I'm honestly surprised inflation hasn't been worse than what we've already seen. 10-year treasury yields are still well below their 2019 levels and are currently below their levels from Q2 of this year.
CPI calculations are very tricky. Deflation in telecoms, for example, has been very understated because how do you compare a data plan with a voice plan (in the UK, they had to adjust two decades of CPI numbers because of this calculation error). Imo, we place far too much reliance on CPI which is, after all, only one measure of inflation. Everyone seems to believe that prices are rising faster than CPI, and they would probably be right (I am in the UK, food prices in Canada particularly are...out of this world...particularly for meat, which seems to cost at least 3x the price here).
First? I think this is an ad. Newspapers are paid for placement articles like this all of the time. Now, how much oversight is placed upon such ads-articles, depends upon the publication.
The Star is well respected, so I suspect there's some strong oversight on opt-ads by them. EG "Please write about us", more than "Here's an article we've written for you." However, I'd be surprised if some cash didn't change hands.
Second? This doesn't mean the premise is wrong. Part of the problem is how vast Canada is. Local production in Canada, crossing 4+ timezones and 10000km, is going to result in local shortages of products, and thus, local price spikes in produces.
For example, if you have a local butter shortage one year, shipping from 5k away will raise the price.
Again, my above comments aren't meant to debunk this article, just provide some additional data.
Oh, also.. pricing is indeed different in the UK and Canada. I visited... 5? years ago, during a particularly rain free, heat wave summer. Was nice, btw. :) But during my visit I did see those massive pricing differences in some things.
Of course, UK pricing for wood and fuel was outrageous for me (just things I noticed, and these are things plentiful in Canada).
But you're right about market controls in Canada, which are designed to ensure supply, and keep farmers in a profitable state. The US, for example, does this in a different manner, for example, they don't limit production, they buy excess.
On the dairy side for example, they buy excess milk and make "government cheese", which can be stored longer than milk (years), and is often given to the poor.
Some wags have pointed out the price has been constant for many years https://web.archive.org/web/20080512223437/http://www.shadow...
The billion prices project independently collects prices and matches CPI well https://www.businessinsider.com/million-prices-project-vs-th...
Note that the inflation stats in Argentina *were* manipulated and official numbers differed from billion prices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Billion_Prices_project
https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices...
Is the fuel cost per mile traveled 4 times higher than it was in 1981? No. Fuel prices adjusted for CPI are about identical with what they were in 1981 ($3.80/gallon): https://inflationdata.com/articles/inflation-adjusted-prices... And fuel efficiency has improved by about 40% in that time: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-... (Even as vehicle reliability and safety and comfort have also gone up.)
For housing, you might not pay market rate due to having bought a house long ago, or rent control, or some other way of getting a sweetheart deal.
If you look at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics they will happily provide you with more detail, for instance the median salary in a field for the top 10% of employees versus the top 90%.
I don't know how you'd keep that updated though, you can hardly say "the amount the richest 10% spend is the rich CPI" because it's a silly statistic. I don't know how you can reasonably say "the minimum amount required to be rich", it just seems silly on its face.
No, I don't think there's much of a way to make it work. It's probably more directly useful to understand whether people are saving money or how much debt they have, though that's going to lag.
I mean, or just ask people. The government is fairly good at doing that.
For income once again you can turn to IRS tax return data. I believe IRS can also sum your accounts as well as review transaction history. Creditors also report debts to IRS.
All told I believe the federal government can access all the information needed to know exactly what almost every American is paying for housing, how much they are being paid, how much they are spending, and how much debt they have.
> Generally, owners' equivalent rent is obtained through surveys asking homeowners the following question: "If someone were to rent your home today, how much do you think it would rent for monthly, unfurnished and without utilities?" [2]
I would guess that some owners’ ideas of what their house would rent for might lag the market?
[1] https://carcinisation.com/2020/12/11/survey-chicken/
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/owners-equivalent-rent....
I also have a pet theory that CPI understates the cost of housing due to people who are pushed out of entering the market altogether (e.g. homelessness rising, people living with parents longer)
Sort of the same way some people say unemployment figures understate the true number by ignoring discouraged workers / people who have stopped looking altogether. I have a hunch there are many discouraged folks who have stopped looking for housing altogether.
CPI is broken because it doesn't factor in a "change in taste or prefence"
CPI treats individuals as a giant unmovimg population mean.
To counter they change to use vector fields.
because
> Mandatory expenditures, such as Social Security, Medicare, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program account for about 65% of the budget.
The budget is about 6 Trillion US dollars (FY22). Take 65% of 6 Trillion and start multiplying it by CPI and you'll see why it's in their best interest to understate it, and understate it greatly. If it were calculated higher, they'd have to borrow more than the $1.9 Trillion that they already are. To pay for a single year.
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305...
If you look at the debt chart, you'll notice it basically starts growing, and growing exponentially, around 1970, when Nixon took the US off the gold standard and going to a fiat currency with no real backing other than the gov'ts word, and the people believing in it. That's waning.
Your choice at this point, barring some insider information on specific companies, seems to be to have to follow the FOMO wave into an already insanely overvalued market with the hope that you can get out before it all comes crashing down.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10YIE
The Fed is artificially holding real yields negative on the short end for years at a time to enable money-losing ventures to "prosper" in order to "stimulate" the economy. It gets people working and society running but the long-term misallocation of capital can't be good. Real yields have been negative out to 30 years for some time now, meaning the real economy could well be full of stuff that destroys value over a 30-year horizon as a norm!
I can believe that QE had a positive portfolio effect in the early 2010s. But no-one really acknowledged the downsides (it took them most of the 2010s to work out why QE "worked").
So we have the amazing situation where you will get funding for a project, but only if you promise to lose money. Investment into real assets is extremely low, chemicals and O&G are trading on mid-single digit P/E ratios, and are furiously trying to return capital...whilst we have massive shortages...it is a very unusual situation. And, imo, the cause of this is the shortage of risk-free assets (because creating this shortage, due partly to regulatory restrictions, did not mean that investors suddenly started making investments into the real economy...most couldn't...they just had to buy more "risk-free" assets from corporates who already had too much money or PE funds that were playing the capital cycle...ofc, no central banker understands that some institutions are limited, the textbook doesn't teach that, they don't understand it).
Risk free assets don’t exist. So by definition, they are always in short (0) supply. Even treasuries are at currency, inflation, and interest rate risk. If you are using risk free as a synonym for us treasuries , that’s what qe has been pumping into the system. Are you saying you want even more qe ?
> meaning the real economy could well be full of stuff that destroys value over a 30-year horizon as a norm!
This is probably somewhat hyperbolic since companies who borrow anywhere in the ballpark of the risk-free rate (i.e., large, responsible, and generally financially conservative organizations) typically have an internal hurdle rate that is well in excess of their cost of capital.
What is true is that the hurdle rate exceeds the cost of capital mainly as a risk mitigation mechanism; it is a margin of safety. IRR projections almost invariably depend on certain assumptions about future business conditions. So artificially depressing the cost of capital can result in "more marginal" projects getting the green light, and therefore can increase the potential for financial damage in a serious recession. You can think of it as "risk leverage".