What is the "real" inflation rate?

difficult to give a good answer to thomas without having more info - but , as parados pointed out - part of the difference might be in the cost of gasoline .
while gasoline is still a little cheaper in the u.s. than in canada , the difference seems to have shrank .
there is also the increase in the value of the canadian $ against the u.s. $ . i'm not sure how that is reflected .
we have noticed that groceries are now often more expensive in the u.s than in canada - i'm comparing eastern ontario against northern n.y. state here .
and here is a really strange thing that's been going on for a while .
we've noticed that particularly at 'zellers' - a smaller and older walmart style store .
they'll have specials on paper goods - paper towels and toilet tissue - much below the usual price in canada and in the u.s.
when i checked the boxes , i noticed they were labelled :
product of the united states - NOT for sale in the u.s. ... or : for EXPORT only !
with the appreciation of the canadian $ , imported groceries and other goods from all over the world have also become less expensive in canada . (seems that canada's "tough love' , meaning higher taxes , less government expenditures and increased exports is finally beginning to help the canadian $ ; particularly considering that canada had almost become a financial basket case . the canadian $ was worth only about 60 cents u.s. not that long ago and is now trading around 90 cents u.s. ) .

i also noticed that airline fares in the u.s. jumped by 12.6 % in the last 7 months . fares have also gone up in canada , but imo canadians travel less frequent by air than canadians - that's just anecdotal by reading a2k entries .

i'm not sure if that really explains the difference between the CPI and core CPI for both countries .

footnote ;
the confusion over the CPI rate arises to some extent because on business news it is ususally the 'core cpi' rate that's quoted ; uninformed listeners would not know that that's the rate without food etc . and would often assume that it is the 'total' cpi rate - a term not used regularly by commentators , i believe .

let's all be happy now :wink: !
hbg

Hamburger- Retirees in the USA get a yearly increase in their retirement checks called COLA. This COLA is based directly on the inflation rate.

Note:








History
Social Security benefit increases, also known as cost-of-living adjustments or COLAs, have been in effect since 1975. The 1975-82 COLAs were effective with Social Security benefits payable for June in each of those years; thereafter COLAs have been effective with benefits payable for December.
Prior to 1975, Social Security benefit increases were set by legislation.
Social Security Cost-Of-Living Adjustments Year COLA
1975 8.0%
1976 6.4%
1977 5.9%
1978 6.5%
1979 9.9%
1980 14.3%
1981 11.2%
1982 7.4%
1983 3.5%
1984 3.5%
1985 3.1%
1986 1.3%
1987 4.2%
1988 4.0%
1989 4.7%
Year COLA
1990 5.4%
1991 3.7%
1992 3.0%
1993 2.6%
1994 2.8%
1995 2.6%
1996 2.9%
1997 2.1%
1998 1.3%
1999 a 2.5%
2000 3.5%
2001 2.6%
2002 1.4%
2003 2.1%
2004 2.7%
Year COLA
2005 4.1%


*********************************************************

Note the relatively benign rate for the last thirty years going back to 1975-1983. Four of those years were the disasterous Jimmy Carter years.

Chaplin- Note the COLA in my last post. You wrote:


BernardR, That's the first time I have seen that report by the congressional committee. The cumulative impact of the CPI on our economy is staggering - especially when combined with the actions of the feds with interest rates. Interesting article.

If you think the CPI is high now, look back at the Carter Years. Actually, the CPI, not counting this year(which is why the Fed raised rates) has been quite benign!!!

Thomas- I am unable to discover if the Canadians have built any more refineries lately. We certainly haven't. That may be one reason for our increased cost, but the problem that stands out is the interference of the EPA and the additional cost inflicted due to the ADDITIVES needed to "safeguard" some of the cities_

NOTE

Friday, September 30, 2005
EPA Rules Raise Gas Prices
Written by Steven Milloy


We're all feeling pain at the gas pump these days. So that we don't pay even higher prices in the future, President Bush and Congress should get a grip on the junk science-fueled Environmental Protection Agency.

Ever-increasing worldwide demand for gasoline, U.S. oil refineries operating at or near capacity, and the recent one-two punch from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulting in facility shutdowns and infrastructure damage, are major reasons that gasoline has spiked to over $3 per gallon.

Of these reasons, only the increasing worldwide demand is more or less inevitable. But even rising demand can be satisfied by increasing supply ?- and this is where action can be taken, according to a December 2004 report issued by the National Petroleum Council, a federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy.

One major bottleneck in the gasoline supply is refinery capacity. If you've followed the news coverage about the gasoline spike, you've probably heard that we need more refineries ?- especially since we've not built a new one in 30 years.

But don't hold your breath waiting for construction of new refineries. In addition to the hurdles of not-in-my-backyard opposition (NIMBY-ism) and burdensome environmental regulation, the oil refining business has not produced terrific financial returns for investors ?- a 5.5 percent return on investment in the oil refining industry versus a 12.7 percent return on investment in blue-chip stocks from 1993 to 2002, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The good news, however, is that while new refineries may not be built any time soon, production at existing refineries can be expanded ?- and that's what's been happening over the last 20 years. Remarkably, we've gone from about 320 refineries producing about 100 billion gallons of gas in 1980 to about 150 refineries producing about 130 billion gallons of gasoline in 2004.

But while it is possible to expand domestic refinery capacity without constructing new refineries, current and planned EPA rules act as disincentives to refinery expansion.

In 1997, the EPA made air quality standards across the country more stringent. As I've written in this column many times before, these standards were not based on sound science and, consequently, aren't likely to produce benefits commensurate with their $100 billion annual cost.

Although the EPA's 1997 rules have not yet been fully implemented, states are already being held hostage by them. States where air quality standards fail to meet (or "attain" in air pollution lingo) EPA air quality standards can be penalized through loss of federal highway funds ?- a coveted source of revenue to states.

But the EPA stands ready to penalize the states before the 1997 rules have had the chance to have an impact on air quality. In the language of the National Petroleum Council report, "As currently structured, [air quality] attainment deadlines precede the benefits that will be achieved from emissions reductions already planned."

The effect of enforcing the EPA rules before they've had a chance to have an effect on air quality will be to force states to take action that will discourage refinery expansion.

States may require refineries to implement more costly emissions controls that further reduce the economic attractiveness of refinery expansion or reduce the viability and profitability of existing domestic refining. Less domestic refining means greater reliance on imported gasoline, which can be more expensive and more difficult to obtain.

As if enforcing air quality standards that haven't had a chance to materialize yet isn't bad enough, the EPA is preparing to embark on a new rulemaking process to make those standards even more stringent ?- forcing states to take even more drastic action that would act as even a greater disincentive on refinery expansion.

While the President and Congress might not have the political will to force the EPA to revise its 1997 standards, they should at least press the agency to delay the attainment deadlines. This would give states sufficient time to assess the impact of the 1997 rules and perhaps not make refinery expansion any more economically unattractive than it already seems to be.

The NPC recommended in a 2000 report that "Regulations should be based on sound science and a thorough analysis of cost-effectiveness."

President Bush issued Executive Order 13211 in 2001 requiring agencies to consider the impacts of regulatory actions on energy supply, distribution and use.

But the NPC 2004 report spotlights EPA's air quality standards as "examples of regulations that [do not] reflect a thorough analysis of their energy supply effects."

We may not be able to do anything about the ever-increasing global demand for energy or the extreme weather, but our leaders certainly have the authority to force government agencies to use sound science, cost-benefit analysis and, from time to time, even some common sense

I would have to say 10% as the absolute min.In the past 10 years prices have more then doubled.Food and housing have more then tripled,as have utilities(electricity,heating,cable etc.).Global warming taxes or fees have added at least 20%,directly and indirectly.I think a 10 year look is more accurate because it does not include unrealistic spikes such as oil,if you triple the price of something that does not have that value,then reduce (correct)it by 40%,this is still an increase.