One thing that is never mentioned in the official
notices of inflation rates is the level of uncertainty
of the figures.
It is particularly inportant to know this when much
is being made of changes as small as 0.1%.
I would be surprised if the uncertainty was much
lower than 1%, but perhaps someone in the know
will take the risk of enlightening us ?

Jim Hawkins

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:12:15 PM UTC+13, Jim Hawkins wrote:
One thing that is never mentioned in the official
notices of inflation rates is the level of uncertainty
of the figures.

I would question the weightings of the items in their surveys. I don't think that luxury items should be included, only things that people on low incomes need. So no BMWs, cell phones, avocadoes, etc. I have no idea what items they choose but I'll bet many of their choices will be stupid.

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:49:04 PM UTC, Matty F wrote:
On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:12:15 PM UTC+13, Jim Hawkins wrote:

One thing that is never mentioned in the official
notices of inflation rates is the level of uncertainty
of the figures.

I would question the weightings of the items in their surveys. I don't think that luxury items should be included, only things that people on low incomes need. So no BMWs, cell phones, avocadoes, etc. I have no idea what items they choose but I'll bet many of their choices will be stupid.

The official figures seem to have little connection to my experience of reality.


NT

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:16:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:49:04 PM UTC, Matty F wrote:
On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:12:15 PM UTC+13, Jim Hawkins wrote:

One thing that is never mentioned in the official
notices of inflation rates is the level of uncertainty
of the figures.

I would question the weightings of the items in their surveys. I don't think that luxury items should be included, only things that people on low incomes need. So no BMWs, cell phones, avocadoes, etc. I have no idea what items they choose but I'll bet many of their choices will be stupid.

The official figures seem to have little connection to my experience of reality.

Quite. And they keep changing the goods in the 'basket'. IMHO this
is to artificially manupulate the figures. Of course you can
calculate your 'personal' inflation. Every time I have done this it
has been way higher than the official figures.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:48:37 +0000, Mark wrote:

Quite. And they keep changing the goods in the 'basket'. IMHO this is
to artificially manupulate the figures.

Do you buy the same stuff year after year after year? No, me neither.

It's quite a long while since I last bought any blank VHS tapes, for a
start.

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:04:18 AM UTC+13, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 13:48:37 +0000, Mark wrote:

Quite. And they keep changing the goods in the 'basket'. IMHO this is
to artificially manupulate the figures.

Do you buy the same stuff year after year after year? No, me neither.

It's quite a long while since I last bought any blank VHS tapes, for a
start.

I imagine that gas mantles would have been a significant expense over 130 years ago, but not light bulbs. Strangely enough I don't buy light bulbs any more, but I do want some gas mantles (to make LEDs look like gas lights!)

wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:49:04 PM UTC, Matty F wrote:
On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:12:15 PM UTC+13, Jim Hawkins wrote:

One thing that is never mentioned in the official
notices of inflation rates is the level of uncertainty
of the figures.

I would question the weightings of the items in their surveys. I don't
think that luxury items should be included, only things that people on
low incomes need. So no BMWs, cell phones, avocadoes, etc. I have no idea
what items they choose but I'll bet many of their choices will be stupid.

The official figures seem to have little connection to my experience of
reality.

Generally, reality has little connection to my experience of life.
:-/

Matty F wrote:

I would question the weightings of the items in their surveys. I don't think that luxury items should be included, only things that people on low

incomes need. So no BMWs, cell phones, avocadoes, etc. I have no idea
what items they choose but I'll bet many of their choices will be stupid.

The lower orders, no matter how short of spondulics, all have mobile
phones. Note the heavily pregnant seventeen year old. She is using the
baby buggy which contains her eldest child as a shield against the
traffic. As she drifts blindly across the road across in front of you,
notice that she is managing to push (if not control) the buggy with one
hand. The other hand is holding her phone to her jewel-encrusted ear.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Matty F wrote:

I would question the weightings of the items in their surveys. I don't
think that luxury items should be included, only things that people on
low

incomes need. So no BMWs, cell phones, avocadoes, etc. I have no idea what
items they choose but I'll bet many of their choices will be stupid.

The lower orders, no matter how short of spondulics, all have mobile
phones.

Only one?

Note the heavily pregnant seventeen year old. She is using the baby buggy
which contains her eldest child as a shield against the traffic. As she
drifts blindly across the road across in front of you, notice that she is
managing to push (if not control) the buggy with one hand. The other hand
is holding her phone to her jewel-encrusted ear.

Bill
Televisions, computers, scent, cosmetics, fancy clothes, hairdoes, nails,
pre-prepared food etc.

They have no idea what is is to be poor.
They might get chance to find out later on.

On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 07:01:25 UTC, harry wrote:

[...]

They have no idea what is is to be poor.
They might get chance to find out later on.

and you see no poverty in all of this?

J^n

"jkn" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 07:01:25 UTC, harry wrote:

[...]

They have no idea what is is to be poor.
They might get chance to find out later on.

and you see no poverty in all of this?

Absolutely not.
Plenty of whingers about.
There is no real poverty in the UK nowadays..
There was poverty after WW2 for a few years.
There will be plenty of people here remember it.

You have to travel to third world countries to see poverty these days.
Todays youngsters haven't a clue.
But they may find out the hard way.
If it happens, older people will cope better, they will remember how.

On 18/12/2013 08:41, jkn wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 07:01:25 UTC, harry wrote:

[...]

They have no idea what is is to be poor.
They might get chance to find out later on.

and you see no poverty in all of this?

J^n


There is little poverty, there is neglect caused by people spending what
they have on the wrong things.

The "official" idea of poverty being on less than 2/3 average wage is silly.

On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 02:29:51 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
Matty F wrote:



I would question the weightings of the items in their surveys. I don't think that luxury items should be included, only things that people on low



incomes need. So no BMWs, cell phones, avocadoes, etc. I have no idea

what items they choose but I'll bet many of their choices will be stupid.



The lower orders, no matter how short of spondulics, all have mobile

phones. Note the heavily pregnant seventeen year old. She is using the

baby buggy which contains her eldest child as a shield against the

traffic. As she drifts blindly across the road across in front of you,

notice that she is managing to push (if not control) the buggy with one

hand. The other hand is holding her phone to her jewel-encrusted ear.



Bill

And these 'lower orders' (ahem) of which you speak ... are they to be ...
condemned? ... pitied? ... villified?

Your dogma continues to be on show

J^n

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:49:04 -0800 (PST), Matty F
wrote:

I would question the weightings of the items in their surveys. I don't
think that luxury items should be included, only things that people on
low incomes need. So no BMWs, cell phones, avocadoes, etc. I have no
idea what items they choose but I'll bet many of their choices will be
stupid.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...cache:-uZ8MnZK
3lcJ:http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-meth...e/prices/cpi-a
nd-rpi/cpi-and-rpi-basket-of-goods-and-services/cpi-and-rpi-2013-baske
t-of-goods-and-services.pdf%2Bconsumer+prices+index+basket&gbv=1& ct=cl
nk

Consumer Prices Index: Cell phones and Avocadoes are in there ...

Doesn't seem to far from the mark but that document doesn't give
quantities or details of cars. Of course depending on your life style
whole sections can be ommitted like meat/fish/tobacco/booze...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:49:04 -0800, Matty F wrote:

One thing that is never mentioned in the official notices of inflation
rates is the level of uncertainty of the figures.

I would question the weightings of the items in their surveys. I don't
think that luxury items should be included, only things that people on
low incomes need. So no BMWs, cell phones, avocadoes, etc. I have no
idea what items they choose but I'll bet many of their choices will be
stupid.

http://data.gov.uk/dataset/cpi_and_r...s_and_services

I would be surprised if the uncertainty was much
lower than 1%,

Do you mean 1% (eg CPI of 2.2 +/- 0.022 %) or 1% point (eg CPI of 2.2
+/- 1 %)?

Both are too extreme. The ONS used to reckon that +/- 0.1 percentage
points was about the margin for the year-on-year change but stressed
that that wasn't a "proper" statistical measure. They don't even
publish that now but hope to do somethingsoonish. See eg
cpigandm_tcm77-253092.pdf and
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/quality/quality-information/economic-statistics/summary-quality-report-for-cpi.pdf

And remember ONS make available underlying data so you can always DIY an
index.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

cpigandm_tcm77-253092.pdf

Bugger. Sorry. Should have been
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/quality/quality-information/economy/summary-quality-report-for-consumer-price-indices-.pdf
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 18/12/2013 08:33, Robin wrote:
I would be surprised if the uncertainty was much
lower than 1%,

Do you mean 1% (eg CPI of 2.2 +/- 0.022 %) or 1% point (eg CPI of 2.2
+/- 1 %)?

Both are too extreme. The ONS used to reckon that +/- 0.1 percentage
points was about the margin for the year-on-year change but stressed
that that wasn't a "proper" statistical measure. They don't even
publish that now but hope to do somethingsoonish. See eg
cpigandm_tcm77-253092.pdf and
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/quality/quality-information/economic-statistics/summary-quality-report-for-cpi.pdf

Interesting that it does not mention RPIX, which is the one I normally
look at.

And remember ONS make available underlying data so you can always DIY an
index.

Colin Bignell

"Robin" wrote in message
...
I would be surprised if the uncertainty was much
lower than 1%,

Do you mean 1% (eg CPI of 2.2 +/- 0.022 %) or 1% point (eg CPI of 2.2 +/-
1 %)?

The latter.

Both are too extreme. The ONS used to reckon that +/- 0.1 percentage
points was about the margin for the year-on-year change but stressed that
that wasn't a "proper" statistical measure. They don't even publish that
now but hope to do somethingsoonish. See eg cpigandm_tcm77-253092.pdf
and
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/quality/quality-information/economic-statistics/summary-quality-report-for-cpi.pdf

And remember ONS make available underlying data so you can always DIY an
index.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Jim Hawkins wrote

One thing that is never mentioned in the official
notices of inflation rates is the level of uncertainty
of the figures.

Yes, I've never noticed anyone doing that world wide in any situation.

It is particularly inportant to know this

Not really when the real problem is that any inflation
number varys much more due to what is measured.

when much is being made of changes as small as 0.1%.

Only by journalists and politicians normally.

I would be surprised if the uncertainty was much lower than 1%,

Its actually much higher than that because of the extreme
variation in the inflation rate of the different components
like cheap stuff from china, food, rents, land, mortgages etc.

but perhaps someone in the know
will take the risk of enlightening us ?

Unlikely that no one does that world wide that I have ever noticed.

replying to Jim Hawkins , amyron wrote:
There's been a ton of discussion about how Americans do not save enough
cash. While it is certainly true that frivolous spending is bad, what a
lot of people don't understand that they really lose money if they save
it. The reason has to do with inflation, which makes most savings accounts
almost pointless to have.

--

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 01:44:01 +0000, amyron
wrote:

replying to Jim Hawkins , amyron wrote:
There's been a ton of discussion about how Americans do not save enough
cash.

If you believe the personal debt figures for the UK you could conclude
the same here.

While it is certainly true that frivolous spending is bad, what a
lot of people don't understand that they really lose money if they save
it. The reason has to do with inflation, which makes most savings accounts
almost pointless to have.

If the interest rates are lower than inflation then you are correct.
Although this is the situation now it has not always been the case and
probably will change in the future.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:54:14 +0000, Mark wrote:

While it is certainly true that frivolous spending is bad, what a lot of
people don't understand that they really lose money if they save it. The
reason has to do with inflation, which makes most savings accounts
almost pointless to have.

If the interest rates are lower than inflation then you are correct.

Even then, it's really not that simple.

Let's say that you're saving £100/month. You have £2000 in a savings
account. For simplicity, let's assume that interest is zero and inflation
is 2%.

This time next year, your £2000 will buy you 2% less than it would today.
Possibly, assuming inflation is flat across everything you might buy.
But, of course, you won't have £2000 in the bank. You'll have £3200 in
the bank - and that'll buy a lot more than £2000 will buy today.

OK, you could have spent that £3140 today and bought the same thing £3200
would buy you in a year's time - saving £60. But you wouldn't have saved
£60, since you'd have had to have financed the other £1140 - which would
have cost a lot more than £60 in interest.

On 13/01/2014 11:25, Adrian wrote:
Even then, it's really not that simple.

Let's say that you're saving £100/month. You have £2000 in a savings
account. For simplicity, let's assume that interest is zero and inflation
is 2%.

This time next year, your £2000 will buy you 2% less than it would today.
Possibly, assuming inflation is flat across everything you might buy.
But, of course, you won't have £2000 in the bank. You'll have £3200 in
the bank - and that'll buy a lot more than £2000 will buy today.

OK, you could have spent that £3140 today and bought the same thing £3200
would buy you in a year's time - saving £60. But you wouldn't have saved
£60, since you'd have had to have financed the other £1140 - which would
have cost a lot more than £60 in interest.

Or I could spend the £2K now, buying one thing which in a years time
would cost me £2040, and buy another thing then for the £1200. And I'm
£40 better off.

Or suppose I can save that £1200 a year, and the thing I want to buy is
£100,000. At the end of the year it will have gone up to £102,000 and is
even further out of reach.

Andy