The CPI is a number that tells us how much more expensive things are each month compared to last year. It includes food, energy, and housing prices. Some people think this number does not show the true cost of living because they pay more for groceries or eating out than what the CPI says. They also say that some parts of the CPI, like food away from home, are too low. The article argues that shelter costs (housing) and energy prices are big factors in making things more expensive. Also, there is a shortage of houses for sale, which makes housing prices go up even more. Read from source...

- The author seems to have a strong personal bias against the CPI data and its methodology. He insists that anyone who believes that number hasn’t been inside a grocery store in years, implying that his own anecdotal experience is more accurate than official statistics. This is a fallacy of hasty generalization, as one person's observation cannot be extrapolated to the whole population or economy.
- He also repeatedly mentions that he writes this every month, suggesting that he has a preconceived agenda or motive to discredit the CPI data. This undermines his credibility and objectivity as an analyst.
- He expresses skepticism about the food away from home category, without providing any evidence or reasoning behind his claim. This is another example of a weak argument that lacks logical support. He also admits that most people he talks to share his opinion, but this does not make it more valid or reliable. It only shows that there is a groupthink or confirmation bias among them.
- He relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and personal experience to criticize the CPI data, rather than presenting any empirical or statistical data to back up his claims. This makes his argument weaker and less persuasive. For example, he mentions that his grocery bills are up more than 1% from last year, but does not provide any context or comparison with the actual CPI data for food inflation. He also cites unnamed people who do the grocery shopping for their households, without specifying how many, where they live, or what kind of food they buy. This is insufficient and misleading information that cannot support his claims.
- He seems to have a negative attitude towards the BLS and its staff, calling their work "nonsense" and accusing them of printing false data. This shows a lack of respect and professionalism on his part, as well as an inability to acknowledge that there may be different methods or perspectives in measuring inflation.
- He acknowledges that energy prices are not cheap, but still blames the CPI for comparing them with last year's spikes. This is a faulty logic, as it ignores the fact that energy prices fluctuate over time and affect inflation differently depending on various factors. He also fails to mention any positive aspects or benefits of lower energy prices for consumers and the economy.
- He briefly mentions the other categories of the CPI, but does not provide any analysis or commentary on them. He seems to focus only on the food and shelter components, which may indicate that he has a narrow or biased view of inflation and its causes. He also ignores the fact that the CPI is a comprehensive index that covers a wide range

Bearish

Summary: The article is bearish on the CPI report for January as it argues that the official numbers do not reflect the true inflationary pressure felt by households. The author points out the discrepancy between the food away from home category and anecdotal evidence of higher grocery prices. Additionally, the author highlights the persistent high shelter costs and wage growth as factors that keep inflation elevated despite energy prices coming down.