>"Consumer prices rose 8.5% in March, slightly hotter than expected and the highest since 1981"
The qualifier "slightly hotter than expected" reeks of media manipulation. 'Spin' at best, 'propaganda' at worst. It seems obvious to me that the reporters are trying to dampen or downplay this obviously negative news. Whereas this exact same news could be harped on and used like a weapon against the policy of the current administration. But don't worry, this was "expected" and only slightly worse than our central planners predicted. Keep calm and carry on.
Nonsense. 8.5% is literally slightly hotter than the expected 8.4%. From yesterday's Axios:
> Details: Analysts surveyed by FactSet expect the release to show 8.4% inflation over the last year. That would be the highest inflation rate since December 1981. The rate was 7.9% for the year that ended in February.
From this morning (6am) Morning Brew:
> Good morning. Today’s consumer price index reading is expected to show that March prices surged 8.4% over last year. You know who’s not contributing to inflation? The Brew. Today, we’re launching a revamped referral program with cheaper “prices” on swag items…that were already free to begin with.
So the NEWS of the release is that it was 8.5% instead of 8.4%. That's why they pointed it out. Everything else was already priced in by markets.
This is a weird comment. "Expected" doesn't mean it's good. It was expected because March already happened and forecasters had a pretty good idea of what the retrospective measure would be based on their own measurements.
The qualifier "slightly hotter than expected" reeks of media manipulation. 'Spin' at best, 'propaganda' at worst. It seems obvious to me that the reporters are trying to dampen or downplay this obviously negative news. Whereas this exact same news could be harped on and used like a weapon against the policy of the current administration. But don't worry, this was "expected" and only slightly worse than our central planners predicted. Keep calm and carry on.