The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I realise Drew may have access to some of the work on this stuff? So I guess I shouldn't be too rude about the state of the art in the field, maybe more exists than I know...
I really like the idea of spectrum analysis because there's clearly different kinds of inertia - and they should give clues to different issues.
I'll throw in my usual complaint about "core inflation" which is that "inflation" has very specific meanings... which always need considering before you go from the "inflation" or "core inflation" figure to a policy judgement.
The most obvious case is that core inflation was low throughout the finance and housing boom that preceded/caused the current financial crisis. So - there are important things (asset inflation?) that the core inflation (and indeed various other inflation measures) just don't measure...
So, in this case, core inflation shows we are heading towards deflation - which does indeed match some other potential measures of the "real economy" - but at the same time the financial economy appears to be inflating again, and with it some commodities that are pretty vital to the real economy (energy? food?)
What does all that mean? I don't know... but I'd be a lot happier if anyone out there can point me to a non-recursive/tautologous definition of inflation that explains what it should mean...
You would need to have a clear idea of how you'd expect a frequency spectrum to look like for different kinds of pricing mechanisms before you start mining the data. Ideally, you'd want to calibrate your a priori expectations against several industries that you know to be competitive/monopolistic/oligopolistic.
What you'd want to emphatically not do is chug a lot of data through a frequency decomposition and then mix and match the patterns you get out. That would probably give you turtles all the way down.
This is no minor task, and the calibration in particular will probably involve digging into historical price/volume data that is less complete than we might have wished. Although it is, of course, preferable to using a nonsense index to make serious policy decisions...
Yes. The ordinary inflation indices don't touch the balance sheet at all - they only care about the cash flow. What's worse is that it is less than obvious how to construct an inflation index for assets, or that it is even an appropriate thing to try to do.
As a practical matter, that's not a very big problem, because we have a number of other indicators that can tell us whether asset prices are out of line. The problem is the political will to use them (or rather the lack thereof).
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
This should be broken out by income deciles and tracked over time. Instead of excluding things that vary widely, such as housing costs, accommodate them. For each decile determine the proportion of households that own and rent, track the expenses for each and average the sums for each decile. Same with transportation. Break it down into automotive expenses, public transit expenses and other, track by decile and average.
We need some analysis as to what really is happening, rather than the cooked numbers prevalent in the USA. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
The point here is that there may well be other interesting information in the price/quantity data than the consumer price index.
But, just like GDP (which is also a useful measure) isn't the be-all-end-all measure of economic development, the CPI isn't the be-all-end-all of price indexing.
Were we to classify disciplines by the intellectual approaches employed, economics does not belong in the social sciences. What science starts off with axiomatic assumptions that are presented as self evident and are beyond questioning? Example: "Inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon." Then consider a situation where simultaneously the creation of all money tokens is stopped and foodstuffs along with energy products become exceedingly scarce, such as after a nuclear exchange or the impact of a large asteroid. One can see that the price of food and energy will go up, but it is not because of the money. Nor can the problem be solved by applying any monetary manipulation that does not produce more food or energy. So obviously the axiom on which monetarists base their analysis is falsifiable. Economics, as currently practiced, should be in the religion departments.
As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
That's because they don't get it. By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by DoDo - May 20 35 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2035 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 340 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments