How do they get calculated?

This page has answers:

The CPI consists of a family of indexes that measure price change experienced by urban consumers. Specifically, the CPI measures the average change in price over time of a market basket of consumer goods and services. The market basket includes everything from food items to automobiles to rent. The CPI market basket is developed from detailed expenditure information provided by families and individuals on what they actually bought. There is a time lag between the expenditure survey and its use in the CPI. For example, CPI data in 2023 was based on data collected from the Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CE) for 2021. That year, over 20,000 consumer units from around the country provided information each quarter on their spending habits in the interview survey. To collect information on frequently purchased items, such as food and personal care products, approximately another 12,000 consumer units kept diaries listing all items they bought during a 2-week period that year. This expenditure information from weekly diaries and quarterly interviews determines the relative importance, or weight, of the item categories in the CPI index structure.

The CPI represents all goods and services purchased for consumption by the reference population (U or W). BLS has classified all expenditure items into more than 200 categories, arranged into eight major groups (food and beverages, housing, apparel, transportation, medical care, recreation, education and communication, and other goods and services). Included within these major groups are various government-charged user fees, such as water and sewerage charges, auto registration fees, and vehicle tolls.

If you want to see the current makeup of the basket of goods whose prices are tracked, and their weights in the index, here is Table 1 of the most recent report. And if you want to follow the price of a specific category over time, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis keeps a really helpful interactive chart service for almost every public economic stat. Here is Table 1 of the CPI report.

It’s a lot of data collection on prices across a lot of transactions, and a lot of list prices, and a lot of locked in contract prices, to determine how much people are spending on different types of things, whether the quality of those things is changing over time, and what percentage of a typical household income gets spent on those types of things.

1 oz = 28.35 g

Maybe that 1/3 of a gram is shorting someone, but a single ounce is closer to 28g than to 30g.

Obviously depends on the specific item.

Here’s the national averages for:

Flour

Milk

Boneless chicken breast

Or an entire table of food items they’ve been tracking monthly prices on for years.

The Five Dollar Footlong was a promo created in 2003 when the normal price of a footlong was $6, by a single franchisee. By the time the promo went national, supported by the chain itself (and a national ad campaign), in 2008, that became a big enough deal to really move sales. And they watered it down at some point (by late 2010 when I was working next to a Subway and no other lunch options, I remember it only being a specific sandwich that rotated monthly, with all other footlongs regularly priced). And it was eventually discontinued in 2012.

It’s hard to pin this particular promo and call it totally representative of all pricing in the mid 2010s.

$5 in April 1980 dollars is the inflation adjusted equivalent of $20 in December 2025:

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=5.00&year1=198004&year2=202512

Resistance takes many forms.

Completely lawful resistance can include social pressure or ostracism, economic influence (boycotts, refusal to serve as customer, etc.), messaging/speech/persuasion, protests, strikes, etc. Keeping the cameras rolling, telling them how you feel about them being in your neighborhood, warning your neighbors about them.

Civil disobedience goes up the ladder a bit, and can cause disruption and might be nonviolent, but might at times actually be illegal. Generally speaking, this type of resistance is designed to clog up the system without being violent, and doesn’t even require anonymity or evasion from authorities.

Sometimes simply playing dumb can slow things down without actually committing a crime of putting yourself at much risk. Apply for a job at ICE with 1000 of your closest friends so they waste resources on your application. Forget to put in their order when you’re their waiter, or give them the shitty hotel room when they check in at your hotel, and program their keys incorrectly. Give them the wrong bay/spot when they’re renting a car from you. Call in tips for everything you see and flood their lines with bad information.

Most people jump from that category to outright violent resistance, but there are other tactics available, too. Sabotage, property crimes, plain old financial crimes, fraud, impersonation, hacking or denial of service, even things like theft, embezzlement. Locking a fence with a bicycle lock, blocking a driveway with a van, flooding a field with mud, impersonating their boss and giving them fake orders, sending them on a goose chase with a bad tip, etc.

If you shoot an ICE agent you might turn them into a hero. Steal their badge or ID when they’re drinking at the bar, though, and you might actually hurt them in ways that they won’t feel like a martyr, and will actually sap resources from their management.

Everyone is in a different situation, with different capabilities. Every war has plenty of roles, many of them nonviolent. There’s probably something you can do today to contribute to the cause, from your unique position.

Maybe you’re not dreaming big enough on what makes ideal conditions. The fraudulent Nikola company managed to film a semi “driving” a few km without a powertrain, by just letting it roll downhill. I bet there’s a place that has a high enough altitude and smooth enough roads for a long downhill descent where 600km on a 300km battery is possible.

Makes me wonder about the wheel’s rotational inertia, too. In theory, a hubless wheel could be lower mass overall without the need for a center axle/hub and spokes connecting the outside to the center. But that’s all weight saved in the center of the wheel with lower effect on overall rotational inertia. Visually, the picture that makes the thumbnail in this post shows that the brake disc has to be further from the center of the wheel, which I imagine adds a lot more weight (more material necessary for the overall brake disc being a larger circle) and a lot more rotational inertia (further from the center).

Maybe the whole design itself can save weight in certain places that make up for the weight added in other places. But I just have a ton of questions, and am overall pretty skeptical of the long term potential of this design.

Looks cool, though, I guess.

The hubless wheel is on their current models. It’s basically their signature differentiator.

There’s reason to be skeptical of the company and its claims as a whole, but at least that particular feature has shipped and has been test driven by reviewers:

https://thepack.news/11000-km-in-2-months-marc-travels-rides-the-verge-ts-across-europe/

The CPB exists to allocate government funding to nonprofit public stations (the individual broadcasters in each city) and networks (NPR and PBS). Without government funding, the CPB has no reason to exist.

The public stations and NPR and PBS still exist. They are the ones that actually produce and distribute content. And they’ve always relied some on donations.

PBS and its stations have been roughly 15% funded through the CPB. The rest relies on donations and other income.

NPR doesn’t receive much money directly from the CPB (less than 1% of its budget), but its member stations do, around 13% on average.

So it’s not the end of the world for these stations, but it does represent a reduction in funding that is pretty serious.

“Everyone will just X” when X individually makes obvious sense for most people.

For some, it’s a matter of cost. The cheaper option tends to get a lot of adopters. Making the better option cost less is sometimes a matter of engineering and innovation improving the cost of the better option. Or sometimes it’s making the worse option cost more, sometimes directly through taxation or indirectly through regulations. Electric cars are pretty much on a self sustaining path at this point, where the economics of electric cars can be a much better financial decision for themselves personally, compared to similar ICE vehicles.

For others, it’s a matter of cultural influence, where trends in adoption just make things different. Tobacco use, especially actual smoking, is way down. Drinking alcohol is down, too. In my lifetime, helmet use for bicyclists and skiers is way up. These broad societal preferential shifts can happen without necessarily having big mandates from government.

And even if nudged somewhere by temporary government policy or price, sometimes people stick with that option long term if that’s what they learn to prefer. Seat belts kinda went this way, where seat belt usage rates went way up between 1980 and 2010, so that even after federal regulations were struck down by the courts and state level enforcement dwindled in the past decade, everyone still wears seat belts (including when visiting places where they’re not required).

And of course, the big influential force for changing behavior is government policy. As a society, we’ve pretty seamlessly moved off of things that were banned (leaded fuel, CFCs), even if the transition took a few decades (lead pipes, lead paint), or quickly adopted things that were mandatory (child car seats, bike helmets).

Emissions from food production is one of those things that can shift a bit from all of these factors. We’ve shifted away from beef towards chicken in the last few decades, and that alone has made a difference in greenhouse emissions. We might see more shifting down that line, just culturally. Or we might see some economic nudges from the fact that beef and dairy production are so costly for reasons correlated to their environmental impact.

But ultimately, meat doesn’t contribute nearly as much as driving does, for the typical American household. The real impact comes from how we design our cities, not on how we eat.

The Federal Reserve is the entity that can creates dollars out of thin air, bevause they control the interest rate of the dollar.

They control the base currency by physically printing dollars and lending money directly to banks. Then, more significantly, they influence the money supply by influencing how much commercial banks are lending, through interest rate operations, and sometimes through market operations that provide liquidity for certain types of securities (especially government bonds).

Taken together, it’s the power to create or destroy money in response to macroeconomic trends.

The Federal Reserve system is independant of the US federal government.

Kinda. The board of governors is chosen by the president to 14-year terms, theoretically making them independent of any specific President’s specific priorities. But there’s a Supreme Court case heading when the President can fire the governors, which might effectively end or limit Fed independence.

The individual federal reserve banks also operate in their regions with a lot of leeway to meet local needs, and those are public/private partnerships where nationally chartered banks also have a voice in their operations.

My “We’re totally different from Enron” accounting report has a lot of investors asking questions answered by the report.

In my mind the concept was one of regulatory oversight.

No, the core concept is one of whether a bank has full reserves, sufficient to cover all of the deposit liability. If the bank keeps only a fraction of the total liability in reserves, then that’s a fractional reserve.

Do you think that when a bank loans money to another bank they are creating money out of thin air?

Yes, that creates money.

If they can do that then why do they need to borrow money?

They need to borrow money for liquidity, to cover the payments they owe to others. An IOU isn’t money, so having a bunch of IOUs in the asset column may require a bank to pledge those IOUs to borrow some money from someone else, maybe even another bank. Then, with money in hand, they can make payments to fund their own operations (pay employees, rent, vendors, taxes, etc.) and pay depositors on demand.

And as a financial institution borrows too much and pays that interest, or is overextended without enough assets to remain solvent/liquid to be able to make payments as they’re due, they may find themselves with insufficient creditworthiness to be able to borrow freely (as other banks are wary of lending to someone who might not pay back). And they might fail. So that general concern always provides a limit on how much they can borrow from other private entities.

They can borrow from the central bank as a lender of last resort, but that carries a cost (and can still only borrow as much as their assets can support). If they’re paying more interest to their creditors than they’re collecting from their borrowers, they’re gonna fail.

Do you believe that the US government must collect taxes before it can spend money? Or do you agree that government spending is self financed and money creation (in spending by the US government) is only limited by concerns of inflation?

No, the government can (and does) borrow money to finance its operations, as well. For the U.S., the sheer amount of government spending is such a high percentage of economic activity that it would be highly inflationary to combine the fiscal power of spending money with the monetary power of controlling the money supply (through creation of base currency, influencing private transactions and interest rates to control bank-created money, and buying/selling securities on the open market).

I think if we lived in a different system without an independent central bank, we’d see a lot of different things going on, including a temptation to elected officials to just create money without regard to inflationary effects. But in the current system, most of the money is created by banks.

Do you believe that Banks hold digital money in their reserves? I do.

Yes, that’s what we’ve been talking about the whole time. When a commercial bank creates a loan, that’s just a ledger that creates an asset in one column and a liability in another column. It could be paper, or it could be digitally stored. If the funds are transferred electronically to another bank, that’s often an electronic record with no physical movement of anything. So yes, those are effectively digital dollars that can be withdrawn as paper money on demand at any given time.

it’s true that banks can create money when they lend more than they have in reserves and assets

To be clear, the article is saying (and I’m saying) that the bank creates money every time it makes a loan, in the amount of the loan. Regardless of whatever its reserve and asset situation is. An asset and a liability are created in that moment that cancel out, and then each side can take their asset and do something with it: the borrower uses that cash to spend, and the lender uses that loan balance as an asset it can borrow against or otherwise count on income from.

IMO bank loans are credit but the bank loans are repaid with actual money.

It’s repaid with actual money, but it’s all actual money. When the loan is created the balance in the deposit account can be withdrawn or transferred from there and it’s real money that can buy real goods and real services. The money is created, and then it’s real money in the economy. Then the loan is repaid with real money, and then destroyed in the act of repayment and reducing the balance owed on the loan.

Also, you mentioned fractional reserve banking but that no longer exists. It ended around 2020 when the government changed regulations and no longer requires banks to hold any ratio of reserves to debt.

No, that had the opposite effect of what you think. The minimum reserve requirement was abolished, so banks could then do fractional reserve banking in any fraction they pleased, including even smaller ratios than what was previously allowed. The change in regulation didn’t eliminate fractional reserve banking; it eliminated limits on fractional reserve banking, and every bank continued to hold a reserve that is much, much smaller than 100% of the amount of their deposit liabilities. So the fractions still exist. And can continue to exist in any number, with other practical limits on their ability to loan (creditworthiness and solvency).

VTWAX is still like 65% US equities. It hasn’t diversified out of U.S. exposure (and frankly, international stocks aren’t protected from U.S. economic crises). A lot of people think about full blown collapse and crisis, but wouldn’t know what to do about lethargy and stagnation for decades, but still roughly the same economic and financial paradigm.

I think U.S. equities are overpriced right now, especially when looking at market cap weighted indexes (because the U.S. tech bubble seems to represent a much higher percentage of any given index). And I’m concerned that the correction will just be decades of tepid growth or even stagnation where decades of investment won’t actually earn a good return. Not that I’m investing in something else, other than maybe the soft skills I’ve described in my earlier comment.

Your own link from the Bank of England starts off with the thesis that agrees with me:

This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans

And you might as well link to the canonical URL of the PDF or the Bank of England website landing page for that article instead of Google Drive acting as a middleman.

The money in the bank’s reserves started its life by being created by the federal government.

No, you’re misunderstanding how the money supply works. The creation of physical printed money might happen by the government, but those physical dollars represent such a small portion of the overall money supply.

First of all, through fractional reserve banking, one physical dollar can get multiplied many times over to represent many dollars in circulation. Especially because most transactions happen on paper, through a ledger that transfers funds from one account to another.

Everything you’re saying still relates to the practical limits of money creation by commercial banks, in terms of creditworthiness (banks don’t want to lend money they can’t get back) and liquidity/regulation (banks don’t want to be left vulnerable without sufficient reserves to satisfy account holders demanding their deposits).

Realistically, the bank takes one of their own assets, such as the balance on the loan, and uses that as collateral to borrow liquid cash as needed for its own reserves (which are only a fraction of the total deposits in its accounts). And every dollar in a circle in a closed loop that doesn’t touch the Fed is a dollar that doesn’t actually trace back to a governmental entity. The Fed is a lender of last resort, but they’re a last resort because they generally charge higher interest than bank to bank loans.

So of the entire money supply, the vast majority of it is dollars created by banks, not dollars created by the government.

To me, exploitation by association is still exploitation.

But by this telling, the billionaire isn’t any less moral than the person who buys the tickets. If simply transacting with this system is unethical, then the billionaires aren’t any worse than the millionaires, or even the people barely subsisting on what they have.

In my eyes, there’s a huge difference between the person who actively exploits others, and one who incidentally interacts with a person who exploits others. Especially if choosing to opt out wouldn’t actually reduce the exploitation happening. There are still degrees to things, so it’s entirely possible for the billionaire artist to be ethically superior to the millionaire venue operator, even when they both rely on the other.

Not to mention, there’s a difference in kind when talking about exploitation in terms of a team effort where not enough of the fruits of the labor get shared fairly with all team members (positive sum interactions) versus when one actively takes from another, and that victim is worse off from the transaction.

These changes disproportionately affect rural areas.The Postal Service is reducing trips between mailboxes and post offices more than 50 miles from a regional hub. So that means rural areas and even urban areas that are far from a regional hub will see disproportionate reduction in mail delivery performance, and will be more likely to see a delay in postmarking.