If There’s No Inflation, Why Are Prices Up So Much?

Getty Images

Last week, I ran out of ink for my printer and ordered some more online. My computer automatically pulled up the previous order, and I was shocked to see that the price of the ink cartridges I was buying had gone up 25%. To my mind, ink always seems overpriced. Manufacturers sell printers cheaply because they know that they can make lots of money on the ink. For the same reason, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil is said to have sold millions of cheap kerosene lamps in order to make big profits selling kerosene. But since ink cartridges were already priced way above cost and official statistics show little general inflation, why had ink gone up 25% in less than a year?

Price hikes for a particular item here or there don’t qualify as inflation. If one thing gets more expensive but something else gets cheaper, that’s what economists call a relative price change. Inflation is a simultaneous increase in prices across the board. Some measures of inflation, such as the GDP Deflator, track price changes that affect businesses as well as those that affect consumers. But the Consumer Price Index is supposed to focus on inflation at the consumer level. And the CPI has recorded minimal increases over the past four years. Since the recession ended, the 12-month change in consumer prices has averaged 2% and has never been as high as 4%.

(MORE: Online ‘Predictions’ Market Intrade Shuts Down Months After Federal Lawsuit)

There are lots of other ways to gauge inflation, however, that give very different signals. Gold was $930 an ounce when the recession ended, and today it’s $1,583. So if you believe in the gold standard, prices have increased 70% in four years – or an annualized rate of 14.2%. Of course, many economists dismiss the gold price as an archaic indicator. So it may be more meaningful to look at price increases over a broad range of commodities. The Reuters CRB Commodity Index, which tracks the prices of coffee, cocoa, copper, and cotton, as well as energy, is up 38% over four years, or 8.6% at a compound annual rate.

It may well be that these increases in the cost of raw materials aren’t translating into broader inflation because the economy is so weak. For sustained inflation to get going, workers have to be able to demand higher pay to make up for increases in their cost of living. And today, whatever inflation is caused by the rising cost of raw materials is being offset by below-normal increases in wages. Indeed, that’s one of the factors causing the decline in real after-tax household income that I wrote about last week.

That may result in price stability for the overall economy, but it isn’t great news for middle-class American families. It’s true that some important costs have remained moderate. Food prices may fluctuate from season to season, but overall they have risen at only a 2% compound rate since 2009. And in the current real estate market, housing costs haven’t gone up much either. Nonetheless, many of the everyday costs that Americans face have risen a lot.

The price of gasoline has gone up from $2.60 a gallon when the recession ended to $3.68 today. That’s a 41% increase in four years, or an annualized rate of 9%. Taxes have gone up almost as much. Federal, State and Local income taxes and social charges (Social Security payroll taxes, for instance) have risen 35% over four years, an annualized rate of 7.8%.

(MORE: Not Knowing About This Credit Report Can Burn You)

Perhaps the most telling indicator – albeit a slightly facetious one – is the Big Mac index, popularized by the Economist magazine. McDonalds hamburgers are available in many countries and their prices reflect the cost of food, fuel, commercial real estate, and basic labor. The price of a Big Mac, therefore, can be used to compare the economies of different countries – or serve as a bellwether of inflation in a single country. Since the recession ended, the cost of a Big Mac in the U.S. has risen from an average of $3.57 to $4.37, or 5.2% a year.

So why haven’t these more rapid increases shown up in the Consumer Price Index? One reason is that the index itself has been modified in a variety of ways over the past 35 years. Fluctuations in home prices have been smoothed out, for example. And the index has been adjusted periodically to reflect changes in what people buy, particularly if they shift from more expensive items to cheaper ones. Such revisions to the CPI have tended to reduce the official inflation rate, on balance. Various estimates of what the annual rate would have been over the past four years if earlier methods of calculation had been continued come up with numbers in the 5%-to-10% range.

Several conclusions can be drawn from all this. First, there is no absolute and objective gauge of inflation. Any particular measure is simply one way of making the calculation, based on a host of assumptions. Second, a number of the costs that middle-class households face are going up considerably faster than the CPI. Printer-ink cartridges may be a particularly obnoxious example, but they’re not the only case where prices are rising more than official statistics indicate. At the moment, these trends aren’t highly visible because the economy is so sluggish. But as the recovery continues, there’s every reason to think that they will become more widespread.

104 comments
TenaciousJim
TenaciousJim

Horse meat hamburgers are still cheap so there is no inflation. You can but a 20 year old car for less so there is no inflation.

Meanwhile education costs, medical costs, retail prices of utilities such as electric and water plus local property taxes are going through the roof BUT there is no inflation.

zerses
zerses

Milk and bread... want to see your inflation in real terms?  Those two items are the gauge of most American's food budget.


Other items going up fast like gas, electricity, water/sewer and HEALTH CARE (!) are all "signs" that inflation is taking hold - so um, America, we have inflation.

ywatkins1951
ywatkins1951

Anyone who has ever dealt with the people who collect the information for the consumer price index knows that the methods of collecting information verge on the ridiculous.  They tell you that you have to report everything you spend for two weeks.  From the coffee at Starbucks to a new car.  They don't check to see if you are accurate, they just take your word for it.  And if you decline to participate (which you are legally permitted to do) they appear at your door at all times of day trying to convince you to provide information which they never check on.  I cannot think of a worse way to collect accurate data.

hamiltonchem
hamiltonchem like.author.displayName 1 Like

Over the last decade, the largest cost increase for my household every year has been health care, including both insurance and out-of-pocket costs.  I do not see much discussion of this, but it has done at lot more damage to my bank account than gasoline or hamburgers. 

PatrickT
PatrickT

The problem is in defining one's terms.   What are you trying to measure?  Are you trying to tell whether it's raining, and how hard, or are you trying to measure how wet someone with an umbrella will get?    What do you mean by inflation?   If inflation is the measure of the effect of monetary growth on the price of everything, for purposes of determining, say, the "real" part of "real GDP" (meaning, if there is no actual GDP growth, we should stop the Keynesian "hair of the dog that bit me" policies) - then yes, we have high single digit inflation, as shown on Williams' website.   If you're trying to measure the net effect on the consumer, after taking into account her ability to maneuver to offset the effect of a broad price-level increase, then the BLS measure is correct.   But these are two different questions.    You cannot use a statistic that answers the second question to answer the first.    And that is what you do when you quote "real GDP growth" by adjusting nominal GDP growth for CPI.   

StevenHales
StevenHales

This controversy over the CPI and its calculation was played out back in 2008.  The sparring partners were John Williams founder of shadowstats and the BLS economists Greenlees and McClelland the previous link to their paper had this devastating critique obliquely referencing Williams.  Williams suffered more than just a flesh wound. Sivy seems to have fallen for the same discredited line of thought that Williams still promotes. It is a modified conspiracy theory.  Here are Greenlees and McClelland deftly twisting the knife. 

To begin, it must be stated unequivocally that the BLS does not assume that consumers substitute hamburger for steak. Neither the CPI-U, nor the CPI-W used for wage and benefit indexation, allows for substitution between steak and hamburger, which are in different CPI item categories. Instead, the BLS uses a formula that implicitly assumes a degree of substitution among the close substitutes within an item-area component of the index. As an example, consumers are assumed to respond to price variations among the different items found within the category "apples in Chicago." Other examples are "ground beef in Chicago," "beefsteaks in Chicago," and "eggs in Boston"....

The quantitative impact of the CPI's use of the geometric mean formula also has been grossly overstated by some, with one estimate exceeding 3 percent per year. It is difficult to identify real-world circumstances under which geometric mean and Laspeyres indexes could differ by such a large amount. The two index formulas will give the same answer whenever the prices used in an index all change by the same percentage. The bigger the differences in price changes, the more the Laspeyres index will tend to exceed the geometric mean. For the growth rate of the Laspeyres index to exceed the growth rate of a geometric mean index by 3 percentage points, however, the differences in individual price changes have to be quite large.

To see this point, consider another very simplified example. Suppose that the CPI sample for ice cream and related products in Boston consisted only of an equal number of prices for ice cream and frozen yogurt and that, between one year and the next, all the prices of ice cream in Boston rose by 8.6 percent while all the frozen yogurt prices fell by 4.2 percent. In that case, the geometric mean estimate of overall annual price change would be 2.0 percent, only slightly less than the Laspeyres estimate of about 2.2%. In order to come up with a difference of 3 index points, one has to assume a much more dramatic divergence between ice cream and frozen yogurt prices than the one hypothesized. For example, if ice cream prices rose 30 percent in one year, while frozen yogurt prices fell by 20 percent, the overall geometric mean index would still rise by 2 percent, but the Laspeyres index would rise 5 percent, for a difference of 3 index points. However, such a large annual divergence would be quite uncommon within CPI basic indexes-- between ice cream and yogurt, between types of candy and gum, between types of noncarbonated juices, or between varieties of ground beef. Moreover, for a 3-percentage-point divergence to continue year after year, the divergence between the individual component prices would have to continue to widen. For example, if, by contrast, during the next year ice cream prices increased by the same amount as frozen yogurt prices, then the two index formulas would give the same inflation estimate for that year. Although such a divergence might plausibly occur in one component for 1 year, it is beyond belief that such sharply divergent price behavior would continue year after year across the whole range of CPI item-area components.

Finally, and most importantly, there is rigorous empirical evidence on the actual quantitative impact of the geometric mean formula, because the BLS has continued to calculate Laspeyres indexes for all CPI basic indexes on an experimental basis for comparison with the official index. These experimental indexes show that the geometric mean led to an overall decrease in CPI growth of about 0.28 percentage point per year over the period from December 1999 to December 2004, close to the original BLS prediction that the impact would be approximately 0.20 percentage point per year.

atworkforu
atworkforu

"So if you believe in the gold standard, prices have increased 70% in four years – or an annualized rate of 14.2%"

No, quite the opposite.  If you believe in the gold standard and you had 2 1/2 lbs of gold 4 years ago, you could have a BMW 328.  Now, because of **deflation** (prices going down) relative to gold, you can have the same BMW for only 1 1/2 lbs of gold.

StevenHales
StevenHales

"And the index has been adjusted periodically to reflect changes in what people buy, particularly if they shift from more expensive items to cheaper ones." This is fundamentally wrong.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiqa.htm#Question_3

From BLS:

When the cost of food rises, does the CPI assume that consumers switch to less desired foods, such as substituting hamburger for steak?

No. In January 1999, the BLS began using a geometric mean formula in the CPI that reflects the fact that consumers shift their purchases toward products that have fallen in relative price. Some critics charge that by reflecting consumer substitution the BLS is subtracting from the CPI a certain amount of inflation that consumers can "live with" by reducing their standard of living. This is incorrect: the CPI's objective is to calculate the change in the amount consumers need to spend to maintain a constant level of satisfaction.

Specifically, in constructing the "headline" CPI-U and CPI-W, the BLS is not assuming that consumers substitute hamburgers for steak. Substitution is only assumed to occur within basic CPI index categories, such as among types of ground beef in Chicago. Hamburger and steak are in different CPI item categories, so no substitution between them is built into the CPI-U or CPI-W.

Furthermore, the CPI doesn't implicitly assume that consumers always substitute toward the less desirable good. Within the beef steaks item category, for example, the assumption is that consumers on average would move up from flank steak to filet mignon if the price of flank steak rose by a greater amount (or fell by less) than filet mignon prices. If both types of beef steak rose in price by the same amount, the geometric mean would assume no substitution.

In using the geometric mean the BLS is following a recognized best practice for statistical agencies. The formula is widely used by statistical agencies around the world and is recommended by, for example, the International Monetary Fund and the Statistical Office of the European Communities.

BrandonGunnoe
BrandonGunnoe

QE=More Currency in Existence=Debased Value? 

UmadBrazi1
UmadBrazi1

I'm sorry for the non-constructive comment, but i'm gonna drop it anyway:


This is quite possibly the stupidest article I've ever read in my entire life.


"OMG ink price is higher, OMG BIGMACS cost more, OMG gas prices have increased."


Seriously the economic ignorance in the mainstream is mind-numbing.


It would take far too much time and effort to educate you on basic concepts, so I'll just leave this snarky comment and hope to give at least one other intelligent reader a chuckle.

sharonsj
sharonsj

I have been bitching about price inflation since 2008.  The financial crash led to an immediate jump in prices for everything (or a shrinking of packaging with the price staying the same).  The media has ignored price inflation for everything except gasoline.  Inflation is not 2% a year, it's more like 10% a year or more.  Just because the media ignores it doesn't mean the rest of America isn't aware of the truth.

And now they want to change the CPI to a chained CPI which will screw the elderly, poor and disabled.  When ExxonMobil and GE finally pay income taxes, and when they stop giving handouts to NASCAR and the Disney Corp., then maybe I'll agree to pay my "fair share" too.

Brynjo
Brynjo

If the "old" methodology of using home prices was utilized, BLS would have had to record the cumulative 30% drop (Case Shiller) national home prices since 2006. Talking about higher ink cartridge prices is easy for bloggers to write about, but I've yet to hear about a comprehensive inflation statistic, that at least tries to adjust for quality improvements (better technology) and quality degredations (smaller airline seats) as well as the BLS. Realistically, its not the ink cartridges or big macs that determine "cost of living" its the bigger broader themes, like falling Nat Gas prices, balanced against various rising prices.

CRWMD
CRWMD like.author.displayName 1 Like

Why?- Because the government removed food and energy prices from the official method used to calculate the inflation rate- a fact which you allude to but then dance around when you state that the using the "old method" the inflation rate would have been 10% the last few years. Why did the government do this? 1. To hide how bad things really are. 2. To hide the impact of Obama's massive and unprecedented expansion of US money supply-do a search on "Saint Louis Federal Reserve Money Supply Chart" 3. To avoid having to pay huge increases in Social Security and Federal pensions which are tied to the official inflation rate- in fact payments where actually cut do to the impact of falling housing prices-while the "personal inflation" experienced by retirees has shyrocketed because most of their expenditures are on the comodities (food, medications, energy) which are no longer being counted in the inflation rate.

If a private sector company did what the Federal Government is doing to mask what is really going on the responsibile parties would be facing jail time for accounting fraud.    To estimate the impact that inflation has on the buying power of your income use the rule of 70- divide 70 by the true inflation rate of about 10% and you get 7 which means that every 7 years your money loses roughly 50% of it's value!

mahoneyct
mahoneyct

I remember 1977-81, when we had inflation. It was highly visible. Today is very different.

WilliamBrown1
WilliamBrown1

@mahoneyct No difference in the last four years and 1977-1981. You must not be in close contact with prices and purchases. If you keep your receipts for all purchases from year to year, you will see through the fog.

TexasTruBlu
TexasTruBlu

You know, it would have been nice if the media had bothered to notice this say, before the election last summer....I commented frequently on various social media outlets that I was seeing a precipitous rise in basic groceries. Here's the nasty little secret the media continues to ignore. As a Globalist, Obama views ALL AMERICANS as "the rich." So he goes after the top tier to garner popular acclaim, but surreptitiously taxes all Americans through additional layers of insurance, zoning, EPA restrictions and limits on development pushing these industries to the Third World countries he so loves. They make the goods, sell it to us for whatever the market will bear and since there's no domestic competitions because of layers of cost heaped on domestic goods, the money goes out of the country. Think of it as a payday loan place that simply wires our taxes to Brazil or Cambodia. So outlets like this one should bear a great deal of the blame for failing to write real news stories, do real research and in short do their doggone jobs.

joeavillarreal
joeavillarreal like.author.displayName 1 Like

@r3port3r Corporate Taxes on the rise lead to higher prices everywhere, companies have to make up those tax burdens somewhere.

larsonm
larsonm

@joeavillarreal @r3port3r 

Actually, since there is no connection between cost and price for most products, increases in cost do not show up as price increases as prices are already set to maximize net revenue.  Also, since corporate taxes are not a cost of production, they don't get passed on even for those things where price is related to cost per the first sentence.

DaveCarroll
DaveCarroll

@larsonm @r3port3r No because if costs go up prices are just reset higher to 'maximize net revenue'. And since everyone's production costs go up prices go up accross the board.

Historybuff
Historybuff

I am surprised.   Someone writing for Time is actually writing something that is not flattering & biased towards obama.   Will wonders never cease?

There is no question that "the cost of middle class living" had gone up dramatically.   It is s sign of bad government, democrat or Republican, that the reporting statistics have been 're-arranged' to avoid controversy.   EVERYBODY that is in the middle class KNOWS that costs have risen - and our government should be honest with us.   

WilliamBrown1
WilliamBrown1

@Historybuff The incumbent governing group broadcasts across America they are for the middle class and the poor so they can get the votes. Blame the opposition for everything, including high prices and get re-elected, it happened. During the crash of 08 I refused to sell my stock while waiting on the results of the Presidential election. When the Democrats were elected, I kept my stock because they are the best friends an investor can have. Divert taxpayer money to the poor who spend 100% of their funds buying consumer goods and driving up porfits for stockholders. If they had cut spending, stocks would not have recovered. Mine recovered in 12 months and have added 30% since. But every day I ignore the political news of the Democrats being for the middle class and the poor. I feel like governing Democrats are true Republicans in disguise and are misleading the group Mr. Romney identified as the 47%. I, too, wish our govt was honest with all of us. Under this administration the middle class is suffering dearly but they love the words they hear.

AaronCohn
AaronCohn like.author.displayName 1 Like

A silver quarter bought a gallon of gas in 1964.

And it still does.

KevanHuston
KevanHuston

Do you even know what facetious means? There's nothing "facetious" about the Big Mac Index.

More worryingly, you don't even seem to know what inflation is. It is the rate of expansion (or contraction) of the supply of money. Price increases are a *consequence* of inflation, not inflation per se.

And somehow you managed to talk for 10 odd paragraphs about "inflation" without talking about financial asset prices.

DaveCarroll
DaveCarroll

@KevanHuston It's true that that's the actual definition of inflation but if it were actually true that governments could create real value out of thin air simply by printing money then inflation would be a good thing. So it's valuable to show how prices are going up in correlation with the expansion of the money supply to prove that it's bad.

felixhemsted1
felixhemsted1

@KevanHuston  the definition of inflation really depends on where you view it from. Whilst monetarists do measure inflation in terms of the money supply, this is of relatively little use on the high street, and therefore very little use for someone planning what wage rises they should give / want in the coming year, and therefore inflation in terms of the price level can be more useful in the general economy.

henrylohii
henrylohii

" Inflation is a simultaneous increase in prices across the board."

This is  inaccurate.  Inflation is an increase int he AGGREGATE price of a bundle of goods, which the fed determines to be typical of what a household consumes.  The article later explains this.


To see how this matters, consider housing.  Prices have gone down in the last few years.  However, housing makes up around 30% of the typical household's spending, so this creates a large downward pressure on everything else.  In other words, if housing cost went down by 10%/year, then all other goods would have to go up by roughly 5% for inflation to be at 0%

Note that consumer inflation usually has 2 measures, one that includes food and energy, and another that excludes it.  This is becuase these 2 goods have much more price volatility than other goods and looking at CPI without these items may give a better idea of underlying or long term trends rather than short term fluctuations.

rsweeney
rsweeney like.author.displayName 1 Like

3 years ago, corn was selling for $300. Now it's $700.

Pork bellies were going for $40 now they are $80

Every month, the Fed prints $40 BILLION and dumps it into the market, in addition to the $3 TRILLION it and co-conspirator the US Treasury have created out of thin air since Obama took office.

Let's print a few more trillion and see what happens.

TexasTruBlu
TexasTruBlu

@rsweeney The price of corn has a great deal to do with dollars for votes in the corn belt. Corn ethanol is not an effective additive, it's unnecessary for cars with injectors, yet Obama wants to raise the amount in gas. The special handling makes it a costly additive and it's corrosive nature makes it where an estimated 25% of cars now on the road will suffer engine failure due to damage imposed by ethanol. What is more, this administration is so protective of the corn votes that even when ranchers and farmers wanted to buy corn  during last year's drought at the government's inflated price to feed their herds and flocks, the EPA said no. And that led to sell off of herds including breeding stock. So enjoy higher prices on every animal product including dairy, poultry, eggs, pork and beef. They'll make us all vegans yet.

EdRector
EdRector

Now of course you disregard the many, many things that have gone down in price over the past decade or two:  Computing power, telephone & communications services, clothing, electronic gear, on-line services, house prices etc., etc.   To say nothing of quality improvements like what today's printers and cell phones can do that those made 15 years ago cannot.

The increase in gasoline prices is an egregious example to use. Oil is an increasingly scarce commodity. The oil pumped out of the ground 4 years ago has been burned up.  It costs more to find and extract new oil from difficult to access sources -- it has nothing to do with inflation.

JoshSwanson
JoshSwanson

@EdRector Electronics may cost less by the item, but in the world we have created there is an increased requirement for more.  Working, applying for jobs, being informed, etc. all require one to be wired.  You can barely even buy a non-smart phone anymore.  The result is that, while by the item the costs have gone down, the amount spent monthly on electronics and communication just to keep up with societal norms has gone up. 

pantrypest
pantrypest

Inflation is not increased prices; that's the result of inflation, which is an increase in the monetary supply. 

JoeGisondi
JoeGisondi

sad reality, PRINT MONEY........Inflation. I learned this in grade school. Obama may have not gone to grade school, if he went to mine, (which was a NYC Public school in the 60's by the way), he would know better. Not sure if he would care because he uses our money for everything anyway including toilet paper).

BrettForsythe
BrettForsythe

While distributor pricing has gone up every few years a few % due to increased material usage, pricing in stores generally has not. However, if you are buying on Amazon.com this is an Amazon.com only issue. Amazon raised their ink and toner fees in January up to 15% (from 8%) and also in most cases Amazon is no longer stocking HP inks. Amazon only works on about a 1-2% margin from distributor pricing, and in some cases even sells at a loss just to generate long term business. Rumor is Amazon lost their HP contract because they were violating MSRP. Staples was selling HP 45 Twin Packs for $73.99, while Amazon was selling for $49.99 -- and has gone as low as $29.99 competing with sellers selling expired inks. This is just just 1 of several violations.

BrettForsythe
BrettForsythe

To further elaborate -- When I say "Amazon raised their ink and toner fees in January up to 15% (from 8%)" -- I'm referring to the fee's Third Party Sellers must pay Amazon to sell on their platform.

R_Dappa
R_Dappa

@rajkumar_joseph @TIMEBusiness General inflation is a mean, but real inflation is a majority rules kind of factor.

henrylohii
henrylohii

@R_Dappa @rajkumar_joseph @TIMEBusiness  

There is not such thing as "real inflation".  Inflation is based on the NOMINAL price of certain good(s).  Since we are comparing two identical baskets of goods, there can be no "real" inflation.

There is no distinction between "general" and "real" inflation.  It's just inflation - the question is what good or basket of goods you are talking about.  There is manufacturer's inflation and consumer inflation (both published by the DOC).

HannoPhoenicia
HannoPhoenicia like.author.displayName 1 Like

Prices aren't up so much. We still have historically low inflation, especially compared to most of the rest of the world. Too many people were born yesterday and know nothing of our economic history or conditions in the rest of the world.

LaddieSchnaiber
LaddieSchnaiber

@TIME @TIMEBusiness The cost of food is rising faster than inflation because the the cost of transportation is rising at the rate of food.

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

@LaddieSchnaiber @TIME @TIMEBusiness Transportation costs are only a fraction of the cost of goods.  So the prices for goods shouldn't be rising as fast as transportation costs.  But they are.

baronhas
baronhas

The 2007 dollar will only buy us half the groceries today and we were told that the recession ended in 2009.

Isn't it ironic that telling a lie to the government could incur a felony charge while the people are lied to on a daily basis!

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

@baronhas Every government does it because politicians can't tell the truth.  The real wonder is that anyone actually believes the government in first place.