"Government Economic Reports: Things You've Suspec

Seite 1 von 1
neuester Beitrag: 25.04.21 01:48
eröffnet am: 23.09.04 09:07 von: FlorianPasca. Anzahl Beiträge: 1
neuester Beitrag: 25.04.21 01:48 von: Sophieyfrqa Leser gesamt: 1176
davon Heute: 1
bewertet mit 0 Sternen

23.09.04 09:07

525 Postings, 7343 Tage FlorianPascale"Government Economic Reports: Things You've Suspec

"Government Economic Reports: Things You've Suspected but Were Afraid to Ask! -- The Consumer Price Index"   - Sep. 22, 2004
hxxp://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/s/article/id=300

Payments to Social Security Recipients Should be 43% Higher

Inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is understated by roughly 2.7% per year. This is due to recent redefinitions of the series as well as to flawed methodologies, particularly adjustments to price measures for quality changes.
....................
Changes made in CPI methodology during the Clinton administration have understated inflation significantly, and, through a cumulative effect, have reduced current social security payments by 30% from where they would have been otherwise. That means Social Security checks would be 43% higher. In like manner, anyone involved in commerce, who relies on receiving payments adjusted for the CPI, has been similarly damaged. On the other side, if your are making payments based on the CPI (i.e., the federal government), you are making out like a bandit.
......................
Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a constant standard of living.

The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak, instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.
.....................
When gasoline rises 10 cents per gallon because of a federally mandated gasoline additive, the increased gasoline cost does not contribute to inflation. Instead, the 10 cents is eliminated from the CPI because of the offsetting hedonic thrills the consumer gets from breathing cleaner air. The same principle applies to federally mandated safety features in automobiles. I have not attempted to quantify the effects of questionable quality adjustments to the CPI, but they are substantial.

Then there is "intervention analysis" in the seasonal adjustment process, when a commodity, like gasoline, goes through violent price swings. Intervention analysis is done to tone down the volatility. As a result, somehow, rising gasoline prices never seem to get fully reflected in the CPI, but the declining prices sure do.
................
As a result of the systemic manipulations, if the GDP methodology of 1980 were applied to today's data, the second quarter's annualized inflation-adjusted GDP growth of 3.0% would be roughly three percent lower (effectively netting to zero percent or below). In like manner, current annual CPI inflation is understated by about 2.7% against the pre-Clinton CPI methodology (would be about 5.7%), and the unemployment rate is understated by about seven percent against its original design and what many people would consider to be actual unemployment (would be about 12.5%).

As to the financial results of federal operations, the application of accrual accounting and generally accepted accounting principles to federal operations shows an actual fiscal year 2003 deficit of $3.7 trillion, as reported by the U.S. Treasury, versus the reported cash-basis $374 billion.

Die meisten Investoren bei dem Gold sind sich über die Manipulation von der US-Regierung von Wirtschaftsstatistiken sehr gut bewußt.

Unsere Freunde bei GillispieResearch sollen eine weitere Manipulation aufgedeckt haben, folgend ihrem veröffentlichten Research über das Defizit von der US-Regierung, welches von dem ehemaligen Finanzminister Paul O'Neil bestätigt wurde.  

   Antwort einfügen - nach oben