<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Brothers Austrian &#187; cpi</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.brothersaustrian.com/tag/cpi/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.brothersaustrian.com</link>
	<description>An economics blog in the Austrian tradition, written by two brothers, one teacher and one bond trader</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:30:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>CPI Missed the Housing Bubble</title>
		<link>http://www.brothersaustrian.com/cpi-missed-the-housing-bubble/</link>
		<comments>http://www.brothersaustrian.com/cpi-missed-the-housing-bubble/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:32:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MisesBeliever</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Inflation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hazlitt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[housing bubble]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brothersaustrian.com/?p=152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A co-worker of mine recently put me on to a great op-ed that was in WSJ Monday morning by on Bubble economics by Steven Gjerstad and Nobel Laurelate Vernon Smith. The whole article is fantastic but I want to focus on one small part of it that really baffled me: &#8220;In 1983, the Bureau of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A co-worker of mine recently put me on to a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123897612802791281.html"> great op-ed that was in WSJ Monday morning</a> by on Bubble economics by Steven Gjerstad and Nobel Laurelate Vernon Smith. The whole article is fantastic but I want to focus on one small part of it that really baffled me:</p>
<blockquote><p><em>&#8220;In 1983, the Bureau of Labor Statistics began to use [for CPI] rental equivalence for homeowner-occupied units instead of direct home-ownership costs. Between 1983 and 1996, the price-to-rental ratio increased from 19.0 to 20.2, so the change had little effect on measured inflation: The CPI underestimated inflation by about 0.1 percentage point per year during this period. Between 1999 and 2006, the price-to-rent ratio shot up from 20.8 to 32.3.</em></p>
<p><em>With home price increases out of the CPI and the price-to-rent ratio rapidly increasing, an important component of inflation remained outside the index. In 2004 alone, the price-rent ratio increased 12.3%. Inflation for that year was underestimated by 2.9 percentage points (since “owners’ equivalent rent” is about 23% of the CPI). If home-ownership costs were included in the CPI, inflation would have been 6.2% instead of 3.3%.</em></p>
<p><em>With nominal interest rates around 6% and inflation around 6%, the real interest rate was near zero, so household borrowing took off. As measured by the Case-Shiller 10 city index, the accumulated inflation in home-ownership costs between January 1999 and June 2006 was 151%, but the CPI measured a mere 23% increase. As the Federal Reserve monitored inflation in the early part of this decade, home-price increases were no longer visible in the CPI, so the lax monetary policy continued. Even after the Fed began to slowly raise the fed-funds rate in May 2004, the average rate remained low and the bubble continued to inflate for two more years.&#8221;</em></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>So what does owners equivalent rent really mean according to the BLS?</strong></p>
<p>&#8220;(The) BLS asks each homeowner for their estimate of the house&#8217;s implicit rent and what occupants would get for their rent (how many rooms, etc.) if the owner did rent their home.&#8221;</p>
<p>When the Bureau of Labor and Statistics do their surveying for shelter index portion of CPI they ask the following question (verbatim):</p>
<p>&#8220;If someone were to rent your home today, how much do you think it would rent for monthly, unfurnished and without utilities?&#8221;</p>
<p>Man I would love to get one of these calls.</p>
<p>If you ask someone about their home value, that is something they probably know about, but if you ask someone about their house’s implicit rental equivalent is, now that is a different story. Most people do not understand the economics of rental properties well enough to give such an opinion. Furthermore, how many people living in Mc-Mansions can even contemplate what their monthly rent would even be when they live in a neighborhood that may not even have on housing unit that charges on a monthly rent basis?</p>
<p>I think Gjerstad and Vernon know what Hazlitt knew decades ago: inflation numbers are blatantly cherry picked and scrubbed to make it seem like the COLA estimates are much lower then they really are.</p>
<p>Furthermore the BLS states that, &#8220;Because rents are not volatile, the CPI can use a longer interval between pricing observations than it uses for other consumer items.&#8221; I guess we will have take that statement about volatility at face value.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifact6.pdf">Click here for more information regarding the housing index and CPI</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.brothersaustrian.com/cpi-missed-the-housing-bubble/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
