• Comment (4)

Federal Reserve Abandons Core Consumer Price Index

January 26, 2012 RSS Feed Print

David Shulman is a retired Wall Street executive who is now a senior economist at the UCLA Anderson Forecast. He is also affiliated with Baruch College (CUNY) and the University of Wisconsin.

Amidst all the hoopla surrounding the Federal Reserve's announcement yesterday of long term policy, the Fed statement was very clear that the relevant measure is the deflator for personal consumption expenditures, which is the broadest measure of prices in the economy. The Fed made a fundamental policy change in moving away from the concept of core Consumer Price Index which excludes food and energy, as its key inflation measure. Their exact words were,

The inflation rate over the longer run is primarily determined by monetary policy, and hence the Committee has the ability to specify a longer-run goal for inflation. The Committee judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's statutory mandate targets.

[Read: Fed Opens Up on Interest Rate, Inflation Predictions]

The concept of core CPI was invented in the early 1970s by then-Fed Chairman Arthur Burns to allow for an easier monetary policy in the face of rapidly rising oil and food prices. The economic argument for this new concept of inflation was that it avoided transitory elements driving the inflation rate. However, as we all know energy prices have risen inexorably higher over the past four decades.

Thus the Fed's experiment with unusually low interest rates for a very long time could run aground if it triggers another commodity price bubble as it did last year. If the 2 percent target is for real, the Fed could very well be tested sooner than it would like.

The flip side of the policy change is that housing is weighted far lower in the consumption deflator than it is in the Consumer Price Index. Thus the incipient inflation in rents will be downplayed in the new measure. Perhaps the Fed is fearful that rising rents would make it difficult to maintain its zero interest rate policy going forward. Time will tell.

Tags:
inflation,
economy,
Federal Reserve

Reader Comments Read all comments (4)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

when these kind of changes are made the end result is a massive win for the gov. It gives a false picture of the inflation rate and those of us who have to rely on cola adjustments to keep our head above water are short changed thus the government has a wind fall in the form of funds they no longer have to pay due to the colas being based on a false premise.

once again those in power have succeeded in stealing promised funds from those to whom the promise was made to cover the excessive spending they love to engage in.

ken Eddy of TX 10:17AM December 28, 2012

Retired Feb 2002 age 60.5 with full retirement anunity, but now 16.85% monthly is taken by the cpi. Does anyone know where it explains the railroad retirement act and reailroad retirement bill doesn't mean what it says about full retirement.

As of Dec 31, 2011 $21,000 has been deducted via the cpi since Feb 2002 earning the private trust fund $210,000 at the rate of return as did the rail carriers annual stock report show. Thats is $2.50 per dollar investment. We already had all the contrubutions in the trust fund when we retired and why is the cpi withheld amount being given to the trust fund. I've yet to find on rrb.gov ssa.gov, union websites a step by step explanation how private trust fund anunities got under the cpi, whereas the trust fund keep the cpi withholding amount montly which they've now $210,000 in earnings from my full retirement anunity?

All I've hear is that it is complex, but complex broken down into steps can be done and should be done. Under the railroad retirement act only the joint agreement of the rail carriers, unions, and congress should rrb anunities be under the cpi.

I see no point in giving 16.85% of our contrubutions awards for FULL retirement back to the trust fund. I would like a step by step explanation which should be on the gov websites but it is not.

dave of TX 8:50PM March 01, 2012

Let's just remove everything that significantly affects a consumers budget to get as rosy of a picture as possible. Housing, food and energy costs are the biggest line items in people's budgets. I'd be loaded if I were able to exclude those items from my "bank account index".

Those also are the items with the most price volatility. So it seems very possible to hit a 2% inflation rate outside of those core components. Doesn't mean squat though if the big elephant in the room is ignored.

So, it seems like a failed policy, accounting fraud, and a horrible use of public funds from the get go.

Mike of PA 11:46AM January 27, 2012

Economic Intelligence

Insights, perspectives, and commentary on the economy. Follow it on Twitter @EconomicIntel.

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement