like Texas the tax code is actually quite regressive, but overall the whole country gone quite a bit backwards.

Interestingly, California's tax code is both too regressive and too progressive (though both are in principle fixable). Since most people with any wealth hold it in real estate, prob 13 has made homeowners in lucky locations asset rich but at a low tax rate, which is screwing up attempts to improve the housing situation. And I learned it was "too progressive" in 2008: so much of the state's income came from cap gains of rich people and during the real estate crash (leading to stock market woes), state revenues fell just when a surplus was needed. The same thing is happening now, though I expect it to unwind by the end of 2024. That can be fixed as well by changing the tax mix for the top 1% and above, (which is why I put "too progressive" in quotation marks).

[lottin]

Whenever there's a change in methodology, it's common practice to retroactively recalculate the entire series so that the data are consistent. Economists aren't that dumb.

[sph]

It's not economists being dumb, it's gaming from politicians to paint a rosier picture than it is.

[hughesjj]

This still allows for you to choose the metric that best benefits your narrative today, which essentially every bls report has done.

I still remember them removing the people who had been out of the job for xx months during the 2008 recession from the 'unemployed' category. 'oh look unemployment is down!'. '...but so is the labor participation rate...'

[lottin]

Okay... we were talking about inflation. When and how exactly has the BLS chosen an inflation metric that suits "the narrative" of today?

[vineyardmike]

Yea but news articles and anecdotes from that period in time aren’t rewritten