Editing Boskin Commission (section)

[[File:2002-07-31-Wild-vs-Mild-S1.png|thumb]]

The '''Boskin Commission''', formally the ''Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index'', was established in 1995 by U.S. Senators Bob Packwood and Daniel Moynihan, with the ostensible mandate to examine the accuracy of the [[CPI|Consumer Price Index (CPI)]], which is a measure of inflation. The commission concluded in its 1996 report that the CPI overstated inflation by about 1.1 percentage points annually.

Eric Weinstein claims that the '''Boskin Commission''' was essentially a covert operation to manipulate the [[CPI]] in order to justify cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits and raising taxes. 

Specifically, Eric claims:
* The '''Boskin Commission''', driven by senators Moynihan and Packwood who selected a small team of five economists (including Dale Jorgenson, Michael Boskin, Ellen Dulberger, Robert Gordon, and Zvi Griliches), set out to find an “overstatement” in the [[CPI]].
* The commission’s true goal was to engineer a 1.1% [[CPI]] overstatement, which would result in a trillion-dollar reduction in government outlays over 10 years.
* To achieve this, the team allegedly split into two groups, each coming up with partial inflation numbers (like 0.5% and 0.6%) that added up to the 1.1% figure they needed—an approach that amounted to enormously consequential academic malpractice.
* Eric Weinstein and his wife and collaborator, Pia Malaney, (who was then a graduate student in the Harvard economics department) were directly engaged with closely related mathematical and economic problems—using advanced methods like gauge theory to tackle the real issue of how to measure cost-of-living changes. In contrast, the Boskin Commission wasn’t actually trying to solve the problem of accurate inflation measurement. Instead, it was a politically motivated operation designed to produce a 1.1% overstatement in the [[CPI]] to justify cutting Social Security and Medicare by a trillion dollars over 10 years. Weinstein and Malaney's work stood directly in the way of this agenda.
* The '''Boskin Commission's''' conclusion was not an innocent error or technical oversight, but rather a deliberate manipulation—academic malpractice carried out at scale by powerful Harvard economists who rigged the numbers to meet a political target. 
* This was a “perfect crime” that manipulated technical economic data to shift wealth away from retirees and the vulnerable, calling it “the greatest theft in modern American history.” Because it was buried under a mountain of economic jargon and complexity, it was almost impossible for the public—or even many economists—to grasp or object to what had really happened. The manipulation was shielded from scrutiny not only by the technicality of the subject matter, but also by the immense prestige and power of the people involved. As a result, even though it had massive real-world effects—cutting trillions of dollars in benefits—most people, including many economists, were unaware or unwilling to challenge the story.
* The effects of this manipulation continue to this day, with trillions of dollars lost, while the truth remains largely unspoken because of the reputations and entanglements of those involved.
* This wasn’t just about economic data—it was about enforcing intellectual control. In academia and economics, those who challenge these kinds of manipulations risk professional destruction. There is an unethical destruction of colleagues—a culture of silencing and punishing dissenters to protect certain interests. This combination of intellectual intimidation and technical obfuscation has allowed this act of academic theft to go unchallenged and ignored for decades, despite its enormous consequences.