Barron’s Alan Abelson shares my disdain for ginned up CPI data:
When it comes to the so-called professional response to economic news, spin is the key word. Retail sales were up 0.2% in September, not the kind of performance that would merit a flourish of trumpets. The drag was miserable auto sales. But, don’t despair, because if you exclude autos, last month’s retail sales gain expands dramatically to a heartening 1.1%, which is now the prescribed way to view retail performance. Funny thing is that when autos were tearing up the pea patch a few months ago and bulking up the retail totals, the idea of leaving them out of the final count wasn’t anywhere nearly as popular.
In like vein, to our untutored eye, the rise in consumer prices in September of 1.2%, the biggest monthly jump in more than 23 years, and 4.7% greater than in September of 2004, was something more pungent than a little whiff of inflation. And that’s the way it likely strikes any number of bakers, butchers and whatever passes in this technological age for candlestick makers. But, ah, we poor innocents don’t or can’t grasp that was the "headline" rate, which includes food and energy. When you take those patently non-essential items out, last month’s reading of the CPI is a cheerfully reassuring 0.1%.
The very label, "headline," reeks of superciliousness. The presumption obviously is that it attracts the attention of the great unwashed, while those properly initiated into the mysteries of economics disdain such a vulgar measure in favor of the more subtle and somehow invariably subdued "core" index. Never mind, as we’ve had occasion to point out in the past that the way that the "core" itself is calculated is quite dubious, most glaringly understating the rocketing rise in housing prices.
But we think it’s quite instructive to examine how and why and even when the "core" Consumer Price Index came into being. For this we’re indebted to our old friend Marc Faber for reminding us in his latest "Gloom, Boom & Doom Report" of Steve Roach’s description of its genesis. Long before Steve became the top economic seer for Morgan Stanley, he put in time as a baby numbers cruncher for the Federal Reserve. The imperious pipe-smoking Arthur Burns was chairman.
In 1973, the Yom Kippur War between Israel and an Arab coalition led by Egypt and Syria and an embargo by the big Mideast producers, sent oil quadrupling. One day, Steve recalls in a piece he wrote back in 2000, Mr. Burns summoned his underlings to a meeting at which "he demanded they present him with a CPI stripped of energy costs." And they scurried to comply.
"A few months later," Steve continues, "Burns called us back again and noted an alarming pick-up in the rate of food inflation. Weather conditions had turned severe and the Fed chairman was particularly distraught over the disappearance of the anchovies off the coast of Peru — a development he felt long held the key to agricultural price cycles. But the Fed can’t react to weather, Burns argued. So he instructed us to take food out of the CPI as well. And, of course, we did."
So here we are, as Marc Faber observes, three decades after the anchovy shortage and the Bureau of Labor Statistics feeds us the consumer price index — ex-food and ex-energy.
You might think that this acidic smackdown was sufficiently dead-on to bloody its intended targets enough to call it a day.
You would be wrong:
Another cogent example of why economics is called the dismal science. Our only reservation to that designation is the "science" part.
Tee hee . . .
Having a Ball
UP AND DOWN WALL STREET
Barrons, MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.