It was not ignored. I agree that there is very likely a flaw, or more than one.
I am however hoping for some substantiation of what you mean by "entire methodology is flawed", or a mention of the flaw to which you refer.
He posts "alternate charts" for inflation (which are just the CPI with an arbitrary constant added....which is why his charts have the same exact curve but at a higher percentage level) which he says is necessary because CPI doesn't account for food and energy (which we know is bullshit).
Here are is adjusted chart for reference:
When he misses such a
basic fact about how CPI is calculated, and then proceeds to produce new "correct" charts and a website to spout bullshit on how the US Gov misrepresents statistical data,
how could you possibly trust his word on anything else related to inflation? Or anything having to do with statistics overall for that matter?
I don't believe that you are actually too dense to understand how this destroys his credibility; I think at this point, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing (or at least I hope so).
It is simple. He fully explains the methodology used behind the calculations in his charts. These methods are clearly explained on his website.
It is factual, then that you misrepresent his methods.
We can proceed to the following conclusion, which fortunately, you have provided us.
I don't believe that you are actually too dense to understand how this destroys his YOUR credibilityIt is less arbitrary than it seems. What he does is subtract the "adjustments" that have been made to the CPI over the decades which were added to show a lower inflation number.
The adjustments were added in order to cut USA entitlement spending, which is indexed to CPI.
Sure, the original adjustments, and also subtracting them, could be called arbitrary. They are what they are. The information is useful in both forms.
Fundamentally, neither of these metrics are perfect indicators of inflation, the shadowstats numbers are just showing what the CPI would show without the budget-saving adjustments. Democratic presidents can more easily cut entitlements because they get buy-in from their opposition and those loyal to them more or less follow along, so Clinton and Obama have an easier time cutting the CPI.
The Bush folks had an easier time increasing spending. This principle shows the political perversity of party politics. It is easier to go against one's political base to get things done.
"Former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former U.S. Senator Alan K. Simpson suggested a transition to using a "chained CPI" in 2010, when they headed the White House’s deficit-reduction commission. They stated that it was a more accurate measure of inflation than the current system and switching from the current system could save the government more than $290 billion over the decade following their report. "The chained CPI is usually 0.25 to 0.30 percentage points lower each year, on average, than the standard CPI measurements."
Whether the reason it was adopted was more because it was "more accurate" or that using this accounting trick improves the government picture "more than $290 billion over the decade following their report" can be left to your own imagination.
US$290 Billion pays for a lot of SEC agents. If one of the companies SEC agents regulate tried such an accounting trick, would the result be as easily accepted?
