> Why would you link to GDP PER CAPITA? Are you ignoring that population has grown since 2000?
1. using country level GDP gets you a 63% drop, hardly any better
2. The argument I was making was with respect to living standards (ie. there's no way that our income/living standards dropped 67% in 20 years). In that context it makes sense to use GDP per capita rather than GDP for the entire country. If US population grew 50% over some time period, and GDP only grew 25%, that's actually bad because that means the average person is actually worse off than before.
GDP since 2000 went from 10.5T to 24T (2.285x). Adjusted for 3% inflation, that's a 26% increase.
Your point remains.
4% inflation would mean a 4% increase over 20 years.
5% inflation would mean a 14% DECREASE over 20 years.
6% inflation would mean a 29% DECREASE over 20 years.
7% inflation would mean a 41% DECREASE over 20 years.
8% inflation would mean a 51% DECREASE over 20 years.
The problem is - the way people experience inflation is dramatically impacted by whether they had a 30-year fixed mortgage.
If your house PRICE went up 400% since 2000 and your housing cost went DOWN 20% since 2000 - inflation would obviously seem low.
If your rent went up 400% since 2000, it obviously feels different.
67% of people are homeowners - and the Fed's measure of inflation seems largely targeted to this group of people. The true rate of inflation is almost certainly higher - but probably nowhere close to ShadowStats.