Posts Tagged ‘CPI’

How the Consumer Price Index (CPI) could indicate false inflation?

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is one of the price indices used by the RBA to calculate the inflation figures felt by ordinary Australians. In fact, some of our pensions, wages and other payments are indexed to match the CPI.

However, sometimes the CPI really doesn?t seem to reflect the actual increase in the cost of living. According to this article, price inflation is close to 3.1%, however experts say that the increase in the cost of living feels closer to 5-6%:

There’s a disconnect between the high frequency items, which people regard as driving their cost of living and the broader measure of inflation, which includes less frequent purchases

We potentially have a scenario whereby cost of living is actually higher that is reflected in the CPI. However, the RBA will attempt to ‘manage’ inflation at the CPI rate (see Why central bankers are obsessed with inflation not breaching a certain band?), which means that they may mismanage their response to inflation.

The RBA?s response does not immediately hurt everyday Australians as much as it could. Increasing rates by small increments to fight 3% price inflation is not as bad as the increments required to fight 6% price inflation, especially if you?re heavily in debt. So let?s reverse that idea ? what about if cost of living increase is less than the CPI indicates? Suppose cost of living is increasing at a rate of 3% and the CPI was running at 6%. The RBA is vigorously increasing interest rates, whilst inflation is well ?under control?.

And this scenario could happen. The CPI is prone to overstatement of single items. The most recent CPI values for the year to June are heavily weighed down by a nearly 20% drop in Computers/Audio and a 6% drop in men?s clothes (single female technophobes must be doing it tough). A 50% rise in the cost of cigarettes could easily tip the CPI into high territory, whilst the non-smokers of Australia enjoy a lower level of inflation. Therefore, the RBA has to use other statistical hacks like “trimmed mean” and “weighted median” to smooth away the effects of once-off, seasonal or volatile price changes to arrive at an ‘underlying’ price index.

Yet, statistical hacks, regardless of how sophisticated the math is underneath them, are still not good enough. As we quoted Ludwig Von Mises in How much can we trust the price indices (e.g. CPI)?,

The pretentious solemnity which statisticians and statistical bureaus display in computing indexes of purchasing power and cost of living is out of place. These index numbers are at best rather crude and inaccurate illustrations of changes which have occurred. In periods of slow alterations in the relation between the supply of and the demand for money they do not convey any information at all. In periods of inflation and consequently of sharp price changes they provide a rough image of events which every individual experiences in his daily life. A judicious housewife knows much more about price changes as far as they affect her own household than the statistical averages can tell. She has little use for computations disregarding changes both in quality and in the amount of goods which she is able or permitted to buy at the prices entering into the computation. If she ?measures? the changes for her personal appreciation by taking the prices of only two or three commodities as a yardstick, she is no less ?scientific? and no more arbitrary than the sophisticated mathematicians in choosing their methods for the manipulation of the data of the market.

At the root of the problem with any price indices is that, as Mises said,

All methods suggested for a measurement of the changes in the monetary unit?s purchasing power are more or less unwittingly founded on the illusory image of an eternal and immutable being who determines by the application of an immutable standard the quantity of satisfaction which a unit of money conveys to him.

Basically, price indices, regardless of the level of sophistication, are not as ‘scientific’ as it seems. Central banks, however, have no choice but to rely on them to target price inflation with their monetary policy.

So, how much is the increase in your cost of living reflected by the CPI figures? Vote below!



Demand for money, inflation/deflation & its implication

Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008

Two years ago, we first covered the root cause of inflation in Cause of inflation: Shanghai bubble case study:

The mainstream economists? definition of inflation is rise in the general level of prices. However, according to the Austrian School of economic thought, the definition of inflation is the increase in the supply of money, in which the effect is the rise in the general level of prices.

As we have shown in yesterday’s chart in Australian money supply growth in September 2008, the supply of money in Australia had gathered momentum in the month to September 2008. In 12 months, the M3 money supply increased by 19.5%. The narrower definition of money, M1, increased by 8.3%. Does this mean that Australia is going to face runaway price inflation soon?

As a general principle, in the long run, there is a relationship between sustained monetary inflation and price inflation. In the same way, there is a relationship between a long-term lifestyle of eating excessive junk food and ill-health. In the interim, this relationship is more complicated. Using the junk food analogy, say that junk food eater dies of heart disease. What is the cause of death? Is it the heart disease? Or is it his sustained junk-food life-style?

Back to inflation, it is certainly possible to see continuing monetary inflation and slowing price inflation. In the US, the latest CPI figure even hinted of a price deflation! Therefore, in the short-term, there may not be a correlation between monetary inflation and price inflation. Part of the problem lies in the nature of how price inflation is measured and defined. As we said before in How much can we trust the price indices (e.g. CPI)?, price indices is a logically invalid idea. The implication is that it is possible to ‘define away’ price inflation and pretend that it is not a problem by torturing the statistics.

But setting aside the logical validity of price indices, what other dynamics is involved that can result in such non-correlation in the short-term? We will introduce one such dynamic- demand for money. This dynamic should not be confused with demand for credit. In lay-person’s terms, the demand for money is the desire for people to keep cash balance. As we wrote in The mechanics of deflation- increase in demand for holding cash,

Deflation happens when liquidity dries up. This can happen in a period of severe economic pessimism when the apprehension of the future drives people to increase their holdings of cash for the sake of peace of mind. When that happens, the quantity of money in circulation decreases, which means there are fewer money chasing after a given amount of goods and services. Consequently, prices have to decrease to accommodate for the decreased supply of money in circulation.

Let’s say the quantity of money increases in the system. But if people want to increase their holdings of cash due to fear and uncertainty of the future, they will withdraw these cash from circulation in the economy. Consequently, prices fall. As we wrote,

When deflation mentality gets a stranglehold on to the minds of the people, no one will dare to borrow money out of fear. Also, when prices are falling, the money that one borrows will be worth more by the time the debt is due. There is no point in spending money because if one waits a little longer, prices will fall further. Central bankers can print as much money as they can, but in such a deflationary environment, no one will want to borrow them.

Today’s credit crisis is an example of this. Banks are hoarding cash and are unwilling to lend while borrowers are repaying debts with every scraps of cash that they can get their hands on. As a result, liquidity dries up in the system even though the supply of money is desperately increased by the central bank. In such a situation, some broader measures of money supply will be shown to decrease.

The opposite can also occur. As we quoted Ludwig von Mises in What is a crack-up boom?,

But then finally the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against ?real? goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them.

In such a situation, the demand for money collapses. People want to keep their cash balance as low as possible as they constantly want to get rid of their cash for ‘stuffs.’ In the extreme case (i.e. hyperinflation), prices rise by the hour as people rush out to buy things the moment they are paid their wages, for fear that if they do not do so, price inflation will render their cash worthless.

Now, let’s look at what’s happening in the world. Merely 6 months ago, when oil prices was threatening US$150 and soaring food prices was driving people in poor nations to riots, the fear was price inflation. Today, with oil prices below US$50 and hardly any news on food prices, the fear is price deflation. Such extreme volatility is unprecedented in the history of humanity. It is this volatility and madness in prices that will wreck the real economy in the longer term (see Real economy suffers while financial markets stuff around with prices).

Where is the source of such extreme volatility?

As you may have already guessed by now, governments and central banks, in their attempt to solve the global financial crisis, is creating all these volatility through their interventions against the free market. Ironically, their ‘solutions’ are sowing the seeds of economic hardships for the next generation.

What is your personal price inflation rate?

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

Yesterday, we read this news article, Inflation spike erodes savings,

With [Australia’s] inflation running at 5 per cent, savers will struggle to preserve the value of their finances due to sliding bank deposit rates.

Inflation is also running high in the rest of the Western world. Worse still, many of the official measurements of inflation run counter to personal experiences. In fact, official statistics are so often doctored up that some entrepreneur came up with a business (Shadow Stats) that “exposes and analyzes the flaws in current U.S. government economic data and reporting, as well as in certain private-sector numbers, and provides an assessment of underlying economic conditions, net of financial-market hype.” For example, if the pre-Clinton era CPI is used to measure today’s US inflation figures, it will come up with figures that are twice the official ones!

Anyway, the entire idea of price indices is logically invalid. It is a number that is the work of many arbitrary decisions. As we quoted Ludwig von Mises in How much can we trust the price indices (e.g. CPI)?,

If she [a judicious housewife] ?measures? the changes for her personal appreciation by taking the prices of only two or three commodities as a yardstick, she is no less ?scientific? and no more arbitrary than the sophisticated mathematicians in choosing their methods for the manipulation of the data of the market.

Today, we would like to hear from our readers. What is your personal experience with prices over the year? Do you think the official 5% figure accurately reflects the rising cost of living in your personal life?

If property prices follow long-term inflation, will prices not fall in the long-term?

Monday, October 20th, 2008

Back in Do property price always go up?, we have looked into a Dutch study, which found out that in a period of more than 300 years, property prices ultimately follow the general price levels. In other words, in the long-run, property prices are flat in real terms.

For today’s discussion, let us suppose that this is true.

Does this mean that it does not matter when one purchase the property (assuming that one is only concerned about real capital preservation) because in the long-run, it will always preserve your wealth by tracking the price inflation rate? If one thinks that the answer is yes, then one has fallen into a mental pitfall called Lazy Induction. Back in Mental pitfall: Lazy Induction, we explained that

The trouble starts when the sample that we used for our observations is drawn from our own personal bias. Then, from the observations of the biased sample, we make generalisations based on our flawed observations. Lazy Induction allows us to prove anything that we want to be true. All we have to do is to pick a sample of observations that conforms to our bias and then generalise from there.

The error in the logic of that answer lies in the crucial fact that one implicitly assumes the long-term price appreciation starts on the day that one bought the property. To explain this point more clearly, we will use Professor Steve Keen’s graph of property prices relative to CPI:

ABS Established Home Price Index vs CPI

Source: Rescuing the Economy or the Bubble?

This graph shows that property prices have been tracking CPI till around 1998, after which it took off.

Now, let’s imagine that you have a time machine and travel forward 300 years. Let’s say that our assumption that property prices follow long-term inflation rate still holds true in 300 years. What will we see? Assuming that long-term price levels follow a nice gentle rise (i.e. no hyper-inflation), we will see that the prices from 1998 to, say 2008, is part of a small blip before returning to the long-term price levels.

So, what is the implication of this? If surge in prices over the past 10 years (1998 to 2008) is a huge aberration away from the long-term up-trend, then it will have to fall in due time in order to follow the long-term price levels. That is, property price can still fall a lot in real terms if it has a prior huge run-up in real prices. If price inflation is relatively benign, then this will mean a fall in nominal terms too.

Marc Faber: Bernanke Policy Will “Destroy” U.S. Dollar

Monday, March 10th, 2008

Recently, Marc Faber was being interviewed in Chicago where he freely shared his thoughts. You can watch the interview at Bloomberg here. Below is the content of the interview as summarized and transcribed by us:

If the statistics were measured properly in the United States, the US would already be in a recession and would already be so in a couple of months.

See our article, How much can we trust the price indices (e.g. CPI)?.

If the US goes into recession, it will not be a total disaster for the rest of the world, except that in the rest of the world, we also have colossal bubbles [in asset prices].

Since the world is in a global boom from November 2001, then this will one day lead to a global bust.

It is very doubtful that the global financial market is de-coupled from the US because of the close linkages and connectivity. For example, if the US stock market goes down, the rest of the world’s stock market will be dragged down as well.

As Marc Faber acknowledged by psychologists’ study, a dosage of bust is more painful than the joy of an equal dosage of boom. In other words, the implication the coming bust will be more pronounced and painful than the euphoria of the preceding 75 months of boom.

In the US, they pursue essentially economic policies that targets consumption, which in my opinion is misguided. What they should pursue is economic policies that stimulates capital investments and capital formation.

We would agree with Marc Faber wholeheartedly, as we quoted Ludwig von Mises in The myth of financial asset ?investments? as savings. As the US began their aggressively loose monetary policy from September 17 2007 by cutting interest rates from 5.25% to 3%…

What is the result? I tell you what the result is! The stock market in September 17 by the S&P is down 10%, the US dollar is down 10%, gold and oil are up 40%. Well done Mr. Bernanke!

Will the stock market continue to fall? Marc Faber said that we have to ask Mr. Bernanke…

… because if he prints money- and I have to add here one point: had I been the professor who had judged his thesis for his PhD, I would not have let him pass. I would have told him actually, “Mr. Bernanke, I have one condition in which I let you pass, and this is you never join a central bank, because you are a destroyer of money as store-of-value function, of the function of money being a unit of account. The only central bank that I would allow you to go to is the one under Mr. Mugabe in Zimbabwe. And I tell you Mr Bernanke with his monetary policy, he will destroy the US dollar.

This is what we said before in Peering into the soul of Ben Bernanke.

As pointed out by the interviewer, the dollar was in decline before Mr. Bernanke took over. Does Bernanke need to ease monetary policy to ease the US economy from this “spunk?” As Bernanke studied about the Great Depression, his conclusion was that the lack of flexibility in the monetary policy that resulted in such a prolonged downturn. Marc Faber disagreed:

The Depression occurred not because the central bank was tied when the Depression occurred. But because it was far too easy in its monetary policy in the period leading to the Depression, from 1925 to 1929.

This is what we said before in What causes economic booms and busts?. As Marc Faber said, it is not only Bernanke is at fault. Greenspan is responsible too, with his loose monetary policies when he cut interest rates to 1% in September 2001 and keep it that way till 2004. That led to the “reckless lending” and “reckless credit growth,” which in turn led to the problems we have today.

Marc Faber said that if he is the central banker, he will raise interest rates much earlier to target asset and credit price bubble and would not have cut the Fed Fund Rate to 1% in 2001. This is because unlike the Fed, he would not base his monetary policy on core inflation (which excludes food and fuel) because all humans eat and uses energy. Now that the Fed had created a “gigantic” credit and asset bubble, which is deflating right now, it is very difficult to re-inflate the bubble because “we are in the process of de-leveraging” as the private sector is now tightening credit conditions, “not the Fed.”

According to Marc Faber’s latest Doom, Bloom and Gloom report, investing in the bond market (mainly Treasuries) is “financial suicide” because with such low yields, actual price inflation will result in negative real returns. Marc Faber believed that “at some stage, the corporate bond market will offer some value.” However, the 10-year and 30-year Treasury market is a “disaster waiting to happen.” As the Fed cuts the Fed Funds Rate to possibly zero, the Treasury market will “tank” at some point in time. Though he is not a US credit analyst, Marc Faber reckoned that in the junk bond area, there should be some good quality bonds from company that can survive and continues to pay interests. He continued,

The arguments for stocks is frequently that you take the earnings yield of the stock market and compare it with the bond yield and people compare it to Treasury bonds. I think you should take the earnings yield of equities and compare it with, say, a typical S&P company, and that is a yield that correspond to, say, a triple-B, and so, basically as of today, some bonds are more attractive than equity.

Over the past 4 to 5 years, US stock market has underperformed other markets, e.g. the emerging market and the commodity market. However, today, the emerging market is far more vulnerable (e.g. China and India market could easily fall by 30% to 40%). With the money printer in the Fed (Ben Bernanke), the deflation will more likely lead to the US dollar decline than an actual asset price deflation. Thus, relative to the Euro and gold, the US stock market is going down.

Some may argue that given the commodity market has risen so much since 2001, would it be too late to join in the bull market? Marc Faber disagreed with that argument. When the commodity market bottomed and rallied in the 1990s/2000s (note that not all bottomed at the same time), they were at the lowest level, inflation adjusted, in the 200-year history of capitalism. For example, gold was at around $250 when it fell from a high of around $850 in 1980 (which Marc Faber admitted is too high). But in the last gold bull market in the 1970s, gold rose 25 times from $35 to $850. The current gold bull market of several years rose only 4 times. Among the commodity markets, sugar is the cheapest commodity in real terms.

When asked, “Are we going to see a major US bank fail?”

“I hope so.”

“You hope so????”

Marc Faber saw that this is the only way to “introduce discipline” into the US financial system. By continuously bailing out banks, the Fed introduces moral hazard that “perpetuates the mistakes” that the Fed has already done. When asked, which major bank is more likely to fail, Marc Faber had no opinion because that depends on the banks’ derivative exposures, which is the next time bomb to explode. The ‘derivatives’ that he mentioned does not include the structured products (e.g. SIV, CDOs, etc). This will be the next major financial issue in the next 3 to 6 months. Marc Faber believed that we will not see the bottom of the stock market until we see stocks like Google falling 50% from their highs, hopefully more. In a bear market, one sector (e.g. home building) will fall first and then the goldilocks crowd will reassure the market that everything is fine. Then the next sector will fall, followed by next. And so, the bear market has to mature, like “good cheese and wine.”