Editing Boskin Commission (section)

=== 2021 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1371190427261399042
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Yes. But it is “You pl.” My co-discoverer is @PiaMalaney who Maldacena sourced but didn’t (originally) cite.

You can read all about the discovery and burial of Gauge Theoretic economics by the '''Boskin Commissioners''' on the Harvard Economics Faculty in “The Physics of Wall Street.”
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Pittypatches-profile-AHldvDCh.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Pittypatches/status/1371166825472536577
|name=PittyPat
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Pittypatches
|username=Pittypatches
|content=Wait was it you? Cause that's pretty damn funny if true
|timestamp=6:30 PM · Mar 14, 2021
}}
|timestamp=8:04 PM · Mar 14, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1371904282853732355
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I just need to face up to the fact that I need to rethink all my academic internet interchanges.

I can’t do this. This is pointless. First Maldacena. Now, implicitly, Jorgensen and the '''Boskin commission'''. It’s too absurd and it’s not going to get smarter or stop.

Recalculating..
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1371903335989616640
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You’ve got to be kidding me. Now *I* am being lectured on index numbers?

Uh. Ok. [Breathe]

With all due respect: economists simply do not understand index numbers. And they hunt down all those who point this out.

I have to rethink my internet usage. This is getting too stupid.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=MacRoweNick-profile-89uexB2X.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/MacRoweNick/status/1371848689069797390
|name=Nick Rowe
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MacRoweNick
|username=MacRoweNick
|content=Eric: that's what a "Price Index" does.
Some economists spend a lot of time comparing the pros and cons of different ways of constructing a price index. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_index
|timestamp=3:39 PM · Mar 16, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:16 PM · Mar 16, 2021
}}
|timestamp=7:20 PM · Mar 16, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1382366173073793027
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The moral of the story to me is this:

We can’t have outside folks calculating and theorizing while the inside economists are fudging and cooking the books.

And calling me crazy won’t change a thing when this is finally understood. It’s simply institutional academic malpractice.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1382366169257021441
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=One of the things my trolls like to point to is outrageous claims.

One of my most *outrageous* is that my joint work on a 2nd Marginal Revolution for economics was scuttled by the Harvard Department of Economics '''Boskin Commissioners'''.

Yet it’s admitted:

https://ritholtz.com/2010/01/why-michael-boskin-deserves-our-contempt/
|timestamp=4:12 PM · Apr 14, 2021
|media1=Greg-Mankiw-CPI-Boskin-Ey8mtHXVoAMUYqS.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1382366170766987269
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s kind of an interesting puzzle. Why is it that a Harvard Professor (Mankiw) can say the truth which is that this was a conspiracy to cut entitlements. But the only two people who can CALCULATE a COLA for changing tastes are crazy for saying their work was deliberately buried?
|timestamp=4:12 PM · Apr 14, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1382366171542876166
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In any event, I stand by my claim. The '''Boskin Commission''' was organized by Moynihan and Packwood to deliberately break the [[CPI]] in a precise amount to avoid the US paying 1 trillion dollars over 10 years.

And I promise you no leading economist will call bullshit to debate this.
|timestamp=4:12 PM · Apr 14, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1382366172302041100
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=On of the reasons is that one of the commissioners bragged about this being the motivation behind the scenes.

Okay. So why can’t we have gauge theoretic economics reevaluated? Everyone admits this is what happened. Why continue to bury the advance?

I dunno. But it’s amazing!
|timestamp=4:12 PM · Apr 14, 2021
}}
|timestamp=4:12 PM · Apr 14, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404695010600120326
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Moral: Gauge Theory fixes this intellectual corruption problem of economic imperialism, and #btc, blockchains and Crytpo can help.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693220848590851
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[CPI]] is broken. Why?

Think of [[CPI]] as a gauge like a thermometer. You can’t have politically motivated folks making your thermometers or they can change the design to cover up climate change. Likewise you can’t have economists changing the gauge to disguise the effect of printing.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=samkazemian-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/samkazemian/status/1404565972728487939
|name=sam.frax
|usernameurl=https://x.com/samkazemian
|username=samkazemian
|content=A crypto native CPI governed on the blockchain to create a decentralized stablecoin people can rely on to keep their standard of living the same across time. A true alternative to fiat rather than a speculative investment asset like most other coins.
|timestamp=6:52 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:52 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693222324989964
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The economists can’t yet compute a dynamic Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment or COLA or “Chained Changing Preference Ordinal Welfare Konus Index” to be perfectly pedantic. Not because it doesn’t exist. But because they don’t have the math and don’t want to lose their finger on the scale.
|timestamp=6:52 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693223138684929
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We must take [[CPI]] away from those who wish to back out a political agenda of printing money, raising our taxes by indexed tax brackets and slashing our indexed social security &amp; Medicare.

Economics can’t construct dynamic economic gauges like [[CPI]]/GDP until it learns [[Gauge Theory|gauge thy]].
|timestamp=6:52 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693223973347335
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But more importantly, we have a culture that economics literally trumpets (and I swear I am not making this up) “Economic Imperialism”. It is “we know math and you don’t”-culture.

No. They don’t know their own math. I will debate any high ranking economist on this point.
|timestamp=6:52 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693225063940103
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s time to reveal that economics, far from embracing math or having physics envy, is deliberately avoiding solutions to old problems so that it can make up new gauges for [[CPI]]/GDP at will while telling the rest of the soft sciences “We know your field better because we do math.”
|timestamp=6:52 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693225873448963
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=No. Economics is a avoiding gauge theory, connections, Lie Groups, etc so it can retain its political relevance as an expert consultancy. I’m with the crypto folks on this. Our economy must be protected from Seigniorage (printing money) and [[CPI]] tampering (e.g. '''Boskin Commission''').
|timestamp=6:52 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693226695499782
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[CPI]] should not…MUST NOT…be adjustable to disguise inflation. It needs to be protected from the FED diluting the power of money and the BLS being free to disguise the effects by changing the method of construction.

{{#widget:YouTube|id=XjCAsXUDvno}}
|timestamp=6:52 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693228473880576
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=End the forced wealth transfers of central bankers covering up their own failures with “Relief”, “Easing”, “Stimulous”, “Rescues”, “Toxic Asset Purchases”, and other bailouts of our incompetent financial overlords.

We must protect [[CPI]] from economists disguising wealth dilution.
|timestamp=6:52 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693229245657094
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=P.S. before you remind me how arrogant this sounds, keep in mind, that I am willing to debate this publicly with any leading economist eager to defend the central bankers and triumphalist theorists openly bragging about their math. Read this, and be sick:

https://nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w7300/w7300.pdf
|timestamp=6:52 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:59 AM · Jun 15, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1423394651373858816
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This eliminates a step or two. You may have to watch in lower resolution if you are on your phone however: https://x.com/sabinowitz/status/1423394091409330182
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1423391836417056773
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I am wholly supportive of this effort. Whether this iteration succeeds or fails is immaterial. The important thing is to take inflation away from those who would disguise:

A) The printing of fiat money by central bankers. 

B) The fact that economists are holding back the field.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=balajis-profile-LOUb2m4R.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/balajis/status/1423330960481816582
|name=Balaji
|usernameurl=https://x.com/balajis
|username=balajis
|content=A truly global inflation dashboard would be the next coinmarketcap. It'd be bigger than that, in fact.

So we're offering a little prize to build one.
|timestamp=5:11 PM · Aug 5, 2021
}}
|timestamp=9:13 PM · Aug 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1423391838778527746
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Why are they holding back the theory of index numbers ([[CPI]], GDP)? Because the more innovation, the less freedom to dial our gauges to whatever values the political patrons of macro economics ask. The field is literally held back by leading economists to preserve their own power.
|timestamp=9:13 PM · Aug 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1423391839638364162
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Around 1996, '''Boskin Commissioner''' Jorgensen held back the biggest unambiguous advance in mathematical economics that I am aware of in decades. It would have interfered with their finding that the [[CPI]] was 1.1% overstated. He calculated 1.1% would save a round Trillion for U.S.
|timestamp=9:13 PM · Aug 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1423391840535863296
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We can’t afford for economics to pretend it is a science in public, yet act as an incentive operated consultancy which can get you any result you need to fit the political agenda. 

So this effort of @balajis needs to be supported! We must take this away from our current leaders.
|timestamp=9:13 PM · Aug 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1423391841592901635
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Inflation is like a thermometer. You ask how hot/cold it is. You don’t get to ask “What do you need the Gauge to say? How much thumb should be on the scale?” 

This is all discussed in detail by Jim Weatherall in his book in the final chapter/epilogue:

https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Wall-Street-Predicting-Unpredictable-ebook/dp/B006R8PMJS/ref=nodl_
|timestamp=9:13 PM · Aug 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1423391842624696321
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Lastly, it is high time my co-developer of the theory got her due without being subjected to both the Matilda &amp; Matthew effects. Man-boys really do drive technical women out of technical fields because they can’t cite a woman who is smarter than they are. Enough.

Go @balajis.
|timestamp=9:13 PM · Aug 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1423391843572617218
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The co-developer of gauge thy in econ as a 2nd Marginal Revolution is Pia Malaney in the early 1990s at Harvard.

There is no reason to pretend this inflation thy never happened just to flatter power. Let’s disintermediate the old:

{{#widget:YouTube|id=zwiHv7xVQ_c}}

https://www.openculture.com/2018/08/the-matilda-effect.html
|timestamp=9:13 PM · Aug 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1423392839568789504
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I think this is a great introduction to geometric marginalism and economic field theory. Hope you love it: 

https://www.fields.utoronto.ca/talks/neoclassical-mechanics-economic-field-theory
|timestamp=9:17 PM · Aug 5, 2021
}}
|timestamp=9:25 PM · Aug 5, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1456428604246560776
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=<nowiki>*</nowiki>leads not leases in the above.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1456319697855528960
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=ANNOUNCEMENT: I head next week to @UChicago  for 5 days (Nov. 8-12) at the request of its storied Department of Economics to present our theory that all of economics is based on the wrong version of the differential calculus.

Importantly, this error afflicts Inflation &amp; the [[CPI]].
|timestamp=5:57 PM · Nov 4, 2021
|media1=Gauge_Theory_UChicago_Talk_Cover.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=PeterRyan-profile-MGctNrxp.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/_PeterRyan/status/1456400865766490117
|name=Peter Ryan
|usernameurl=https://x.com/_PeterRyan
|username=_PeterRyan
|content=Hi Eric, where can I find your calculations, data, and conclusions on what the real inflation and CPI numbers are?
|timestamp=11:19 AM · Nov 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1456406149020872704
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Weird question. You seem to have me confused for the BLS. I don't take in Data. I don't have a staff or a budget. You're assuming that I have the 'Real Inflation &amp; [[CPI]] numbers'. I don't.

This is about not even having a correct *theory* to calculate. What we corrected was theory.
|timestamp=11:40 PM · Nov 4, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1456406149020872704
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Just to give you an idea:
|media1=ERW-X-post-1456406937155764225-FDYyVfZUcAQipT1.jpg
|timestamp=11:44 PM · Nov 4, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=PeterRyan-profile-MGctNrxp.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/_PeterRyan/status/1456407821247938562
|name=Peter Ryan
|usernameurl=https://x.com/_PeterRyan
|username=_PeterRyan
|content=So if you have the correct theory then why wouldn't you be able to calculate the correct results from the existing input data available?
|timestamp=11:47 AM · Nov 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1456426248326897666
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I didn’t say what you said. I said there was a wrong theory for [[CPI]]. We corrected that theory.

The issue of how to implement a theory in practice leases to different data being collected and different aggregations. For a different theory, you would collect different data.
|timestamp=1:00 AM · Nov 5, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1456427997813116928
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As an example. The '''Boskin commission''' gave a single illustrative example in their report using two goods, chicken and beef. They gave prices but not ordinal utility. Here is the COL answer assuming Cobb-Douglas and Linear interpolation of all quantities. They could not compute it.
|timestamp=1:07 AM · Nov 5, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1456427997813116928-FDZFiwNUYAUWtIs.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1456428415842586631
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The reason they had no theory to cover it was because the C-D exponent changed. And there is a claim that no extension of the Konus COL exists for dynamic tastes. 

Hope that helps with your confusion. Be well.
|timestamp=1:09 AM · Nov 5, 2021
}}
|timestamp=1:10 AM · Nov 5, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1476132726084280321
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’m prepared to have high level conversations about this. But our current system is an abomination. No one knows what is in or out. It’s a black box that means little. The theory is bad. The explanations are fake. And the system is opaque. Even a Laspeyres without lies is better.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1476058806555578370
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The funniest part of our inflation measure is the “.8” here. 

I so wish they were a little bolder and went with “6.8139942%, plus or minus 3*10**(-7) according to a Lowe index modified by hedonic adjustment for sub-aggregates” or some such.

More of us could share such a moment.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=charliebilello-profile.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/charliebilello/status/1474396489938083861
|name=Charlie Bilello
|usernameurl=https://x.com/charliebilello
|username=charliebilello
|content=5 / The 6.8% inflation rate in the US is the highest inflation we've seen since 1982 and is understating true price increases as it assumes "shelter" (largest component of CPI @ 33%) only increased 3.8% in the last year.

Breakdown of reported CPI: 
|media1=charliebilello-X-post-1474394587825418246-FHYZj9XXoAIPfHi.jpg
|timestamp=3:08 PM · Dec 24, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:13 AM · Dec 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1476058808375918592
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The meaning of the .8 is significant, but only because of the wealth that will be transferred by it. It is not really meaningful as part of a measure of the cost of living for the representative consumer.

It’s effectively made up to make the “6.x” look solid. Which it isn’t.
|timestamp=5:13 AM · Dec 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=b_bran223-profile-oTqdZAfO.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/b_bran223/status/1476074954332508165
|name=JAB
|usernameurl=https://x.com/b_bran223
|username=b_bran223
|content=Do you actually have a point here? Your quibble is with the “.8” because it “makes the 6.x look good”??? How do you figure. I honestly think you tweet sometimes purely for the sake of it
|timestamp=5:17 AM · Dec 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1476085541774917635
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Actually there are many points.

Inflation isn’t a number it’s a field.

Inflation is path dependent.

Don’t advertise precision that doesn’t exist.

[[CPI]] is not yet in the COL framework as claimed by BLS.

Path dependence should be embraced. 

Etc.

My followers have heard them.
|timestamp=6:59 AM · Dec 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=b_bran223-profile-oTqdZAfO.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/b_bran223/status/1476074954332508165
|name=JAB
|usernameurl=https://x.com/b_bran223
|username=b_bran223
|content=Eric, I am one such enlightened follower..

In what regard/magnitude is stochastic path dependency to change such CPI value if prior estimates are proportionately miscalculated? At this point in time, how best would you gauge the relative rate?
|timestamp=5:17 AM · Dec 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=b_bran223-profile-oTqdZAfO.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/b_bran223/status/1476074954332508165
|name=JAB
|usernameurl=https://x.com/b_bran223
|username=b_bran223
|content=This seems to be more along the line of your “nuclear vs nucular” reference by which we quibble about semantics, with absurdly low impact on the end problem. The lack of precision for x path dependent function would similarly yield y persons debating lack of precision..
|timestamp=5:21 AM · Dec 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1476129648845078530
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I don’t want to go into it all here. But here is what I want.

A) BLS stops lying about COL framework. Stops hand waving about economic vs mechanical indexes.

B) Stop readying c-cpi-u to take over from cpi-u. We can see you coming.

C) Move towards personalized CPI using inputs.
|timestamp=9:55 AM · Dec 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1476130653548658689
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=D) Embrace curvature if moving to chaining.

E) Publish methodology of basket or representative consumer(s). BLS isn’t an oracle.

F) Consider moving to a Cobb-Douglas/CES aware changing preference  mechanical index if wedded to COL.

G) Admit to conflicts of interest ('''Boskin''').
|timestamp=9:59 AM · Dec 29, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1476132066378928128
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=H) Move to field theoretic &amp; group-valued indices (e.g. GL(2, R) indices for trade).

I) Stop trying to hide Holonomy. It’s there. Accept that it is supposed to be there rather than hiding it with Walsh multi-period circularity test.

Etc.

But please stop making vacuous claims.
|timestamp=10:04 AM · Dec 29, 2021
}}
|timestamp=10:07 AM · Dec 29, 2021
}}