|
Below is an extract from a commentary originally posted at www.speculative-investor.com on
26th March 2006.
The attempts of modern statisticians to create an index that represents the
average price in the economy can be likened to the attempts made by the alchemists
of old to change non-precious metals into gold. In both cases the idea is appealing,
but the objective is impossible.
The impossibility of determining a meaningful number that represents the average
price in the economy quickly becomes apparent if we think in terms of the price
of money as opposed to the price of a good or a service, that is, if we think
in terms of how many things it takes to buy one dollar instead of how many
dollars it takes to buy some thing. For example, if the price of an apple is
one dollar and the price of a new car is 30,000 dollars and the price of a
day's labour is 150 dollars then it can be said that the price of one dollar
is one apple in one situation, 1/30000th of a new car in another situation,
and 1/150th of a day's labour in yet another situation. So, what is the average
of an apple, 1/30000th of a new car and 1/150th of a day's labour? Obviously
there isn't one because it makes no sense to calculate the average of totally
disparate things. By the same token it is nonsensical to attempt to calculate
the average price within the economy.
Following on from the above, it is not possible to determine the effects of
inflation by measuring changes in an index that purportedly represents the
average price. However, there are many economic statisticians who are as committed
to their impossible goal as were the alchemists of ancient times.
The river of futility rises even further, though, because the meaningless
numbers that result from attempts to calculate the average price in the economy
are adjusted -- ostensibly to make them more representative of the real world
-- by taking into account changes in people's buying habits and changes in
product quality. With regard to the former, the assumption is made that an
increase in the price of beef should not be fully reflected in the price index
because some of the people who had been eating beef will avoid paying the higher
price by switching to chicken, or pork, or, if need be, dog food; the implication
being that a price increase shouldn't count as long as it is possible to substitute
a cheaper product for the one whose price is rising. This seems more than a
trifle unreasonable to us, but in any case it's the validity of the latter,
that is, the validity of adjusting the already-meaningless price indices to
account for changes in product quality (a practice known as hedonic adjusting)
that we want to deal with today.
The idea behind hedonic adjustments is that if today's product is much better
than last year's product then we can't just subtract last year's price from
this year's price to determine the effects of inflation; rather, in order to
make an 'apples to apples' comparison we must account for the value-adding
changes that have been made to the product. To take a specific example, the
cars of today are vastly superior to the cars that were being produced in 1950.
Therefore, in order to determine what effect inflation has had on the price
of a new car over the past 50 years it would make sense, according to those
who advocate the use of "hedonic adjustments", to assign a dollar value to
all the improvements that have been made over the course of this period and
to subtract this allowance from the current price to come up with a hedonically-adjusted
current price. It would then be reasonable to compare this (downwardly) adjusted
current price to the old price to estimate what effect, if any, inflation has
had on the purchasing power of the currency. Right?
Wrong! At first glance there might appear to be some validity to the argument
that a product whose price rises by 10% hasn't really experienced a price rise
at all if it is now at least 10% better than it was, but note that in a free
or even a semi-free economy the natural tendency is for products to get better
AND for prices to trend lower. Putting it another way, due to technological
advances in particular and productivity gains in general you will, over the
long-term, tend to get more for less. Taking the car example mentioned above,
if there had been no inflation during the intervening period then the price
of a new car today would probably be LESS than the price of a new car in 1950;
so the true effect of inflation on the price of a new car would equal the increase
in price that has occurred PLUS the amount that the price would otherwise have
FALLEN (due to productivity growth and technological advances) in the absence
of inflation.
The bottom line is that the "hedonic adjusting" of prices is just another
way of hoodwinking people into believing that the effects of inflation are
less than they actually are.
|