At this point I am more inclined to trust the math nerds at MIT versus either the official CPI stats OR Mauldin because to some extent they have no bone in the fight one way or the other. They are not selling financial products nor are they selling favorable stats to satisfy the government entities that may want to undersell the effects of inflation.kevin: "To expect to print and print and print and take monetary supply to unprecedented levels relative to economic output and not have repercussions seems unlikely to me. When or how those materialize is beyond me,"That's the thing. People like Hussman who make the scary predictions that "sound right" (to people like me) keep losing money (or failing to make money with their money) and keep making the scary predictions. He may well be proven right some day, but when?It seems to me that actual math, done by places like MIT, are our best bet even if we have criticisms of a particular data set presented here on a message board. In the meantime, I fully understand the decision to be skeptical about the official stats (i.e., 2% cpi) but I am even more skeptical abou the stats at the start of this thread (i.e., 5-8%) which appear to me to be even more absurd than the official CPI.In other words, even if the math nerds are using stats that people here find imperfect, the stats that started this thread appear to me to be completely unfounded, if not fabricated.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M