Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (15124)	11/15/2003 9:21:21 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

I recall they pad about 300,000 jobs a year due to new business starts which they're unable to measure in surveys. The biggest problem with the real GDP report is that it undercounts inflation by even more than the CPI. They estimate the old CPI of twenty years ago would be running about 6 percent this year.

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (15124)	11/16/2003 4:34:27 PM
From: JBTFD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

I have what I guess is a challenge to the conclusions presented, namely that the 7.1% would fall to 1.2% if you took out the hedonic adjustment. Hedonics has been a cumulative effect. Last year's number was also affected by hedonics, so it is faulty math to take out the whole cumulative effect of hedonics in one year and then back that out and the use the result to say that 7.1% growth would be 1.2% growth. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that this is exactly what he is doing. You don't take out the whole $33 bil, you only take out the difference between this year's hedonic adjustment and last years hedonic adjustment. I looked for an article to see what his math was, but I couldn't find one. I agree with the point that the hedonic adjustments are a fiction, but not with his conclusion above.