CPI: Difference between revisions

Eric Weinstein's position on '''CPI''' and inflation is a multifaceted critique that combines technical rigor with allegations of institutional malfeasance. He views the '''CPI''' not as an objective measure but as a manipulable gauge, exemplified by the [[Boskin Commission]]'s interventions and the suppression of gauge-theoretic innovations. By understating inflation, Weinstein argues, policymakers enable wealth transfers from the vulnerable to the powerful, while economists' mathematical blind spots perpetuate discretionary errors. His calls for transparency, methodological debate, and decentralized alternatives reflect a broader push against gated narratives in economics. These views invite further scholarly examination of index construction and its socioeconomic ramifications, potentially bridging physics and economics in novel ways.

|content=Telomeres, Scientist Shortages, Seiberg Witten, Inflation ('''CPI'''), E8 TOE, Immigration, Neoclassical tastes all now have fictional narratives.

|content=To @MSNBC, @AndrewYang is pathologically anti-interesting. Flight 800 is pretty anti-interesting as was the [[Boskin Commission|Boskin Commission’s]] attempt to transfer 1 Trillion Dollars by hacking the '''CPI'''. The H1-B visa history is [[Anti-Interesting|anti-interesting]]. As are broken laboratory mice with long telomeres.

It’s COVID pronouncements. Or String Theory. Or '''CPI''' revisions. Or “[[Labor Shortages]]”. Or fast-track trade treaties:

|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.

|content=Moral: whoever constructs '''CPI''' and GDP numbers in a dynamic economy is in a position to fake higher growth and lower inflation if they are also in a position to stop the field from debating methodological advances that would restrict the freedom to make up index number recipes. 🙏

|content=Watch the US '''CPI''' revisions and methodology going forward. People who like to print money tend to want to change their definition of inflation and therefore don’t like anyone taking away freedom to make up methodologies to suit their political objectives involving wealth transfer.

|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.

|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.

|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 & Medicare.

Economics can’t construct dynamic economic gauges like '''CPI'''/GDP until it learns [[Gauge Theory|gauge thy]].

|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.”

|content=No. Economics is an 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]]).

|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.

We must protect '''CPI''' from economists disguising wealth dilution.

|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.

|content=Around 1996, [[Boskin Commission|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.

|content=For the technically inclined who are wondering about the measurment & theory of Inflation/'''CPI''' construction, I highly recommend the following search terms: "Konus index", "superlative index", "Divisia Index", "cycling problem", "mechanical index number", "COLA" and "chain index".

J) Adulteration of BLS '''CPI''' measure of inflation.

|content=Can just *one* of them compute a simple Cost-Of-Living '''CPI''' for a consumer whose notion of well-being evolves even *slightly* during any period in question?  

|content=Please retweet the top tweet if you're followed by economists & others interested in the debate over inflation and '''CPI''', and your followers would find a new geometric Marginal Revolution of interest. Thanks! cc: @tylercowen, @Breedlove22, @paulmromer, @PeterMcCormack, @EconTalker.

|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 & '''CPI''' numbers'. I don't.

|content=I didn’t say what you said. I said there was a wrong theory for '''CPI'''. We corrected that theory.

|content=See you in Chicago. Let's take back '''CPI''' inflation which leads to mega transfers, from our unaccountable 'experts' before the money supply, modern monetary theory, and '''CPI''' hacking transfer even more of the wealth of ordinary people to those few who hold significant risk assets. 🙏

|content=The academic economists need to learn a lesson that the public is not going to stand again for revisions in '''CPI''' that disguise inflation, tax us through indexing our  brackets, or impoverish us through under compensating cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security and Medicare.

|content=The two most dangerous printing presses in Washington DC are directed by the Federal Reserve to dilute our dollar assets, and the @BLS_gov to print '''CPI''' inflation numbers that increase taxes through underindexed brackets & slash entitlements we pay into over our working lives.

|content=Great news, given that *every* tick of your BLS '''CPI''' forces billions of dollars to change hands.

"The concept of the cost-of-living index guides the '''CPI''' measurement objective and is the standard by which any bias in the CPI is defined."

Q: How does chained '''CPI''' calculate taste change given the claim of the fed that time varying ordinal preferences cannot be tracked in COL even in theory?

|content=And, no, the answers to these questions are NOT in the BLS handbook on '''CPI''' methodology. I’ve looked.

[Word to the wise: watch very very carefully how your '''CPI''' is constructed. You have the right to know EXACTLY how it is constructed.]

Breakdown of reported '''CPI''':  

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

|content=Even assuming all these sub-indexes are correct, meaningful, and were facing all of us equally, given the 4-49% spread, wouldn’t you expect '''CPI''' would be cast as field rather than a scalar variable? That the representative consumer would be clearly described?  

|content=Further Tastes evolve. So stylized dynamic seasonal taste modeling  should be a personalized map of S^1 X R^1 into preference space. Mapping that worldsheet of tastes to a point is totally unjustified in the literature. But we’ve built a machine that needs '''CPI''' as a scalar. Ergo..

|content=Then we claim '''CPI''' is a Cost Of Living index and that BLS has accepted the COL framework. Which it hasn’t. It mumbles something about “superlative index numbers” and “work of Erwin Diewert” to avoid the fact that it refuses to take into account how we actually substitute goods.

|content=[[Boskin Commission|BOSKIN PRINCIPLE]]: “Tell us what number you want to see for '''CPI''', and we can create a “representative consumer” and choice of Index number & methodology to print you *exactly* the number you requested.”

'''CPI''' just isn’t a number. It’s supposed to be a field on a path space of loops.

|content=This is what happens at BLS when we pretend work on '''CPI''' and geometric index numbers never happened. A geometric dictionary:

|content=Monthly Reminder Moral: it’s really really really hard to fake a field. Economic Index Numbers like '''CPI''' are not real numbers. They are naturally group-valued *FIELDS* that would be nearly impossible to fake and manipulate.  

|content=I understand that '''CPI''' is 7.5%.  

|content=COMPETITION: which economists can truly explain the .5% precision in 7.5% '''CPI'''? #EconTwitter  

Demand '''CPI''' be a field.

|content=You can *force* your representatives to hold deep painful searching hearings. What is our problem with forcing open hearings on Epstein, Wuhan/Covid-19, Afghanistan, '''CPI'''?

BLS Economists: US '''CPI''' is 7.9%

By contrast, Economists tell us your '''CPI''' is 8.3%. Discuss.

|content=That is not gauge theoretic yet because we are assuming fixed tastes. But we have to understand the **mountain** of layered nonsensical assumptions in '''CPI''' measurements of COL inflation. '''CPI''' as COL isn’t even consistent with pre-gauge theoretic theory. It’s sort of unbelievable.

Would you like to talk about the [[Boskin Commission]] & the @BLS_gov pretending to move to a COLA for '''CPI'''?

|content=How to view Fauci, Daszak, '''CPI''', etc.:

A1: Because a true COLA is not an index on baskets (mechanical index) but on welfare derived from baskets (economic index). BLS misrepresents '''CPI''' being COLA-driven abusing work of Erwin Diewert on Superlative indices. A COLA prices WELFARE.

|content=Either do something to save yourselves or continue to sit & wait to be eaten by the Fed and @BLS_gov’s fakely precise single number '''CPI'''.  

'''CPI''' as Tax Increase/SS Reduction</br>

|content=Word to the wise: watch when they figure out the work on '''CPI''' and, most importantly, [[Theory of Geometric Unity|GU]]. “Gonna be lit.”  

Money supply changes on '''CPI'''?

Ask questions about COVID, [[String Theory]], '''CPI''', etc and you will *not* find this. 🙏

|content=I see. Would you like to discuss the '''CPI''' & theory behind it?

|content=Your Economics department took orders from 2 senators (Packwood (R) &amp; Moynihan (D)) as an extension of the USG to bury my research w/ P Malaney so that it could fake a 1.1% '''CPI''' overstatement to raise Taxes (via indexed brackets) and cut SS payments (via COLAs)!

“Somehow” involved destroying anyone who said “'''CPI''' doesn’t work like that at all! It’s not a number you can dial to get consequences you like.”

|content=Your professors and department joined a hit job that was openly a government special purpose creation to cryptically slash benefits and raise taxes via a back door. The '''CPI'''!  

|content=I’ve got it! Let’s hire 2 @HarvardEcon Economists &amp; their friends to say our '''CPI''' is massively overstated by 1.1%, to raise billions in tax revenue and slash billions in Social Security/Medicare. Yet again!

Q: "Why is your work on '''CPI''' controversial? Why is it attacked and laughed at? Isn't '''CPI''' just a backwater of economics anyway?"

The @BLS_gov is like a second Federal Reserve operating through '''CPI'''. WAKE UP. This isn't about Billions. It's about Trillions. It's about taxing you and denying you benefits that you paid for. Without ever waking you up. It's not about inflation measurement. It's about you sleeping through the constant involutary transfer of your wealth."