When using the version of the CPI the same way the government used before 1980, inflation is over 15%.
Rents are included in the CPI, because they are expenditures that are consumed in current period of time.
But house prices are not, because they are expenditures on an asset to be consumed over many years. If you own a house, you will benefit from the rising prices--if and when you sell it. In a sense, houses are treated like capital goods for consumers. That is, rising house prices are not a burden to homeowners, whereas rising rents are a burden to renters.
Experts argue that raw (i.e., the cost of actually purchasing a home) should never be included in CPI's because homes are not viewed as something people buy on a regular basis.
But that argument really becomes unstuck when you factor that reserve banks around the world use CPI to determine interest rates.
The largest purchase for many people across the globe that relate directly to interest rates, is not shares, businesses, cars or any other similar investments, but homes. So, it affects the prices of homes and their affordability directly through the setting of interest rates (people need to borrow to buy a home in 99% of cases) and yet these same institutions and their simple-minded economists refuse to take into account the growth of the same home prices when determining interest rates.
Inflation in real terms should be a measure of everything purchased in the economy whether it be a home, investment or bread.
Otherwise, you have ridiculous situations globally where the indicators most economists use say we have negative inflation, so interest rates are dropped and house borrowing, and house prices go through the roof. If a housing market goes up 20% per year in some countries, then should this not be included in the inflation rate? Because if house prices were included interest rates would be on the way up and not down.
Vested interest in banking or housing sectors are the biggest problem in today's global economy as to low interest rates fueling asset bubbles (the biggest being residential housing in many countries). One way to fix this problem easily is to start including house prices into CPI's and not burying our heads in the sand with ridiculous arguments as why not to.
I've been saying this for ages and I warned everyone on here about two years ago that real inflation was above 10% (when the stated figures were around 3%). Nobody cared or listened, though. It's now around 15-20%, and could be higher. The fact they base their official figures on the CPI has always been misleading as it pulls the wool over peoples eyes. The real inflation, especially asset prices like cars and houses, is what led me to begin looking for a solution, and that's why I pulled my money out the bank and put it into crypto. The APR was good enough to retain my money's purchasing power, and I got 3% Visa card cashback plus all the other benefits that I've mentioned before. It was a no brainer.
What this man said back in 2013 is very true, and even more so in light of recent events. When the banking system failed in 2008, it was our tax money that bailed them all out, and absolutely nobody went to jail for it. The after-effects of that event rippled across the world and ruined millions of lives, and the credit agencies knew that those mortgage-backed securities were junk, but they had the audacity to give them AAA ratings anyway. They loan out
our money to others to acquire profits for themselves, and then they charge
us extra via fees and pay us a diabolical interest rate for the privilege. It's a system that's rigged in favour of the few at the expense of everybody.
When will the bankers be held accountable? There's now a way for us to get paid a fair share - and the banks hate it - but oddly, so do many on this thread and elsewhere. It's a real head-scratcher for me, but it's to be expected as it's such a new industry. What I didn't like is how some of the major UK banks stopped people from accessing Binance under the guise of "they were protecting them." When the banks start dictating to people how they can use their own money it becomes a lot clearer what their motives really are. Think about it, they can use your money to make money (by cutting you out of the loop), but if you want to make money with your own money it's forbidden; you're not allowed
This has nothing to do with left or right politics, either.
Addendum: It was ultimately a friend of mine who showed me what it was all about, but I was highly sceptical and had pretty much the same views as most people here. As soon as the coronavirus hit (which decimated my business), something had to give, and it was at that point that I jumped in and gave it a go. I ordered a Crypto.com Visa card and put some money into a stable coin to earn 12%. As the cashback rolled in, I was pretty flabbergasted in all honesty, and it wasn't long until I used this money to upgrade to the 3% card (it was essentially a free upgrade). I started with £200 to get the card and did a few small top-ups of my own (around £200 another 3 times), and that money is now worth around £10k. I can use it to buy things, reinvest it, or leave it and continue to receive the interest.
Member
. People probably don't believe that you get 12% APR either, or any of the other perks I've mentioned. Most would rather let the banks give them 0.01% APR, and nothing else, but that's just the way it is I guess. 
Devaluing everyone's savings to reduce their own debt burden! Bitcoin and crypto simply wouldn't exist if the central banks weren't such a trainwreck. It's their incompetence that spawned this industry in the first place.
(where's the hand on chin emoji when you need one 
). All that growth is debt funded, and unless they can grow their way out of it, they are going to run into some trouble. The problem is that to stimulate growth, you ideally want to lower the interest rates; raising them could trigger a recession and then the debt becomes even bigger.
