Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 21, 2007 15:57:40 GMT -6
Once again, the markets have deceptively under-reported an economic statistic. This time, it was the March report of the Consumer Price Index. Apparently this mis-reporting got lost in the shuffle with the Virgina Tech shooting and the Alberto Gonzales hearings.
The actual Consumer Price Index increase for March was +0.9%, not +0.6%. Both Briefing.com and Yahoo's Economic Calendar reported the a March CPI increase of only +0.6%. This is figure is clearly wrong, and extremely easy to demonstrate. This can be seen from calculating the Bureau of Labor Statistics own published statistics. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, March's Consumer Price Index rose to 205.352 from February's 203.499.
Calculating, (205.352 - 203.499) divided by 203.499 = 0.009, or 0.9%. In other words, the Market Analysts under-reported inflation by 0.3%.
Where did the market "experts" get their numbers? Apparently they come from the seasonally-manipulated re-calculation, instead of the actual numbers posted by the BLS. Here's an excerpt from the
BLS CPI propaganda release, which helps explain how +0.9% got reduced to +0.6%:
"The Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U)
increased 0.8 percent in March on a not seasonally adjusted basis. The
March level of 118.953 (December 1999=100) was 2.5 percent higher than in
March 2006. Please note that the indexes for the post-2005 period are
subject to revision.
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
On a seasonally adjusted basis, the CPI-U advanced 0.6 percent in
March, following a 0.4 percent increase in February...."
Even the BLS's calculation of the not-seasonally manipulated numbers is off by 0.1. But of course, they needed to go even further. They needed to reduce their already understated number even further. So they threw in the
"seasonal-adjustment" confabulation.
It's possible I've missed the seasonal-adjustment concoction previously, but every time I've calculated the CPI from BLS numbers (with 1 previous exception), the number has come out as the same as the one reported. This seasonally-adjusted B.S. appears to be new. And it's just another way the BLS can make the real-wage calculation look better than it actually is.
A monthly Consumer Price Index increase of almost 1% is not something the government is going to let stand. It would imply an annualized inflation rate of almost 12%, which is not compatible with Bernanke's policy of not increasing interest rates. And it would also make an annual GDP deflator of 1.8% very hard to believe.
It would sure be nice if the government would just use it's own, original, understated numbers to calculate inflation, instead of downwardly manipulating them a 2nd time through the seasonal-manipulation concoction.
The actual Consumer Price Index increase for March was +0.9%, not +0.6%. Both Briefing.com and Yahoo's Economic Calendar reported the a March CPI increase of only +0.6%. This is figure is clearly wrong, and extremely easy to demonstrate. This can be seen from calculating the Bureau of Labor Statistics own published statistics. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, March's Consumer Price Index rose to 205.352 from February's 203.499.
Calculating, (205.352 - 203.499) divided by 203.499 = 0.009, or 0.9%. In other words, the Market Analysts under-reported inflation by 0.3%.
Where did the market "experts" get their numbers? Apparently they come from the seasonally-manipulated re-calculation, instead of the actual numbers posted by the BLS. Here's an excerpt from the
BLS CPI propaganda release, which helps explain how +0.9% got reduced to +0.6%:
"The Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U)
increased 0.8 percent in March on a not seasonally adjusted basis. The
March level of 118.953 (December 1999=100) was 2.5 percent higher than in
March 2006. Please note that the indexes for the post-2005 period are
subject to revision.
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
On a seasonally adjusted basis, the CPI-U advanced 0.6 percent in
March, following a 0.4 percent increase in February...."
Even the BLS's calculation of the not-seasonally manipulated numbers is off by 0.1. But of course, they needed to go even further. They needed to reduce their already understated number even further. So they threw in the
"seasonal-adjustment" confabulation.
It's possible I've missed the seasonal-adjustment concoction previously, but every time I've calculated the CPI from BLS numbers (with 1 previous exception), the number has come out as the same as the one reported. This seasonally-adjusted B.S. appears to be new. And it's just another way the BLS can make the real-wage calculation look better than it actually is.
A monthly Consumer Price Index increase of almost 1% is not something the government is going to let stand. It would imply an annualized inflation rate of almost 12%, which is not compatible with Bernanke's policy of not increasing interest rates. And it would also make an annual GDP deflator of 1.8% very hard to believe.
It would sure be nice if the government would just use it's own, original, understated numbers to calculate inflation, instead of downwardly manipulating them a 2nd time through the seasonal-manipulation concoction.