But they have to do something like this right? I mean, consumption patterns have obviously changed since the 1960s. I understand maybe the way they adjust isn't correct but if you think this is a really easy problem you probably haven't considered it enough
No they don't have to do something like this. The change in consumption patterns is caused by inflation and should be measured. If someone has to switch from buying steak to ground beef, it's not a change in preference. They've stopped buying something they can't afford.
> The change in consumption patterns is caused by inflation and should be measured
While inflation can change consumption patterns, its not the only factor. For example, how do you compare your current spending on a mobile data plan or video streaming service compared to how consumers spent their money in the 1970s?
I am squinting at print media, broadcasts, and maybe live performances as a form of data. For example in the 1970s I expect my family had a book budget. My book budget has been subsumed by my ISP budget and they both effectively accomplish the same thing (reading material).
I know that this specific example wasn't crucial to your overall point, but I thought it was an interesting tangent to take literally.
And par for the course for Weinstein, he makes an interesting point while wrapping it in a vale of needless conspiracy mongering.
Yes, the rate of inflation is slightly different for different products and services (it is a "field" rather than a "scalar"). Yes, it would be nice if the government reported the entire inflation "field" rather than just the top-of-the-line aggregated inflation number.
Does this mean the government or economists are "lying" (his word)?
Well, not really. The government DOES report the entire inflation "field". They have done so every month, as part of literal press releases, for years. All the data is available on bls.gov for anyone who is interested. And many people are interested and have made use of the data, which -- again -- is entirely public.
>"Does this mean the government or economists are "lying" (his word)?"
The way I see it, it is in the government's interest to "lie" about the rate of inflation because it is advantageous for them to do so. Inflation is used as a tool in monetary and fiscal policy. "Inflating away" debt is a real strategy and policy.
"Lie" is a loaded term, and perhaps this is a limitation of our vocabulary. Because inflation has no universal definition or universally accepted measure, economists and statisticians have leeway when they calculate what the rate of inflation is. For the sake of argument, let's assume there is a "real" inflation rate. Having an "official" number lower than the real number means the government saves money on expenses that are indexed against inflation, and they get to repay debt with inflated money. The converse of this is costly for the government, as an official number higher than the real number means they have to spend more than expected. Therefore, it makes sense to me that the government is incentivized to under-report, and that they can do so because of how complex the calculations are. Is it a lie to switch to a different model, one that happens to result in lower official numbers? That's up to your own interpretation.
Hedonic adjustments + flat out replacing expensive items for cheap items was always retarded