Jackie Wilson said, …, no, wait. That’s the title of a Van Morrison song. I was thinking of Mark Twain. Everybody confuses Jackie and Mark, right? No. No one. Once again, I’m alone on my little version of Gilligan’s Island.
But in case you were wondering, Jackie Wilson sang, “I’m in heaven, I’m in heaven, I’m in heaven when you smile.” This is not to be confused with Fred Astair who sang, “Heaven, I’m in Heaven…When we’re out together dancing cheek to cheek.”
It is easy to confuse these four cats. They are like quadruplets separated at birth. See for yourself, Google them, and feel free to cut out each picture and paste it on card stock. When you have guests in your home, you can hand out the pictures and then have guests try to identify who is who. Confusion and hilarity will most assuredly ensue.
If you are a glutton for punishment, you can add a bonus round and have people identify who recorded “But It’s Alright” and is NOT Jackie Wilson.
You can then point out that “alright,” though used often and is acceptable, is not technically correct.
“All right” is the proper form. Grammer(sic) lessons always get the last party hangers-on to leave the house and the spouse to leave the room. Plus, party attendees are less likely to return. Minus, the Spouse is already plotting a payback.
But lest drift too far asea, what Mark Twain said was something to the effect of, “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”
That, there, is funny unless you’re depending on the facts to make life-relevant decisions. This came up when my brother and I discussed Brian Wesbury’s presentation at the Lakeland Economic Forecast Breakfast which Allen & Company sponsors each February. During his presentation, he compared economic conditions at the start of the Reagan administration and those of today. My brother Steve, an MBA grad, asked me if Brian talked about the difference in calculation methods for inflation in the 70s and the methods used today.
Uhhh, no. Ya got me on that one. I didn’t know there was a difference. A little research indicates that the CPI calculation method is in constant flux. Here’s a government resource to make you a little more confused on the subject:
History: Handbook of Methods: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
If that page is too much for you to deal with today (it was for me – reading it felt too much like work), let me extract just this one little tidbit:
1995: Implemented new sample procedures to prevent overweighting items whose prices are likely to rise
Help me here. Wouldn’t a reasonable interpretation of that sentence be, “We reduced the weighting of the items showing the highest inflation so we could report lower overall inflation?”
Now on the other side of the coin, after learning a bit more from Mr. Wesbury, I was made aware that if we use today’s calculation methods and 1970s information, we get results that are very much the same as using the method in place at the time.
So, is inflation understated today? Yeah, probably. Here’s one more insight:
In a further study, I found that the current method of CPI calculation includes calculations to avoid “substitution bias.” This (simplistically stated) means that a person’s cost of living does not really increase even though beef prices go through the roof if the consumer could be expected to substitute cheaper chicken or pork if beef prices escalate.
Hmmm. What to believe. I don’t know what the “true” rate of inflation is today, but I do believe that if you are dependent upon the CPI for your annual cost-of-living adjustment in your income, you probably want it to reflect your changes in monthly expenses across the board and are less interested in academic nuances.
We’d all likely be inclined to agree with what Yogi Berra didn’t say but probably would’ve/should’ve said, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s still a load of manure.” But maybe that’s just Yogi … and me.
Today’s rant, however, is not about the rate of inflation and annual social security adjustments, much as it may seem so far. It’s about having access to the data to help us understand the economy and to allow us to do the long-range planning we need for financial needs.
Ronald Regan famously said, “Trust, but verify.” What are we to do when we can’t verify the data. John Wayne’s character in The Undefeated was repeatedly telling the comely widow holding the Winchester, “Windage and elevation, Mrs. Langdon, windage and elevation.” I think that’s our motto: Windage and elevation.
When we can’t trust the data, we had best adjust our aim accordingly. We should (for the purposes of retirement planning) always understate our assets and projected returns and overstate our expenses. We should consider what ill winds may blow up to the very worst history offers and project our timeline out farther than we expect to need dollars and cents. And then we live our lives with an awareness of changing times, but not in fear of tomorrow. Knowing how to use your Winchester wouldn’t hurt either.
April 2025
