The BLS does not include a CPU-megahertz (or gigahertz) in its market basket. It uses CPU speed (and other characteristics) to divide the market into "high-end", "mainstream", or "economy" computers, then substitutes new items in the correct slot when as the new items become available, rather than waiting for the price of the older computer to plummet.
That's still equating technological deflation with (absence of) money-induced inflation, and it still assumes that the more powerful computer can displace the effects of food price inflation (or that the out-of-date computer can keep up with the same present needs).
Also, Dudley said:
>>“Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 that is twice as powerful,”
> it still assumes that the more powerful computer can displace the effects of food price inflation
Well, yes-kind-also-no?
It's not an index that describes the cost of necessities or human survival. It's an index that describes how consumers spend money on goods and services, such that the value of the money remains more or less constant.
In that sense, yes, people's computer-money spending patterns can affect the price of food. Literally anything else in the index can do so as well. No, the index is not "assuming" anything can "displace" food; it's just never set out to be a thing where food is this sort of baseline.
I can't be 100% sure, but you seem to think that there should be an index which cares more about food. Moreover, you seem to think that more public policy should revolve around this price index rather than the vanilla CPI that is currently used.
However, I would suggest that monetary policy is far blunt an instrument. It is one of the least-targeted tools possible, with the largest set of possible side effects, and food is too small a slice of the economy.
There's a reason we go for economy-level price stability instead of sector-specific. Imagine if the US had a real bumper crop, more corn and soybeans than you could eat: to meet food price stability targets the Fed would be obligated to shrink the money supply until the corn was as expensive as it used to be, and everyone's mortgages, loans, and credit cards would be harder to pay off.
I think I addressed these points in the other subthread and agreed that, yes, in general, technological gains can indeed alleviate budget problems, including affording food, but it doesn't hold for the example he gave. The comment for a longer reply.
>There's a reason we go for economy-level price stability instead of sector-specific. Imagine if the US had a real bumper crop, more corn and soybeans than you could eat: to meet food price stability targets the Fed would be obligated to shrink the money supply until the corn was as expensive as it used to be, and everyone's mortgages, loans, and credit cards would be harder to pay off.
That I don't have a problem with. The concern is with the opposite scenario: say the Fed is pumping enough money to raise food prices 20%, but techno wizards increase production efficiency across the board by 20% and exactly cancels it out. In that scenario the Fed should say, "wow, we're pumping too much money", not "inflation is just right", because they've stolen credit for the gains of technology.
