Mathematical models are so inflexible and unresponsive to real-world, commonsense facts, that as far as I know the value of what's in my pocket goes up at the grocery store. What we need is a grounded, grassroots approach to banking that eschews the elitism of sums involving numbers that, as far as anyone knows, are no more real than Plato's perfect spheres.
Some of these numbers are nearly impossible to measure because:
- tech gets better
- products move upmarket as companies target richer customers
- sometimes, products move downmarket and gets worse
- products fall out of use and new ones take their place
With something like TV's, we can clearly see deflation at work. Your dollar buys vastly more TV than in 1990.
But what about education? That's nearly impossible to measure because we're learning different things. So if the price goes up by, say, 100%, how do we offset that against the nearly unmeasurable change in value?
You can see why economists resort to measuring Platonic, spherical eggs.
This is a GDP "nowcast," which only involves measurable numbers. The main criticism of GDP is that by focusing on the exchange of currency, it underestimates barter and social exchanges such as are prevalent in developing countries and Bethesda's Fallout series.
> But what about education? That's nearly impossible to measure because we're learning different things.
At least at the college I attended, what you studied had zero correlation to the cost, every full-time student paid the “same” tuition as everyone else.
Ah, but you're wrong. The "Nobel Prize" for Economics is actually not a literal Nobel Prize but one established by the Nobel committee after Alfred Nobel's death which has some distinctions making it different from the others.
