First, you make the claim that a consumer switching to hamburger from steak is something that should not affect the overall inflation score, because even if *steak* increases in value, not everything has. The problem with this argument is that a rise in the price of steak does in fact mean that a small amount of inflation has occurred. The *systemic* inflation rate edges up slightly when the *steak* inflation rate goes up sharply. That’s the point. Inflation is a measure of the depreciation of the buying power of a dollar. We measure that with how much it buys. Meat is a basic product of our economy, and its price increase does indicate something about the value of a dollar.

Second, you say that part of the issue is a question of outmoded products that should not be as heavily weighted. Fair enough that we should not weight buggy whips and butter churns as heavily; however, I believe the problem is more that *burger* is not a more technologically advanced form of *steak*. The “basket” should change from time to time to reflect overall changes in preference, but only at par – that is, when the auto became more important than the buggy, we should’ve come up with a retro-active par calculation for buggies and cars. Making such adjustments back and forth as prices change is not appropriate for something as basic as meat. Does meat go out of style? And also…is burger really a different kind of steak? Does it really replace steak? I think the answer to these questions is no.

I have a qualm with another one of your claims – you say that you can’t trust shadow stats’ arguments because they don’t cite sources. The problem with this argument is that shadow stats is an original source, selling their data as a trade secret! The only other source you need *is* the CPI; in fact, they’re only using the CPI before some recent politicians started messing with it. Fine if you think that there are flaws in the old one; the difference is that what he’s really hiding from you is the data set; you could pay to get it. The calculation is do-able for anyone willing to spend the time. Furthermore, he gives you his whole reasoning freely; you are able to disagree just fine on any point. Couple that with the fact that the federal social security payouts are tied by law to the CPI, and you have plenty of reason for the CPI to simply be biased by *optimism* and budgetary *desperation* without the need for *conspiracy*. And plenty of a market for someone to sell more realistic data.

Otherwise, good rebuttal to some of the common tin-foil-hat myths.

You aren’t missing everything, the argument is extremely clear and straightforward. I’m not sure how it could be stated any simpler.