Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, president of Argentina, will never be remembered as a great economist. Nor will she win any awards for ‘accuracy in government reporting.’ Au contraire, under her leadership, the numbers used by government economists in Argentina have parted company with the facts completely. They are not even on speaking terms. Still, Ms. Fernandez deserves credit. At least she is honest about it.
The Argentine president visited the US in the autumn of 2012. She was invited to speak at Harvard and Georgetown universities. Students took advantage of the opportunity to ask her some questions, notably about the funny numbers Argentina uses to report its inflation. Her bureaucrats put the consumer price index — the rate at which prices increase — at less than 10%. Independent analysts and housewives know it is a lie. Prices are rising at about 25% per year.
At a press conference, Cristina turned the tables on her accusers:
“Really, do you think consumer prices are only going up at a 2% rate in the US?”
Two percent is what the US Bureau of Labor Statistics gives for consumer price inflation in the US. But in North America as in South America, the quants treat numbers like Gitmo prisoners. The goal is to get them to say what they want, without leaving marks. Cristina is right. All the numbers will bend under pressure; you might as well twist them into a shape that suits you.
The ‘inflation’ number is probably the most important number the number crunchers crunch. Because it crunches all the other numbers too. If you say your house went up in price, we need to know how much everything else went up in price too. If your house doubled in price while everything else roughly doubled too, you realized no gain whatsoever. Likewise, your salary may be rising; but it won’t do you any good unless it is going up more than the things you buy. Otherwise, you could be standing still while the whole world moves ahead without you.
GDP growth itself is adjusted by the inflation number. If output increases by 10%…yet, the CPI is also going up at a 10% rate…real, after inflation, output flattens out. Pensions, taxes, some forms of insurance — the CPI number is used to correct distortions caused by inflation. But if the CPI number is itself distorted, then the whole shebang gets twisted.
You may think it is a simple matter to measure the rate of price increases. Just take a basket of goods and services. Follow the prices. Trouble is, the stuff in the basket tends to change. You may buy strawberries in June, because they are available and reasonably cheap. Buy them in March, on the other hand, and they’ll be more expensive. You will be tempted to say that prices are rising, because that is what they are actually doing.
The number crunchers do not necessarily deny the truth; they merely redefine it. First, they make ‘seasonal adjustments’ in order to keep the strawberries out of the March shopping basket. Second, they make substitutions; when one thing becomes expensive, shoppers switch to other things. The quants insist that they substitute other items of the same quality, just to keep the measurement straight. But that introduces a new wrinkle.
Let us say you need to buy a new computer. You go to the store. You find that the computer on offer is about the same price as the one you bought last year. No CPI increase there! But you look more closely and you find that this computer is twice as powerful. Hmmm. Now you are getting twice as much computer for the same price. You don’t really need twice as much computer power. But you can’t buy half the computer. So, you reach in your pocket and pay as much as last year.
What do the BLS statisticians do with that information? They maintain that the price of computing power has been cut in half! They can prove that this is so by looking at prices for used computers. Your computer, put on the market, would fetch only half as much as the new model. Ergo, the new model is twice as good.
This reasoning does not seem altogether unreasonable. But a $1,000 computer is a substantial part of most household budgets. And this “hedonic” adjustment of prices exerts a large pull downward on the measurement of consumer prices, even though the typical household lays out exactly as much this year as it did the last. The typical family’s cost of living remains unchanged, but the BLS maintains that it is spending less.
You can see how this approach might work for other things. An automobile, for example. If the auto companies began making their autos twice as fast…and doubling the prices…the statisticians would have to ignore the sticker prices and conclude that prices had not changed.
Or how about other things? A woman buys a new pair of shoes for $100. The next year, the shoes are out of style. She tries to sell her old shoes at a used clothing shop. The shoes bring only $5 — a 95% drop. Does that mean that a new pair of shoes is 20 times as valuable? If that is so, assuming she buys another pair for $100, has really gotten $2,000 worth of shoes?
Hedonics, seasonal adjustments, substitutions — the statisticians can trick up any number they want.
BLS will give you a precise number for the CPI, as though it had a specific, exact meaning. But all the numbers are all fishy; and economists build with them as though they were bricks. A flapping cod is piled on a slippery trout on which is placed a slithering eel. And upon this squirming, shimmying mound they erect their central planning policies
The nuances of the “inflation” number go far beyond just statistical legerdemain. What is inflation? Does the word refer only to the rise in consumer prices? Or to the increase in the supply of money? The distinction has huge consequences. Because, in the years following the ’08-’09 crisis, it was the absence of the former that permitted central banks to add so much to the latter. In other words, their measurement of ‘inflation’ not only had far ranging consequences for bondholders, investors, retirees and so forth, it also created a huge distortion in the entire planet’s monetary system. As long as consumer price inflation didn’t manifest itself in a disagreeable way, central bankers felt they could create as much monetary inflation as they wanted. Increases to the world’s monetary footings — monetary inflation of the most basic sort — caused stocks, bonds and commodities to rise. On the whole, this was a fairly agreeable form of inflation. Central bankers wished to continue inflating as long as they were able.
Here again, their engineering was a marvel of contradictions and false pretenses. The real rate of consumer price increases in the US is unknowable. But it is not unimportant. People place their bets. Depending on the CPI number, some people win and some lose. And the outfit that has the biggest bet of all is the very same as the outfit that keeps score. The government wants the lowest CPI possible. It helps keep revenues up and costs down. Social Security payments, for example, are adjusted to CPI increases. So are the feds’ inflation-protected bonds. And taxes, too.
But a low consumer price inflation figure also allows central banks to continue inflating the world’s money supply. They’ve added trillions of dollars to the banking system directly, and trillions more to asset prices, and to the world’s debt. Rising CPI inflation would have scared lenders. Instead, low price increases reassured them so completely they buy more and more US bonds at higher and higher prices.
Since ’07, debt levels have risen, like water in a flooded basement, even as households desperately tried to bail themselves out. At first, the extra debt was taken on almost entirely by government. But by the autumn of 2012, consumers too had given up bailing and decided to join the fun. This was reported in the press as a harbinger of good times to come:
“Rise in household debt might be sign of a strengthening recovery.”
After reducing debt for 14 quarters, households finally had enough. They stepped up to the checkout counter…credit cards in hand…and did their patriotic duty. They bought stuff. They went deeper into debt. Once again, they were buying stuff they didn’t really need with money they didn’t really have.
Economists celebrated the event dumbly, like a turkey looking forward to Thanksgiving dinner. It was as if they thought debt was not subject to the law of diminishing returns…as if there were no downside to it.
Numbers help us define…detail…precise…measure and test reality. But we understand it, not with digits but analogs. We say “this is just like…” or “it reminds me of…” Literature…philosophy…history and economics help us to make sense of the phenomena around us. We need stories with plots, heroes, villains and adversity. And stories with a moral.
The old economists knew this. The ‘two Scottish Adams’ — Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson — who were the founders of economics as we know it, did not even call themselves economists. If they had had business cards to hand out, they probably would have listed their profession as ‘moral philosophers.’ They studied the data…the case histories…the evidence…not for the numbers, but for the moral of the story.
In a sense, the real problem in the 21st century was that economists had picked the wrong analogy…or the wrong story. They thought they were scientists. They thought economics could be treated as though it were a branch of science, where bounded problems could be reduced to numbers and then manipulated and solved. Of course, it was no such thing. There were no controlled experiments; initial conditions were always different. There were no reproducible results…and no hypotheses that could ever be disproven. That’s why many of the worst ideas in economics never go away, even though they have had disastrous results every time they’ve been applied.
We’ve already seen how quickly this analogy to science breaks down. The planners, fixers and improvers really can’t measure what they think they can measure. More than that, they can never know whether they are coming or going, doing good or bad.
But we’re going to keep an open mind. While it is definitely true in the abstract that economists can’t even know what the exact unemployment rate is…or can’t really tell whether increasing GDP would make people better or worse off…perhaps it is nevertheless true that their good intentions (if that’s what they are) somehow triumph over their own clumsy incompetence. Perhaps like prayer, there may be no understanding of how it works, but if you believe in it…perhaps it helps.
Besides, assuming as we do for the moment that they are headed in the right direction, shouldn’t they keep going? Isn’t striving to make the world a better place a good thing in itself? Where’s the downside?
Ah, you’ll have to tune in tomorrow…
Bill Bonnerfor The Daily Reckoning
Since founding Agora Inc. in 1979, Bill Bonner has found success and garnered camaraderie in numerous communities and industries. A man of many talents, his entrepreneurial savvy, unique writings, philanthropic undertakings, and preservationist activities have all been recognized and awarded by some of America's most respected authorities. Along with Addison Wiggin, his friend and colleague, Bill has written two New York Times best-selling books, Financial Reckoning Day and Empire of Debt. Both works have been critically acclaimed internationally. With political journalist Lila Rajiva, he wrote his third New York Times best-selling book, Mobs, Messiahs and Markets, which offers concrete advice on how to avoid the public spectacle of modern finance. Since 1999, Bill has been a daily contributor and the driving force behind The Daily Reckoning. Dice Have No Memory: Big Bets & Bad Economics from Paris to the Pampas, the newest book from Bill Bonner, is the definitive compendium of Bill's daily reckonings from more than a decade: 1999-2010.
I’m an Argentinian. Lately we’ve become a little famous thanks to the disasters our current president is doing (elected with 54% of the votes). Just like an addict we’re in need of ever growing doses of money printing. Last year we increased our monetary base by 40%… Not bad for a country in recession.
Since we can’t access the capital markets we’re pretty much in debt with ourselves. At least this time we’re no going to screw anybody else.
The social assistance and subsidies are our biggest expenses. Many people under the line of poverty demand more and more cash that the working class needs to provide. Since that’s not enough we let the printers run.
I remember yesterday reading Marc Faber’s “Disaster Area” and feeling somehow familiar with the situation. 49.1% of Americans receiving some kind of governments assistance.
The problem with a large portion of a nation’s population under government assistance is that it literally destroys democracy. How on earth is a reasonable person going to win an election when half the electorate wants to keep getting money and not working for it? On the other hand an unreasonable person could get elected with 54% of the votes.
A Harvard education should be treated as a warning label. Never elect, dont entrust money, wife, or offspring to said holder of education. Thanks Bill keep up the good work.
Pingback: Precious Metals Info from surgreen » The Downside of Debt
This future Chilean appreciates your comments!
Pingback: The Downside of Debt - by Bill Bonner - James Street - Further Right than You
Why Chile and not Uruguay?
Best South American country for business, most stable economy and government, best credit rating on the continent, etc.
Besides, I’m a missionary. It’s hard to be a missionary in Chile if you’re living in Uruguay.
The reference to Argentina is a good one: There is a fellow named “Ferfal” on the internet who writes a blog and has written a book about the social and financial events in Argentina, for interested readers. Especially interesting are the discussions of what happens when the national currency fails. Regards inflation… just yesterday I paid $6 for a bag of ground coffee that cost me $3 only 3 years ago. But it was not the ‘same’ bag of coffee, the size of the bag has been reduced.
Your analogy is not very smart Bonner, is that really your name? LoL, How far away is real inflation from the official numbers in the US. Probably not very far, or you wouldn’t be writing an article like this as if it was some kind of secret revealed. Here is blatant far, ridiculous far. And I’m sorry to tell you Fede I imagine you’re some kind of union worker. But real people got their salary raised 10% last december and it is still in that place, no news for a raise. I work full time.
only has half the story though, in my view. The reason these failed and
destructive notions are perpetuated by government schools, and big
government lovers from every party is because of the tools they provide
for quietly stealing the wealth of a nation and delivering it into the
pockets of politicians, lawyers, bankers and corporate executives in
ways the most average, government educated, citizens don’t notice or
mistakenly believe are to their benefit.
Pingback: The Downside of Debt – Daily Reckoning | CreditRanker.com
Pingback: web hosting
Pingback: Kathie Melloy
Pingback: Newton Ceparano
Pingback: Kum Ray
Pingback: Mia Eighmey
Pingback: Theresia Faltin
Pingback: Buddy Parlett
Pingback: Billie Pinsonneault
Pingback: Neomi Yorgey
Pingback: Enoch Kabrick
Pingback: Tera Lefthand
Pingback: Madison Zetzer
Pingback: Nicolette Varkey
Pingback: Emelia Janicke
Pingback: Marisol Pfahler
Pingback: Louie Barkhurst
Pingback: Bud Almos
Pingback: Octavia Jalkut
Pingback: Debbra Gaspar
Pingback: Jefferson Redfield
Pingback: Tory Stegman
Pingback: Omega Karratti
Pingback: Ivan Borgers
Pingback: Antonio Kear
Pingback: Tamie Colbaugh
Pingback: Dorothy Bitzenhofer
Pingback: Donnell Seils
Pingback: Anitra Krall
Pingback: Gianna Gangestad
Pingback: Sylvester Woleslagle
Pingback: Dan Lechler
Pingback: text your ex back
Pingback: Eugene Spruell
Pingback: Corine Towson
Pingback: Mildred Homans
Pingback: Lesley Carmant
Pingback: Arlena Penney
Pingback: Darrell Chaiken
Pingback: Jazmine Mckerrow
Pingback: Shawnta Michener
Pingback: Juliane Henthorn
Pingback: Wilson Urban
Pingback: Curt Endresen
Pingback: Noel Derobertis
Pingback: Milford Alesi
Pingback: Lindsey Devost
Pingback: Kimberlee Fedel
Pingback: Maragret Oestmann
Pingback: Stefan Wirtzfeld
Pingback: Andrew Chanel
Pingback: Mallory Claw
Pingback: Bob Bascomb
Pingback: Demetrius Bentsen
Pingback: Edwin Rinfret
Pingback: Jame Piacenza
Pingback: Nancee Devendorf
Pingback: Patrina Maccarone
Pingback: Haywood Wingerter
Pingback: Salome Lillis
Pingback: Alvaro Lindau
Pingback: Marcus Messenger
Pingback: Marcelene Sees
Pingback: Napoleon Bozak
Pingback: Walter Nathaniel
Pingback: Zandra Hobden
Pingback: Leo Delduca
Pingback: Israel Ruel
Pingback: Roscoe Samber
Pingback: Domenica Cordero
Pingback: Donald Maestre
Pingback: Korey Leiferman
Pingback: Lowell Schmitke
Pingback: Colby Coury
Pingback: Rueben Bazer
Pingback: Aisha Schweitz
Pingback: Grant Ferringo
Pingback: Mckenzie Mascaro
Pingback: Josephine Fiscal
Pingback: Cortez Vis
Pingback: Roberto Souphom
Pingback: Doug Ruffins
Pingback: Vinita Acquilla
Pingback: Maisha Theimer
Pingback: Danilo Bens
Pingback: Lupe Werking
Pingback: Alisha Pirone
Pingback: Verlene Bardsley
Pingback: SEO provider
Pingback: Moses Killgore
Pingback: Lavenia Defusco
Pingback: Hung Pfautz
Pingback: Sammie Serpas
Pingback: Maynard Balish
Pingback: Kathryn Puraty
Pingback: Gold Coast carpet cleaning
Pingback: Krystal Vires
Pingback: Alec Heckler
Pingback: Alishia Nesin
Pingback: Billie Dardon
Pingback: Efren Pouliot
Pingback: Marlon Schurz
Pingback: Maranda Unangst
Pingback: office chairs melbourne
Pingback: Krystin Sands
Pingback: Fermin Askins
Pingback: Boyce Zachery
Pingback: Modesto Jodoin
Pingback: Stan Mcmanuis
Pingback: Keven Helman
Pingback: Porter Ventre
Pingback: Gregg Neuweg
Pingback: Alonso Precise
When you've got a room full of 200 oil insiders scratching their heads at current high prices, something's gotta give.
For most investors, it’s weird to think of stocks as their go-to investing option.
The petropoly has bills to pay and setting the price of oil was a simple way to balance their budgets.
Investors don’t seem to care that what's propping up their investments is what will ultimately destroy them: government monetary policy.
For the next decade the energy revolution will be likely confined to the US, displaying the robustness of American entrepreneurship.
Why the Sage of Baltimore’s commentary persists through America’s changing times.
After attending Platt’s oil conference in London I want to relay two important themes you need to know.