Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Oh Dear . . . 2.8% . . .


Recommended Posts

RB,

I blame the sole bank that changed the comission it charges! :lol:

Food is going up at a 6% click.

http://www.theretailbulletin.com/?tag=27bc...949a69ebeb4eb4c

CPI inflation down on last month's record

Tuesday May 15 2007

CPI annual inflation the Government's target measure was 2.8 per cent in April, down from 3.1 per cent in March, today's figures from the Office for National Statistics show.

The main downward pressure came from average gas and electricity bills

which fell on average this year but rose a year ago.There was also a large downward effect from financial services. This year, foreign exchange commission rates fell following the abolition of a charge from one major bank; last year, by contrast, average commission rates rose. In addition, fees for overdrafts fell this year but rose a year ago.

There were also small downward effects from: Furniture and household goods, mainly due to steeper cuts in the price of furniture this year, particularly bedroom furniture. This follows a record month-on-month increase in furniture prices in March 2007; and Air travel, particularly long haul routes, with fares rising by less than a year ago when the price collection period coincided with the Easter holiday period.

A large partially offsetting upward effect came from bus travel where prices rose this year but fell a year ago following the introduction of free off-peak local bus travel in England for disabled people and those aged over 60. The largest upward effect on the inflation rate came from men's and women's clothing, with prices rising this year following the introduction of higher priced replacement stock. Last year, by contrast, there was a mixture of special offers and higher prices.

Indeed--food up 6%. But then again, we can't listen to food so its not important. MP3 players--critical to Gordon's basket.

This CPI fiasco must surely be becoming an acute embarrassment to those who have to publish it. And didn't we see yesterday how the ONS is rebelling agianst the confusion and mayhem in Gordon's most vital office?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c65efaf8-02bb-11dc...00779e2340.html

However,
food prices jumped 6 per cent over the past 12 months
and rises in the price of clothing and restaurants added to the inflationary pressures.
Edited by Realistbear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

put the littel turdwrangler on ignore.

Makes for a fun thread - 20 posts of people slagging off 'tenroom'. :lol::lol::lol:

Excellent.

Although it would probably be better if the mods marked him down for what he is - a troll estate agent trying to get a rise out of the board.

Ah, Mr Q107 . . . :lol: Ladies and Gentlemen, please . . . a round of applause for everyone's favourite BTLer. We were supposed to be impressed with his "£3m" and your "shrewdly-timed" :lol: exit from BTL-dom and his Q107 crash-call . . . Still lurking behind the popular kids are you . . . none of their lustre rubbed off on you yet ??

The problem must be the price you're asking, then. Drop it and hopefully you'll get some offers

Mate, the gaff's under offer, housing association cash buyer, FULL market value, no estate agent fees. And if that wasn't enough, Foxton's are literally begging me to give 'em shot at getting me another 30 large . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets get something clear: the actual CPI figure is not fiddled - its very much genuine.

The sleight of hand is with the CPI weightings. I'm very much concerned that in the areas where CPI is rising strongly, the weight has been reduced - in areas where CPI is falling heavily, the weight has been increased. This is something that should worry us all, regardless of whether you're bull, bear or neutral - when CPI is cooked, in the end, we all lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
Ah, Mr Q107 . . . :lol: Ladies and Gentlemen, please . . . a round of applause for everyone's favourite BTLer. We were supposed to be impressed with his "£3m" and your "shrewdly-timed" :lol: exit from BTL-dom and his Q107 crash-call . . . Still lurking behind the popular kids are you . . . none of their lustre rubbed off on you yet ??

Mate, the gaff's under offer, housing association cash buyer, FULL market value, no estate agent fees. And if that wasn't enough, Foxton's are literally begging me to give 'em shot at getting me another 30 large . . .

In your enviable financial position I'd be busily involved with the next stage of my investment planning rather than hanging about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your enviable financial position I'd be busily involved with the next stage of my investment planning rather than hanging about.

Five months ago we would be skipping around at CPI @ 2.8%.

Get a grip people. The energy prices are in. We've had Merv's sharp fall in inflation.

The markets and economists agree. Rates will rise again.

Also, congratulations to tenroom at getting a good price for your gaff. I think you are doing the right thing in selling. Now stop acting like a two year old. It does you no credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair point but I am struggling to differentiate the difference between 'CPI fiddled' and 'CPI cooked' ? :blink:

Lets get something clear: the actual CPI figure is not fiddled - its very much genuine.

The sleight of hand is with the CPI weightings. I'm very much concerned that in the areas where CPI is rising strongly, the weight has been reduced - in areas where CPI is falling heavily, the weight has been increased. This is something that should worry us all, regardless of whether you're bull, bear or neutral - when CPI is cooked, in the end, we all lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets get something clear: the actual CPI figure is not fiddled - its very much genuine.

The sleight of hand is with the CPI weightings. I'm very much concerned that in the areas where CPI is rising strongly, the weight has been reduced - in areas where CPI is falling heavily, the weight has been increased. This is something that should worry us all, regardless of whether you're bull, bear or neutral - when CPI is cooked, in the end, we all lose.

That's called fiddling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest grumpy-old-man
Lets get something clear: the actual CPI figure is not fiddled - its very much genuine.

The sleight of hand is with the CPI weightings. I'm very much concerned that in the areas where CPI is rising strongly, the weight has been reduced - in areas where CPI is falling heavily, the weight has been increased. This is something that should worry us all, regardless of whether you're bull, bear or neutral - when CPI is cooked, in the end, we all lose.

ok then, it's fudged. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's called fiddling!

The weightings are adjusted to reflect actual expenditure, so it's making them more representative.

Changes to the basket are often made to improve coverage of a sector where spending has increased. ONS tracks consumer spending, and uses survey results to ensure that items on which people spend most have the biggest share of the basket. Each is assigned a proportion, or 'weight' of the index. The 'weight' of each category in both the CPI and the RPI is adjusted every year to take account of these changes, giving more prominence to areas whose 'weight' is rising.

Edited by Casual Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
Lets get something clear: the actual CPI figure is not fiddled - its very much genuine.

The sleight of hand is with the CPI weightings. I'm very much concerned that in the areas where CPI is rising strongly, the weight has been reduced - in areas where CPI is falling heavily, the weight has been increased. This is something that should worry us all, regardless of whether you're bull, bear or neutral - when CPI is cooked, in the end, we all lose.

Indeed. I find I can make a very tasty snack from an MP3 player and DVDs make excellent petrol for my car.

It is entirely correct to increase the weightings of these, I now buy about 1 a week instead of 'traditional' food and fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair point but I am struggling to differentiate the difference between 'CPI fiddled' and 'CPI cooked' ? :blink:

When I think 'fiddled' - it suggests that the actual figures that they come back with are made-up - I picture someone just scribbling down the first figure that comes into their head. What I was attempting to say, is that in the same way that an accountant can 'cook the books' by moving figures from one column to another to reduce tax implications, the ONS are doing the same thing with CPI. It's not outright lying, and it's perfectly legal, but it skews reality - personally I find that more scary than being faced with straight-up lying.

Apologies if this doesn't quite make sense, it's just like tax 'evasion' and tax 'avoidance' one is illegal the other is fine - similar, but also very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest grumpy-old-man

I just wish I understood more about CPI & RPI, as I'm sure there is a really valid argument to point to the fact that it's fiddled'n'fudged!

edited - but I know that if I start I will have Pedantic Pete throwing stats at me like there's no tomorrow. ;)

Edited by grumpy-old-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weightings are adjusted to reflect actual expenditure, so it's making them more representative.

Changes to the basket are often made to improve coverage of a sector where spending has increased. ONS tracks consumer spending, and uses survey results to ensure that items on which people spend most have the biggest share of the basket. Each is assigned a proportion, or 'weight' of the index. The 'weight' of each category in both the CPI and the RPI is adjusted every year to take account of these changes, giving more prominence to areas whose 'weight' is rising.

Load of [email protected] as Fernado has already stated. Food, housing, water, energy weightings should be higher than Ipods and computers. Also why did the ONS add chicken during the bird flu crisis, especially when sales of poultry would've been lower than usual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
I just wish I understood more about CPI & RPI, as I'm sure there is a really valid argument to point to the fact that it's fiddled'n'fudged!

They've put more falling price imported electrical goods in the basket in the past couple of months compared with potatoes.

Oh, and probably changed the hedonic index of the electrical goods to their favour.

Edited by DissipatedYouthIsValuable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weightings are adjusted to reflect actual expenditure, so it's making them more representative.

Changes to the basket are often made to improve coverage of a sector where spending has increased. ONS tracks consumer spending, and uses survey results to ensure that items on which people spend most have the biggest share of the basket. Each is assigned a proportion, or 'weight' of the index. The 'weight' of each category in both the CPI and the RPI is adjusted every year to take account of these changes, giving more prominence to areas whose 'weight' is rising.

Would you say the average Briton eats less bread and meat than in 1996 then? And that we've had a huge drop in temperatures in the last year to the extent people are heating their homes far more than in 2006?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mhm...thats a good explanation and I understand that.

To my mind if the CPI is being cooked they are priming themselves for a fall further down the line, either way makes the pain worse when the inevitable happens surely?

Cheers.

When I think 'fiddled' - it suggests that the actual figures that they come back with are made-up - I picture someone just scribbling down the first figure that comes into their head. What I was attempting to say, is that in the same way that an accountant can 'cook the books' by moving figures from one column to another to reduce tax implications, the ONS are doing the same thing with CPI. It's not outright lying, and it's perfectly legal, but it skews reality - personally I find that more scary than being faced with straight-up lying.

Apologies if this doesn't quite make sense, it's just like tax 'evasion' and tax 'avoidance' one is illegal the other is fine - similar, but also very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changes to the basket are often made to improve coverage of a sector where spending has increased. ONS tracks consumer spending, and uses survey results to ensure that items on which people spend most have the biggest share of the basket. Each is assigned a proportion, or 'weight' of the index. The 'weight' of each category in both the CPI and the RPI is adjusted every year to take account of these changes, giving more prominence to areas whose 'weight' is rising.

What IS the formula? If we buy less of what is becoming more expensive then couldn't that quite easily result in an unchanged weighting. Does this result in any change in CPI?

If so based on what?

In short, I can forsee some cockeyed formulation resulting in a reduction in overal CPI where an individual good might have become more expensive.

Edited by cynic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish I understood more about CPI & RPI, as I'm sure there is a really valid argument to point to the fact that it's fiddled'n'fudged!

edited - but I know that if I start I will have Pedantic Pete throwing stats at me like there's no tomorrow. ;)

Here's some reading matter on the subject

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojo...basket_2006.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What IS the formula? If we buy less of what is becoming more expensive then couldn't that quite easily result in an unchanged weighting. Does this result in any change in CPI?

If so based on what?

In short, I can forsee some cockeyed formulation resulting in a reduction in overal CPI where an individual good might have become more expensive.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojo...basket_2006.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable
Would you say the average Briton eats less bread and meat than in 1996 then? And that we've had a huge drop in temperatures in the last year to the extent people are heating their homes far more than in 2006?

Global warming causes Global cooling, don't you know?

Also, from the CPI calculaton methodology document above

• In some cases a product will still remain represented in the basket even if the

explicit item has been removed. For example, although the muesli item has been

removed from the basket the remaining breakfast cereal item descriptions have

be amended to allow this product to continue to be priced.

• Elsewhere, analysis suggested that there was scope to remove items from

certain product groupings without any significant loss of precision in estimates of

price changes overall. Within these groupings, those items with relatively low

index weights or those items which are variants of other items have typically been

chosen; examples include small brown loaf of bread, coleslaw, multipack of

orange juice, dining room table, and child’s car seat, all of which leave the basket

in 2006 without replacements. In each case, it is judged that price changes for

these goods remain adequately represented by those items that remain in the

basket. The removal of items in such cases therefore represents a rebalancing of

the basket, helping to offset the expansion of coverage in other product areas.

As far as I can tell, the variables up for manipulation are only limited to what goes in the basket, what weighting is applied and how much that item costs.

Edited by DissipatedYouthIsValuable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest grumpy-old-man
Here's some reading matter on the subject

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojo...basket_2006.pdf

thanks Pete. ;)

taken from the pdf:

"However, availability of some food and clothing items

such as sprouts and certain coats for example are seasonal, and therefore require a

slightly different treatment in the indices."

this sums it up for me, I really don't need to read any further. ffs. :blink:

Edited by grumpy-old-man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.