Interesting accounting
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
It is accounted for in Cost of Living. This is one of the areas that I was talking about. You would have to separate the fuel sold for delivering goods from the fuel sold for driving to work, etc. Hence the Cost of Living reports being separate from the Inflation rate. In order to be consistent they report it the same way that they have in the past. It isn't sneaky, it is the same way they have done it for many many decades in order to keep it sane they continue.
That too is in the Cost of Living reports. It is the reason they are separate.
Once again, it is accounted for at the beginning. The Prince Index falls because the delivery is cheaper, the cost of manufacture is cheaper because Direct Energy Costs have lowered as well. The price of gas has an effect on the CPI, as I have explained repeatedly in this thread. It is the reason that it is not also directly accounted for as it would exaggerate the effect.
And I think you deliberately miss the point about why it is the way it is because it fits into your argument better if you can pretend that some conglomeration of big baddies is out to trick you.
uscitizen
Villified User
I just want the facts not spin Damo.
If I see a headline that says the CPI is up 2.5% then I want it to be figured the same way every time, not have to read down and find that this excludes energy and food. and then the next time they have included energy but not food, etc...
If I see a headline that says the CPI is up 2.5% then I want it to be figured the same way every time, not have to read down and find that this excludes energy and food. and then the next time they have included energy but not food, etc...
You are upset because they don't include gas prices, then when it says that the gas prices effet it you think it is because they included it at the backend. That is where you messed this one. The gas prices always effect the CPI in the same way because they are accounted for as Direct Energy Costs at the front end. The cost of items is relative to the cost of the delivery and manufacture of the item. Thus it is always accounted for.
No, you miss the point.
It was factored the same. That the story says that fuel effects prices is not surprising, because fuel prices do effect prices. I explained how it happens several times in the thread. *sigh*
You keep thinking how it is reported means that it was factored differently than before. It was not.
This is the "spin" I was talking about in stories. This would not be considered an editorial hence the Fairness Doctrine would not apply. You would have no recourse but simply looking at this report and dealing with it...
This is the "spin" I was talking about in stories. This would not be considered an editorial hence the Fairness Doctrine would not apply. You would have no recourse but simply looking at this report and dealing with it...
Nope. It would have something to do with the reporting of it though. If I write an article reporting on this it is an article and not an editorial. You have nothing to do, no other sources, you hear no other side.
Pretending that the newpapers that put out articles about the report never would have a spin to their stories is simply disingenuous.
Pretending that the newpapers that put out articles about the report never would have a spin to their stories is simply disingenuous.
You miss the point again, there is no "just the facts" reporters spin their stories in their choice of words.
For example. If I write a story about a suicide bombing and use "freedom fighter" instead of "terrorist" and call it just a "bombing" but don't mention how it was delivered does it change the story? It would not be an editorial and would not fall under the Fairness Doctrine, there would be no other "side" reported. Or conversely if I write the same story and instead of calling it a bombing I use "homicide bomber" and "terrorist" instead...
This was how it happened in the past, but there was no other source...
It is much easier to get a wide range of actual information and to weed out the spin when it is obvious. Much easier to make decisions and opinions based on such information.
Because other forms of media have taken their place. People get information from far more than these places nowadays. Thankfully, we have far more choices. Instantly we access the BBC, Al Arabiya, blogspots, etc. We have far more access to more direct information than ever before. Therefore media outlets do not make quite as much as they did before, they consolidate just like any other companies...
