Pete talked to Amber View group about Inflationary Wave Theory and his new book at the Institute of Economic Affairs on 26 January 2015. Listen to a recording of it on Youtube:
Monthly Archives: January 2015
Following a year’s more research about inflation, Pete Comley has now published a new book. It builds on Inflation Tax and provides a bigger picture understanding of inflation. In particular Pete has developed a new theory about the causes of inflation.
Inflationary Wave Theory proposes that long-term inflation is created by population growth and competition for resources. Price increases depict a wave-like pattern over the centuries due to effects of man exploiting the inflation trend to such a point that prices eventually consolidate over a long period. The world is about to enter this stage of near-zero inflation.
The new book examines how this transition might take place and the conditions that need to be fulfilled. It is likely to be accompanied by some form of deflationary shock. Investing over the coming decades will therefore be difficult and the book discusses the implications of it for future wealth management.
PART I: INFLATION FACT AND FICTION
1 What is inflation?
2 Inflation and the money supply theory
3 Other theories about inflation
4 Deflation and why it is regarded as a problem
5 UK inflation measures
6 Inflation measurement issues
PART II: INFLATION PAST
7 Inflationary Wave Theory
8 World War I and learning about hyperinflation
9 The 1930s depression and the deflation bogeyman
10 World War II, debts and the low inflation world
11 The 1970s inflation crisis and fiat currencies
PART III: INFLATION PRESENT
12 The Great Moderation and the Great Recession
13 Japan and deflation
14 Governments and inflation
15 The era of inflation targeting
16 The impact of current inflation
PART IV: DEFLATION YET TO COME
17 The big picture: a century of more stable prices
18 The transition period and near-term inflation
19 Price stability and the consolidation period
20 Managing wealth as we head towards near-zero inflation
Pete was Simon Rose’s guest in Share Radio’s Book Value slot on the day that CPI was announced as dropping to below 1 per cent. Listen to the interview here.
On the 8th January 2015, ONS published a review by Paul Johnson (of IFS) entitled: UK Consumer Price Statistics: A Review. In it, Johnson proposes that
1. ONS should move towards making CPIH its main measure
2. ONS and the UK Statistics Authority should re-state its
position that the RPI is a flawed statistical measure of
inflation which should not be used for new purposes and
whose use should be discontinued for all purposes unless
there are contractual commitments at stake.
On the positive side, it is commended that ONS is having a discussion about inflation statistics. I agree with Johnson that it is complicated to come up with one measure and method that seems perfect. It also correctly highlights the limitations of CPI (or HICP – the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices, as it was originally known). This measure was invented by the EU in 1996 purely as a method of comparing countries to determine their eligibility for joining the Eurozone under the Maastricht Treaty. It was never intended as a cost of living index that would be used by individual countries, as has now happened in the UK.
HICP left out everything to do with housing costs – purely for the reason that EU members could not agree on how to measure it. It did not use weights based on the average person’s spending as these surveys were inconsistent across nations but instead used expenditure weights from the national accounts. This meant it was biased towards the expenditure of the rich. For example eating out counts 10% in CPI but just 5% in RPI, whilst alcoholic drinks is reduced top just 2% in CPI as opposed to 6% in RPI.
It also used geometric means (see below) to combine together individual prices, as that method was coming in vogue then both for statistical arguments and also probably because it produced more consistent and lowers levels of inflation. This was handy to help members qualify under the Treaty conditions.
In 2003 Gordon Brown decided to make it the main inflation measure that the Bank of England targets. One can only speculate why, though the fact that it is normally around 1% lower than RPI could well have contributed to that decision. That would mean it would make it look like the UK was meeting the inflation target more often than we did. In 2010, CPI started to be use to index pensions and welfare payments – again ensuring that these would be lower.
Roll on to 2012 and ONS tried to convert using RPI to use geometric means. This would have saved the government £7 billion a year in gilt payments alone, which would have been very handy when the coalition was trying to trim the budget deficit. However the consultation failed. 406 organisations, statisticians and members of the public responded. Just two of the 406 supported the ONS’s plan to switch to using geometric means for all the RPI calculations. That was a massive rejection of the plan by those not involved in the ONS or the Consumer Prices Advisory Committee.
Having failed to win the consultation, ONS immediately declassified RPI as an official statistic, leading to many jokes about RIP RPI.
Clearly this subject has not gone away and ONS was back this week with another set of arguments, this time to attempt to permanently kill off RPI. The main one is that the Carli method used to calculate some of the prices increases in it is no longer internationally acceptable. Carli is used where there is a wide range of prices being combined. It involves taking the change in price in each store and then averaging these changes (as opposed to working out the average price across all stores and comparing it to last month – Dutot method). The key issue with Carli is reversibility. If prices go up and then come back down to the same level, you can get hypothetically end up with a price index that doesn’t go back to 100 (and is higher). The fact that this virtually never happens in the UK as prices nearly always go up and that the whole index is not price reversible is ignored, in this theoretical argument.
Instead what CPI uses (and RPIJ) is a completely different type of mean score called a geometric mean – called the Jevon’s method. It has reversibility but comes with a couple of side-effects. Firstly it is a calculation that is so complicated that, in my view, fails a requirement of comprehensibility to the public. However more importantly, it nearly always produces a lower price increase than has been experienced by the general public in the shops. Statisticians dodge the latter by saying it is in fact estimating substitution effects. In their oft quoted example, they say that if the price of Romaine lettuce goes up, some people will switch to a cheaper Iceberg and Jevons takes this into account with its lower price increase.
However quite how a geometric mean, which multiply prices together and taking the nth root of them, was supposed to measure the psychological dilemma of substitution was never explained. But more importantly, if the price of Romaine lettuce has gone up, it has gone up and that should be reflected in the price index. If people decide they can’t then afford it, that is a completely different issue. Furthermore such substitution effects are already fully being factored into RPI/CPI with their annual change in products being reviewed. No further adjustment is needed.
Therefore contrary to Johnson’s report, there are actually quite a few reasons to stick with RPI, which avoids the problems of geometric means. Using the Carli method to combine mean scores might have its issues but so does using Jevons. They are just different ones. To me, a simpler solution for a UK price index would be to adopt the same approach as Germany and Japan, that is to just use the simple bog-standard Dutot average which has fewer flaws. ONS might argue that there is too much price variation to do that, but they just need to tighten up on the items being checked and make them more consistent. Saying to their price checkers to go find say “any ladies blouse” is open to a wide range of interpretations (and prices) and is just asking for problems.
Johnson’s other main conclusion is that we should adopt CPIH as the UK’s main inflation statistic. I tend to agree with Shaun Richards that this is a complete embarrassment for the ONS. Firstly there are so many problems with CPIH that even the ONS have declassified it as a national statistic. However more importantly it does not solve the key problems with CPI.
CPIH was brought in after the failed 2012 consultation. H stands for Housing and it includes what are described to be “Owner Occupier Housing” (OOH) costs. You might immediately think that means things like:
- house prices
- mortgage costs
- stamp duty
- ground rent
- building insurance
- council tax
These are all included in the RPI measure and housing accounts for a quarter of the whole index weight, as they are so important in the nation’s spending habits. But no, in CPIH none of these are included. Instead it uses something called “rental equivalence” of the theoretical rent paid for an equivalent house as a proxy for the costs faced by an owner occupier. Not only is that a really odd thing to do, but it also only gives them a weight of just 15%. Even more strange is that this rental equivalence measure (whatever it is), always seems to end up with a very low number for inflation of 1% or less. Therefore even as UK house prices are growing at 8%, OOH is still just 1%.
The impact of this is clear as the chart above shows. This means that far from CPIH helping to increase CPI because of higher house prices, it is actually serving to reduce CPI still further (by an average of 0.2% over the last 3 years).
My personal guess is that CPI already underestimates inflation by around 1-1.5% in the UK. See Chapter 6 of Inflation Matters book (or download the Lite version here for free). Changing to the current CPIH would make that 1.2-1.7%. Therefore if CPIH was 2%, true inflation in the UK would be around 3.5%.
I am reminded of the Economist headline a few years ago: “Lies, flame-grilled lies and statistics“. Also as they more recently summarised the issue as: “Statistical offices vary in their ability to resist political pressure”. Is the ONS finally beginning to crumble?
The December 2014 CPI inflation fell to its lowest since May 2000 at 0.5%. The main reasons for this were:
- The decrease in the cost of crude oil which has affected both petrol prices (-10.5%) and domestic electricity/gas/fuel costs (-2.1%)
- The dropping out of the calculation of electricity/gas price rises (+6.4%) in December 2013.
- A decrease in the cost of food due to a combination of soft commodity price decreases during 2014 and competition amongst UK retailers in December – particularly for vegetables (-7.1%).
Despite this, underlying core inflation (which excludes energy and food/drink) was slightly higher at 1.3% implying that once these commodity price falls have worked through the system, CPI may well rise again. Indeed some sectors of the economy continue to witness significant rises including: education 10%, tobacco 7.7%, books/papers 5.1%, rail fares 3.9%, health insurance 3.8%, recreation/culture 3.6%, wine 3.5%, postal services 3.3%, water/sewage 3.2%, and hospital services 2.6%.
The alternative RPI index, fell to 1.6% from 2.0%. It is higher than CPI primarily because:
- It includes the effects of housing – house prices rose about 9.5% in 2014 according to ONS. See coverage issues.
- It uses a different method for averaging prices. See calculation issues. This particularly affects clothing costs which RPI estimated to be rising by 6.4% but CPI said it was declining by 0.4%.
This chart illustrates the CPI and RPI rates since the millennium:
Full details can be found at the ONS website.