A scorpion asked a turtle to take him across the stream. The
turtle said no because he knows scorpions are mean and will sting him. The
scorpion explains he REALLY needs to get across the stream and that he is
really a different kind of scorpion. He promises to be good. Mid-stream the
scorpion stings the turtle. As they are both going under the turtle asks him
why he stung him ensuring sure death for both of them. The scorpion replies – I
am a scorpion. That is what scorpions do.
So is the scorpion/turtle a democrat or a republican? To me
it doesn’t matter. They are playing a dangerous game. The question is why. It seems to
me that politicians are more polarized than ever. It is a normal state of
affairs to have difference of opinion and heated arguments. After all there are
strong ideologies separating the parties here and everywhere. But both parties
are using extreme tactics that get us nowhere. Republicans shout that liberals
are ruining the country with too much government spending. Democrats respond
that conservatives are destroying the country by hurting the poor and
middleclass. These charges are typical. But the Democrats ran roughshod during
Obama’s first two years and the Tea Party is playing dangerous games now. How
does an objective person explain why things are so bad today? I don’t think one
can blame it totally on one party or the other. What changed such that there is
so much animosity and intransigence on both sides?
I don’t pretend to have the answers. But I do think that if we knew
more about the causes of this political mess, then maybe we might have a hope of
ending it. Finger pointing from both sides does little to create the healing
and it appears to be making things worse. Thanks to conversation with some of
my friends, I have come up with 5 trends that explain current political
radicalism in the US and elsewhere. What do you think? Did I miss something?
First, it might be that problems are worse now. They may also be more
complicated or different from past problems. As a result there is a real lack
of consensus about what to do. Mike, there are little green men eating your
Hosta leaves! Maybe I should use deer repellent? No, you better call in the
B52s. Jerk! Butthead!
Second, we are now much closer to the day when the aging of the
population finally has arrived – we can’t keep putting off financing solutions.
So long as the baby boom generation was not yet 65, we could be nice to each
other and talk about solutions. Well the baby boom is defined as starting with
people born in 1946. Count it out – they are now 65 years old. Many started on
Social Security as early as 62 and most of them are joining Medicare as soon as
we hit 65. While the problems will surface only gradually the reality of not imposing a real plan hit home when S&P downgraded our debt. It is real and large
and now we have to do something about looming debt. Politicians call these programs entitlements but many
people see these programs more like a pension that was earned through a
lifetime of work. It is NOT hard to see why such different views could inspire
heated discussion.
Third, the social state has grown for 50+ years and Obama Care
provided one more example of expansion. Perhaps that was the proverbial straw
that energized support/attack of the whole social state. Many of us watch things
grow and change and despite some displeasure we optimistically hope that things will work out
okay. But then all of a sudden we reached a limit and years of concern turn into rage. Ds are sick and tired of Rs moaning about the
welfare state. Rs are fed up with increasing scope and size of government. Why
the cork popped in the last few years I don’t know, but it ain’t champagne that
is flowing.
Fourth, maybe we have too much TV/electronic news/entertainment.
Is there a shred of news left? There is some notion that stuff happens every
day and someone dispassionately decides what is important enough to inform and
attract viewers – who then run out and buy large quantities of vacuum cleaners,
soap, and heavily discounted car insurance. In the good old days when Walter
Cronkite gave the news we had great confidence that it was unbiased. We also
thought the earth was flat. Anyway, there used to be a time in a news program when
the OPINION light went on and we all knew that was not news. It was an opinion.
Well, despite Fox’s claim to be fair and balanced, there ain’t no opinion light
and we are all pretty sure that news is chosen to fit the conservative agenda.
Of course, all the other outlets are the same serving carious other agendas.
Finally, there is the idea that the public either doesn’t care or are
simply easier to fool. None of the four above suggested causes makes any sense
if you have an informed, educated, and energized public. For example,
thoughtful voters know when the press is biased and can find ways to get better
information. Or just because macro problems are more severe or more
complicated, it doesn’t follow that an intelligent public can be duped into
accepting untried and risky political policies. But if we have grown
intellectually lazy then it is easy to see how and why our politicians have taken
the low road. It is not effective to use logic about complicated economic and financial
trends if the public just wants pretty, leggy newscasters and outrageous
politicians who scream at each other in high definition, blue ray, 3D, 4G
amazing colors.
So what do you think? What is behind all this nonsense? What makes
today’s politicians take the low road? If I am right the best way to return to
some normalcy is an energized and informed public. One way to get that result
is a calamity. It seems wasteful to go through another financial collapse and a double-dip economy to
get citizens more focused. It would be much better if a leader stepped up who
could deliver the right message. He or she would definitely occupy a grand
place in our future history books.The President gets a chance to do that this week. Somehow I am not too optimistic.
Mr. LSD. Me thinks you presented too much information for your “enlightened” informed public to absorb/comprehend . . . but, I’ll give it the ole Koty try. First, ya gotta keep it simple, as in making assumptions. Don’t combine in one assumption that “energized” and “informed” can be/are mutually constructive. . . as in “make and play for the breaks . . and, when one comes your way, score.” An energized public can be constructive or destructive (can we say French Revolution?). An informed public . . . assuming that that public is educated enough to ascertain the veracity of the information . . . could lead to constructive outcomes, presumably (can you say informed voter?). However, another informed public . . . less educated (educationally and/or intellectually lazy?) and incapable of ascertaining the difference between misinformation and accurate info could lead to destructive outcomes, depending on your point of view (can you say mob?). So, it seems the more desirable situation is to have a constructively energized and educationally/intellectually informed public that perceives the breaks and that can craft a plan that scores . . . as in a functional Congress. Wow, what an ideal. But it ain’t a’gunna happen.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I don’t see that ideal construct either on the political playground aka Wash, D.C. or in the voting booths across the geo playing field. The former represents the energized team wanting to keep their phony-baloney jobs and sucking up to special interests and the latter represents the “un”informed and intellectually lazy public that votes . . . . many on the spur-of-the-moment-coin-flip in the voting booth . . . . the dysfunctional (incompetent) pols into office. So, the genesis of the problem is not D.C., but in the geo playing field.
Yes, an informed, educated, and energized public is ideal, but neither practical nor practicable, because it cannot see the breaks much less devise a plan (e.g. voting the R way) to score. The problem is clear: too much govomit and spending (not only U.S but Europe, too, so it’s not just us on the field . . . ). So, too, is the solution: cut spending and ergo govomit. Ya gotta keep it simple – keep the Ds and regressives outta office: Ya don’t need to be Einstein to unnerstand that.
Dear Charles,
ReplyDeleteYour comment is perfect and illustrates my main point. You emphasize that the only informed public is one that agrees with you! And everyone else is wrong. Just kick out the bad guys and replace them with good guys. The fact that compromise has been the result of most governments during most times is irrelevant to you. I continue to worry that idealists on both sides are going to take us down and down. Then the extremes can go sit in their tepees ,flex their muscles and proudly boast how they stuck to their guns.
Dear LSD. I posit that an educated and informed public would not vote for (for pols that support) more spending and more taxes. Look what the last compromise accomplished . . . an extension of more debt/spending and kicked the can further down the road. Yeah, let’s have more of that. Ya gotta vote for pols that stop it . . . that’ll legislate to quit pick’n my pocket.
ReplyDeleteEric Clampton produced some lyrics which frame Charles' statement. There ain't no good guys...there ain't no bad guys..just you and me. Well you and me may or may not be educated, lazy, informed or energized...but we most likely will be collecting the return on our 40+ years of contributions to SS and Medicare...if not now then very soon. I see no R's or D's refusing to take either one unless they are so wealthy is does not matter. As for my children...I try to keep them informed, energized and willing to ask questions and be critical thinkers. I tell them not to brand themselves as R or D but as citizens of this country who have the right for things to work as the public voted for....as Charles says (think democratic republic).
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, yes things are more complex but they can be boiled down to the root causes. Look at the debate last night. There was no debate and no room for logical and workable solutions because everyone was trying to trump the other with misdirection and misinformation. That give4s a lot of confidence in them for the future. Yes, Perry created a bunch of low paid jobs in Texas and those jobs for the most part were funded via the stimulus money....that part was left off and the others were not sharp enough to jump on it...that cares because government does not create jobs it creates an environment in which jobs can occur and grow. That environment includes education, simple logical and needed regulations that do not harm business but also protect the public, tax laws that make sense for all and not just some lobbyist group, transportation to get our goods, services, electricity and data to its destination efficiently...etc.
Oil pipelines create jobs but is that not the same old solution? If we put as much money into integrated energy systems and reducing the price of alternatives fuels and energy saving devices as we do oil subsidies and the lobbyist that go with it, then we would not need more oil and prices would be lower. BTW...oil is an international commodity. It does not matter if we drill it or an enemy drills it, the owner sells to the highest bidder. That means the price fluctuates with demand and that the merging big countries will have high demand as they embrace the American way of life. Just an economic fact.
Tax credits do not create jobs but they sound good. As a manufacturer I will not hire anyone ..tax credit or not...unless they contribute positively to my bottom line. As an employee I will not spend the extra savings from reduced payroll taxes on anything that helps the economy but most likely on things that are made in other marketplaces. Infrastructure...a standard fall back but it is short term and tends to get very corrupt. We have no education, infrastructure, energy or capital market plan that is not cloaked with political favors to lobbyist and their clients.
Where did it all go south? Money. There has never been so high and ease of access to money for those who have something to give back in exchange. What’s in your wallet? We have never had so many politicians who were more interested in keeping their cushy jobs and feeding off of the trough of the lobbyist that those real leaders who represent the people and their common / mutual needs.
Lastly, for 4 years "jobs"" have been the neglected elephant in the room. We are in a transition and those lost jobs for the most part are not coming back. Different skills are needed in different places and those opportunities are just starting to trickle. We cannot go back to the old solutions because our world has changed significantly since the day when those solutions worked. But the politicians and advisers who do know are going against the established system.
It is not as simple as R or D or conservative or liberal. Those are ideas not systems or process that make things work
While I understand the importance of compromise there are some situations where compromise is not an alternative. Your first point was that problems may be worse now, and while we had lots of bad problems it is important to remember that sometimes compromise was not possible, the Civil War and the Hamilton/Burr disagreements come to mind.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the solution is to have Obama and Perry stand back to back, take twenty paces, turn and fire.
Dear Charles,
ReplyDeleteYou should read the paper! This morning I read countless articles that underscore the urgent need for more stimulus...here and almost everywhere. Neither I nor you agree with this. But it shows how much political support there is for aggressive new spending. People are scared and politicians love to see them that way. Politicians who seem to arbitrarily stand in the way will find themselves without jobs. If they want their jobs and want to have any ability to slow down this train, they are going to have to play the game. If they vote for pols who seem arbitrary and ideological, then their vote may go into a rat hole. There might be compromises that make sense. Of course after the President's speech tonight I am not so sure...whew
James,
ReplyDeleteAny comment that starts with Eric Clapton cannot be bad! Way to go! Anyway, I cannot disagree with anything you said -- but it doesn't help me nail down the main point in the post -- why have politicians gotten so intransigent? I don't think I said this adequately in my post but it might come down to the idea that no one wants to be the messenger of the bad news. We are paying back karma now for mistakes and excesses of the past. Obama's big new program shovels out more the same drool. We need real solutions for the things that actually caused this mess and no one wants to tell the truth because you can't give the patient another drug. You have to stick a scalper deep into the body and no one wants to tell the patient!
Rage,
ReplyDeleteI like the duel idea. I am guessing Perry is better with a pistol than Obama. But knowing these guys I think the outcome is that they will both miss and probably hit the camera man instead! As I recall at lot of people died horrible deaths in the Civil War. I think a little compromise might be a better solution for today's issues. :-)
Economic Superbowl
ReplyDeleteMatch of the Century
Winner-Take-All
Mainstreet v Wall street
The great winner take all showdown is upon us!
Can Main Street pull off the greatest ‘come-from-behind’ win in the history of Economics?
Here’s the way my (other) economic advisor Harvey H. Homitz sees the prospects for Main street .... not good!
Trailing to the tune of 14 Trillion, Main street has to come up with some pretty fancy plays to beat the odds.
Not only are they up against a seasoned Wall St. team but inside the striped Jerseys, the Referees are all old Wall St. guys !! Harvey says that if you sneek up on the Wall St. locker room you can watch the retiring players sidling over to the Washington Referee Clubroom to get issued with whistles and striped jerseys!
And the coaches all have season passes to hang out with the Owners in their fancy boxes and sip champagne with the Rules Committee.
Now in an honest poker game they call this ‘playing against a stacked deck’..... and there’s not too many of those about these days...honest poker games that is, not stacked decks.... if you get my drift!?
Ah well! If you can’t level the playing field how can we make a buck on the game? My Bookie Honest Joe thinks the spread is 20 Trillion. Would you take that bet?
Cheers
Mike Macray
Sanibel, Fla.
aka H.H.Homitz
Economic Superbowl
ReplyDeleteMatch of the Century
Winner-Take-All
Mainstreet v Wall street
The great winner take all showdown is upon us!
Can Main Street pull off the greatest ‘come-from-behind’ win in the history of Economics?
Here’s the way my (other) economic advisor Harvey H. Homitz sees the prospects for Main street .... not good!
Trailing to the tune of 14 Trillion, Main street has to come up with some pretty fancy plays to beat the odds.
Not only are they up against a seasoned Wall St. team but inside the striped Jerseys, the Referees are all old Wall St. guys !! Harvey says that if you sneek up on the Wall St. locker room you can watch the retiring players sidling over to the Washington Referee Clubroom to get issued with whistles and striped jerseys!
And the coaches all have season passes to hang out with the Owners in their fancy boxes and sip champagne with the Rules Committee.
Now in an honest poker game they call this ‘playing against a stacked deck’..... and there’s not too many of those about these days...honest poker games that is, not stacked decks.... if you get my drift!?
Ah well! If you can’t level the playing field how can we make a buck on the game? My Bookie Honest Joe thinks the spread is 20 Trillion. Would you take that bet?
Cheers
Mike Macray
Sanibel, Fla.
aka H.H.Homitz
Mike M,
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when you watch football and write economics at the same time. Poor you. How are things in South Florida? I miss you guys!
Dear LSD. I read a lot. I watch TV a lot . . . mostly political/financial stuff . . . and I don’t recall resounding desire for more stimmilus. I watched Obummer tonight. Yepper, more stimmilus for public workers (teachers) and construction (unions) . . . what a surprise! And tax the rich; more surprise . . . so it’ll be paid for . . . surprise, surprise.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think pols that stand in the way are necessarily arbitrary; they oppose more spending/taxing out of principle. Yes, maybe they’ll be out of a job. Good for them for not aiding and abetting more of the stuff that got us in this mess. Compromising only kicks the can down the road. Let the pols who oppose more spending/taxing watch from the sidelines (possibly the unemployment lines if they’re voted out . . .) and those who favor more spending/taxing account for the growing debt and govomit . . . with loving kisses from regressives who want less spending cuts and more taxes. I’m curious . . . what compromises would you suggest that will/would abate/reduce the debt and govomit and stimmilate jobs?
Dear Charles,
ReplyDeleteI won't belabour this point but maybe you ought to broaden your periodical list. There REALLY is a lot public sentiment for more stimulus now. Obama was just riding that wave when he gave that speech. It might be good for some politicains to feel proud that they stood up for their principles but most every politcian you know has engaged in compromises that help them get as close to those princples as they can. Refusing to budge even if it means no solution is not what we need right now. I would rather kick the can down the road a little than know that I nibbled off my foot. I have written about what compromises I prefer about 100 times in this blog. The main point for now is to give him a little of what he wants in exchange for a little of what we want. I think we want budget discipline -- something with teeth even if it is graudally phased in. There are some corporate tax loop holes that Repopublics don't like. So give him some of those. Give him a little stimulus but make sure the spending has to be temporary. My computer is very slow and this is hard to do so I will quit there.
Well, enough foment.....er, formulating. Here goes!
ReplyDeleteThe scorpion is a D. Compromise to a "scorpion" means "you have to see it my way, or I'll just sting your butt and kill you!" At last, there are some Rs who have had enough and are now using scorpion tactics, but they feel remorse afterward which is not so fortunate. Compromise in politics isn't always bad, but for the taxpayer, it's always rife with unintended consequences which most of the time are always bad.
Perfesser, I have to say that those calls for more stimulus spending you cite from the newspapers/periodicals are all from the Prez's MSM cheerleaders. You must temper those calls with some common sense. BTW, why is it called "common" sense when there is so little of it? If he had said that the total U.S. population should make like a lemming and throw itself off a 1,000-foot precipice, the MSM, in unison, would have applauded the proposal as the only viable solution to our economic woes. While it probably would solve our immediate fiscal difficulties, it's a pretty drastic solution. All that to say, "consider the source."
If I'm a business owner, large or small, I'm extremely reluctant to hire anybody. First, I'm looking down the Obamacare barrel and watching mandated healthcare costs skyrocket. Then, I see government regulation of business increasing almost daily thru "executive legislation." If the Prez can't get it done thru the normal legislative process, no prob! The EPA, FDA, etc will just do it thru the "rulemaking" process...commonly known in football as the old end run. Thirdly, while he didn't say it outright, I see more taxes on business owners coming down the track. He hasn't abandoned his mantra that "the wealthy must pay their fair share!" Funny how neither he nor the scorpions have clearly defined the terms "wealthy" or "fair share." Based on Joe the plumber, I'm making a SWAG that wealthy starts somewhere around $200K/year gross income and "fair share" is around 100%. The Man isn't really interested in creating "real" jobs. He just wants more government employees. Do we really need a new Department of Homeland Infrastructure?
Personally, I'm a fan of a "scorched earth" approach. Then the survivors can start the process all over from the beginning and maybe give us another 200 years of relative economic stability. Compromise? We don't need no stinking compromise.
I'm just, ya know, saying....
Larry - Great post and debate you're hosting here. I wonder whether political scientist can shed some light on the current problems. One of the trends that has happened over the last 20 years seems to be the gerrymandering of congressional districts. The district lines are often drawn now in such a way that many districts tend to be very liberal or very conservative - more so than simple geographic differences might indicate. The result is that Congress (specifically the House) is getting more members further away from the mainstream.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder whether we would be better served with parties that are less powerful. Again, this is just perception, but it seems to me the parties are more powerful than they have been in a long time, and true independents are rare.
Would a different voting system make it easier for 3rd party candidates? Unfortunately, the two parties are so powerful right now, I don't think there is any way to change the current system.
(Still Anonymous - I need an account)
Larry, I agree there is public sentiment for stimulus, but there is probably more public sentiment for no stimulus; especially if it is not paid for.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I posted earlier that compromise is a nice goal but not all goals can be reached.
I have seen claims that Obama wants 300-500 billion in stimulus. It is important to note that while his speech contained several pleas/orders to "pass this bill now" he did not provide any bill. Not to mention there was no mention of how it would be paid for, at least with real numbers the CBO could score. On the other side of the aisle there are stimulus opponents who do not want any stimulus.
Trying to reach a compromise between these two parties seems unlikely. Simply saying a stimulus of 150-250 billion would be unlikely to get the nod from either side.
I remember an old episode of Miami Vice where Sonny Crockett had taken down some criminals by going right up to the legal edge (maybe going over it) and Ricardo Tubbs asked Crockett "do you really think we are better than the criminals", to which Crockett replied "better, yea, we are definitely better shots".
I am just glad I was the best shot in my company during basic training in case I ever wind up in a duel.
Nice to have you back Al,
ReplyDeleteI was hoping to not be living in a tent during my retirement years. Walking to the outhouse in 30 degree weather holds no charms for me. I'd sort of like my pitiful retirement accumulation to be a little less pitiful. Obama's jobs Xmas tree won't help and neither will an equally truculent Republican party. Does Amazon.com sell tents?
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYes, get an account! I like your idea that the cause of the political intensity could have political science roots. You take the discussion in a very different direction. But political science is not my bag so we need some help here from people who actually know something...
Dear Rage,
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with all of your conclusions except for the Miami Vice quote. I will bet you 1,000 Korean Won and a bucket of kimche that we get a compromise and it will have plenty of stimulus in it. While I disagree with the stimulus right now I am betting that politicians simply cannot resist. The stock market reaction will be rationalized as the rich crying but that will not stop the calvary from riding in with Rin Tin Tin to save the day. Nevertheless, Republicans would be smart to compromise. They can say that they played a positive role in a worrying time but Obama's plan was mostly wrongheaded and foisted on them just like ObamaCare and deserves the blame for making the economy even worse in the election year. If they stonewall then when the economy gets worse they will be given the blame and most people will believe that. Compromise is not an ideal for me. Compromise is the way to Republicans gaining more power. I guess we'll see...
Hi from Norway Larry. I enjoy your posts about the never ending squabbling of the R and D's over how best to blame (I mean fix) the US economy. Sadly this issue does make me want to drink more of the local poison Akvavit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akvavit) as I don't have much faith in either party anymore. To answer your question about why politicians take the low road, when did they ever not? I'm only in my early 40's but I can't remember a time when politicians didn't seize on current events as ammunition against the other party. Well, to keep the references to rock lyrics I keep coming back to the old Queen hit 'I want it all...and I want it now!' as it reminds me of the underlying causes of the economic mess the US (and Europe) is in. The US and Europe went on a huge spending spree for several years and financed it with ever more interesting financially engineering. Austerity measures are being proposed by most governments in Europe (to the public's outrage) and somehow the US is trying to continue with another round of stimulus? Europeans are dumbfounded to this approach. I have come to the conclusion that neither party has the brass cajones to tell the public what it doesn't want to hear (i.e. spend and consume less and save more). Well to continue the Queen song references in honor of the late Freddie Mercury's birthday last week it seems like the US will be singing 'Another one bites the dust!' instead of 'We are the champions' if the R and D's continue their lack of leadership on sound policy much longer. By the way, isn't every economist's favorite Rock n Roll lyric 'You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need...' from the Rolling Stones. Cheers.
ReplyDeleteBrad,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments. Just curious, how did you find out about this blog? It is nice to have people in Norway and people who love rocknroll! Your comments reminded me of the song (Barret Strong lyrics 1959) Money that's what I want! With the greater probability of a double dip these days, money or any sort of stimulus is what a lot of people seem to want. As you say, it seems to be the wrong thing. As for austerity in Europe, I am already hearing some sounds of them backing away. So maybe the EU is not so different from the US. Too bad -- it would be nice if someone has the cajones to show that austerity works! Cheers to you too. Larry
Hi Larry,
ReplyDeleteI was one of your students in the IMM 2009. I'm an American castaway living in Norway since 2005 with my wife and daughter. Interesting as a US citizen I was able to vote in their local and county elections. They have about 8 parties to choose from with Labor, Conservative and Center parties being the most popular. Norwegian are very socialist and enjoy a very high quality of life given they have one of the largest sovereign wealth funds (the 'oil fund') that funds most of the retirement and social services for their 4.5 million population. They are an active NATO member and are very involved in peace negotiations around the world. One of there past PM's was famous for saying once, "Excuse me, but I have a coalition to go lead". I think Norway has had it easy for a few decades since finding oil. Before that, they were one of the poorest in Europe being mostly a fishing and agricultural nation that was occupied by Germany. But, they are struggling now with how to integrate other cultures into their society which was the foundation behind the recent Oslo tragedy from the right-wing extremist. I did have a econ question. I had reviewed a copy of Pyndick and Rubenstein's micro book and noticed a story about how the CPI overstates the cost of living and that it impacts government programs causing them to be over-funded. The text cited a study from 2002 or so. I'm sure there are many other examples of government programs that could be trimmed and help towards balancing the budget and chipping away at the debt. My question is, has the US government adjusted their use of the CPI? I remember we covered the hedonistic CPI in Jerry Lynch's macro class as an alternative to get a more accurate baseline to use in funding government programs.
Thanks again for your blog posts.
Brad
Hi Brad,
ReplyDeleteAha, now I remember! Nice to hear from you again. There is nothing like having oil money to raise the standard of living -- and Norway seems to be one of the smart ones that invest a lot of the earnings. It has been known for a long time that a Laspeyres index will overstate inflation because it holds buying weights constant long enough to overstate how much people spend on the goods whose prices are rising the fastest. I don't recall when, but several years ago the government got away from the regular CPI and either use a wage index or something more like a Paasche price index. The PCE price deflator is often used instead of the CPI for that reason. Of course, since the government has the power to do it -- they can at any time simply suspend the full indexation to save money. You used the word accurate. The theory of price indexes pretty much concludes that no index is accurate. One understates. One overstates. To be an index of price change means you always have to tell a little lie about what people are buying. Averaging indexes or changing weights frequently helps but that starts to obscure the notion of comparing prices over time. In reality the government picks the price index that best serves their purpose at the moment...Best, Larry