Inflation is expected to have remained unchanged in February
On a monthly basis, inflation is seen rising 0.4% which is higher than the previous month thanks to an uptick in energy prices.
Inflation is expected to have remained unchanged in February, according to the closely watched inflation report due Tuesday. On a monthly basis, inflation is seen rising 0.4%, which is higher than the previous month thanks to an uptick in energy prices.
Economists expect that prices across a broad spectrum of goods and services rose 0.4% on the month
Accuracy
The closely watched inflation report due Tuesday is expected to show that progress in fighting price pressures within the economy slowed again in February.
On a monthly basis, inflation is seen rising 0.4%, which is higher than the 0.3% figure recorded in January thanks to an uptick in energy prices.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author states that inflation slowed again in February when it actually increased by 0.4% on a monthly basis and rose to an annual figure of 3.7%. This contradicts their statement about progress being made against price pressures within the economy.
The consumer price index is expected to show that prices rose 3.1% in February, unchanged from the previous month.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of economists without providing any evidence or context for their beliefs. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: inflation is either increasing or decreasing when in fact there may be other factors at play that are not being considered. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric with phrases such as 'severe financial pressures' and 'disproportionately borne by low-income Americans'.
The consumer price index is expected to show that prices rose 3.1% in February, unchanged from the previous month.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains several examples of bias. The author uses language that depicts inflation as a negative thing and the Federal Reserve's target rate as an unattainable goal. Additionally, the author quotes experts who use extreme language to describe inflation such as 'strong monthly increase', 'ran hot in February on higher gasoline prices', and 'burden is disproportionately borne by low-income Americans'. The article also uses a lot of examples that reflect a specific position, such as the expectation for interest rates and the central bank's focus on job growth. Finally, there are several instances where the author quotes experts who use language that dehumanizes inflation such as 'price pressures within the economy slowed again in February'.
<br>Core prices, which exclude the more volatile measurements of food and energy, are projected to climb 0.3%, or 3.7% annually.<br>
<br>We expect [the report] to show another strong monthly increase<br>
The article uses a lot of examples that reflect a specific position, such as the expectation for interest rates and the central bank's focus on job growth
The article uses extreme language to describe inflation such as 'strong monthly increase', 'ran hot in February on higher gasoline prices', and 'burden is disproportionately borne by low-income Americans'
The author quotes experts who use extreme language to describe inflation such as 'price pressures within the economy slowed again in February'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article discusses inflation and its impact on various aspects such as consumer price index, gasoline prices, health care costs and rent prices which are all relevant to the Federal Reserve's policies. UBS Global Wealth Management is a financial institution that may have an interest in how inflation affects their investments. Comerica Bank also has a stake in the economy and could be affected by inflationary pressures. The author of this article, Megan Henney, works for Fox Business which is owned by News Corporation Limited (NCL), a media conglomerate that may have financial ties to companies or industries discussed in the article.
The Federal Reserve's decision on interest rates could affect inflation and impact gasoline prices. The article mentions UBS Global Wealth Management, which is a financial institution that may be affected by inflationary pressures.
A key inflation reading is due out Tuesday morning.
Shoppers are seen in a Kroger supermarket in Atlanta on Oct. 14, 2022.
Rising gasoline prices likely put a floor under inflation in February
<br>On a monthly basis, inflation is seen rising <strong>0.4%</strong>
<br><em>Core CPI to run at a 3.3% rate this year</em>
Accuracy
A key inflation reading is due out Tuesday morning. Here's what to expect
On a monthly basis, inflation is seen rising 0.4% which is higher than the previous month.
The Federal Reserve's target rate is 2%. The CPI index likely ran hot in February on higher gasoline prices, but core inflation likely slowed further as car prices fell and rent increases moderated.
Deception
(30%)
The article is misleading in several ways. Firstly, it states that rising gasoline prices likely put a floor under inflation in February. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article and could be seen as an attempt to downplay the impact of other factors on inflation.
The article claims that rising gasoline prices likely put a floor under inflation in February. This claim is unsupported and may be misleading.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Federal Reserve's decision to take a go-slow approach with interest rate reductions and quotes from economists such as Sarah House of Wells Fargo. However, this does not necessarily mean that their opinions are accurate or reliable. Additionally, the article contains inflammatory rhetoric when it states that inflation is likely to show a 3.1% gain on a year-over-year basis and core inflation an increase of 37%. This statement may be seen as alarmist and could potentially influence readers' opinions without providing any evidence or context. The article also contains examples of dichotomous depictions when it states that energy prices have eased earlier in the winter but then rebounded, leading to a price increase at the pump. Finally, there is an example of inflammatory rhetoric when it says that inflation's resilience almost certainly will assure no Fed rate cuts at its next meeting and possibly into the summer.
The Federal Reserve's decision to take a go-slow approach with interest rate reductions
Energy prices have eased earlier in the winter but then rebounded, leading to a price increase at the pump
Inflation is likely to show a 3.1% gain on a year-over-year basis and core inflation an increase of 37%
Bias
(85%)
The article contains several examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes white supremacists by describing their celebration as 'verified accounts on X' and 'major far-right influencers'. This is an example of religious bias. Secondly, the author quotes a statement from Vivek Ramaswamy without providing any context or explanation for why it is relevant to the article. This could be seen as monetary bias if Ramaswamy has financial ties with companies that are being discussed in the article. Thirdly, there is an example of political bias when the author describes a statement from Sarah House, senior economist at Wells Fargo, without providing any context or explanation for why it is relevant to the article. This could be seen as ideological bias if House has a particular political leaning that influences her analysis.
major far-right influencers
verified accounts on X
Vivek Ramaswamy
'While we do not expect the trend in inflation to re-accelerate this year, less clear progress over the next few months is likely to keep the Fed searching for more confidence that inflation is on course to return to target on a sustained basis'
The closely watched inflation report due Tuesday is expected to show that progress in fighting price pressures within the economy slowed again in February.
On a monthly basis, inflation is seen rising 0.4%, which is higher than the 0.3% figure recorded in January thanks to an uptick in energy prices.
Accuracy
Inflation still stands more than a percentage point higher than the Federal Reserve's target rate of 2%.
The latest release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is expected to show that consumer prices increased 3.1% over the year ending in February, which would leave the annual inflation rate unchanged from the prior month.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that inflation data will be released on Tuesday and the latest release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is expected to show that consumer prices increased 3.1% over the year ending in February.
The latest release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is expected to show that consumer prices increased 3.1% over the year ending in February.
Inflation data to be released on Tuesday
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that inflation has cooled dramatically from its peak of about 9%, but it still stands more than a percentage point higher than the Federal Reserve's target rate of 2%. This is an example of monetary bias as the author implies that the Fed should lower interest rates to address inflation, which could lead to further economic instability. Additionally, there are statements throughout the article about how different sectors of the economy are performing and what actions policymakers may take in response. These statements suggest a political bias as they reflect an ongoing debate among economists and policymakers about how best to manage inflation.
Inflation data to be released on Tuesday will reveal the latest price movements, a key economic signal for central bankers weighing interest rate cuts
Looking back further, that figure has skyrocketed from an average 30-year fixed mortgage rate of 3.76% prior to when the Fed began raising interest rates in March 2022
The bout of stubborn prices has arrived as the Federal Reserve weighs interest rate cuts. Such a move would start to reverse a near-historic series of rate hikes that dates back to March 2022, when the Fed sought to rein in excessive price increases.
The S&P 500 -- the index that most people's 401(k)s track -- reached a record high last week.
February's Consumer Price Index (CPI) is expected to show headline inflation of 3.1% and core inflation of 3.7%.
The Federal Reserve will consider the February CPI in its next interest rate decision on March 20, with investors hoping for a cut in interest rates this year.
Core prices are expected to have climbed by only 0.3% compared to January's increase of 4%, indicating that inflation is not reaccelerating after the January data.
The main reason why headline inflation will accelerate this month despite a deceleration in core inflation is an increase in energy prices, particularly gasoline prices.
Core inflation has remained stubbornly elevated due to higher costs of shelter and core services like insurance and medical care.
While the latter should remain sticky-high, the bank does expect a deceleration in shelter prices, particularly when it comes to owners' equivalent rent (OER), or the hypothetical rent a homeowner would pay for the same property.
In January, OER inflation exceeded rent inflation by an atypically large 20 basis points.
The Fed's preferred inflation gauge, the core PCE price index, has come in below that rate on a six-month annualized basis.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell expects interest rate cuts 'at some point this year,' but wants to see more data before committing to cuts.
Markets are pricing in a nearly 100% chance the Federal Reserve keeps rates unchanged next week, and expect the central bank to begin cutting rates at its June meeting.
A report in line with expectations would keep the Fed on track to begin cutting rates at its June meeting.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that inflation will remain elevated due to higher gas prices and sticky core services like insurance and medical care. However, this statement contradicts the fact that core inflation has remained stubbornly elevated despite a deceleration in headline inflation. Secondly, the article quotes Bank of America economists stating an increase in energy prices is the main reason for headline inflation to accelerate this month. This statement is misleading as it implies that energy prices are solely responsible for rising consumer prices when other factors such as higher costs of shelter and core services also contribute to inflation.
The article quotes Bank of America economists stating that 'an increase in energy prices is the main reason why we expect headline inflation to accelerate this month'. This statement is misleading as it implies that energy prices are solely responsible for rising consumer prices when other factors such as higher costs of shelter and core services also contribute to inflation. For example, in January 2024, the index for rent and owners' equivalent rent rose 0.6% on a monthly basis while OER inflation exceeded rent inflation by an atypically large 20 basis points.
The article claims that 'inflation will remain elevated due to higher gas prices and sticky core services like insurance and medical care'. However, this statement contradicts the fact that core inflation has remained stubbornly elevated despite a deceleration in headline inflation. For example, in January 2024, the index for rent and owners' equivalent rent rose 0.6% on a monthly basis while OER inflation exceeded rent inflation by an atypically large 20 basis points.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Federal Reserve's inflation target and its preferred gauge for measuring inflation without providing any evidence or context about why these targets are relevant or reliable. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: cutting interest rates or not doing so, when in reality there may be other possibilities to address inflationary pressures. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric with the phrase 'investors are hopeful' implying that they have been negatively affected by high inflation and expect a solution from the Federal Reserve.
The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Federal Reserve's inflation target and its preferred gauge for measuring inflation without providing any evidence or context about why these targets are relevant or reliable.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains several examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who hold opposing views on inflation. For example, the phrase 'higher gas prices' is used to imply that these are a negative thing rather than just an increase in price due to supply and demand factors.
The article also contains examples of monetary bias. The author mentions the Federal Reserve's interest rate decision and its preference for inflation rates below 2%. This implies that the Fed has a vested interest in keeping inflation low, which could be seen as biased towards certain economic interests rather than neutral analysis.
The article contains several examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who hold opposing views on inflation. For example, the phrase 'higher gas prices' is used to imply that these are a negative thing rather than just an increase in price due to supply and demand factors.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Alexandra Canal has conflicts of interest on the topics of inflation and gas prices. She is an economist at Bank of America who works with Stephen Juneau and Michael Gapen to analyze economic data. The Federal Reserve also plays a role in her work as she reports on their decisions regarding interest rates.
Inflation expected to remain elevated amid higher gas prices, sticky core services
The core consumer price index, excluding food and energy, probably rose 0.3% in February.
On a monthly basis, inflation is seen rising 0.4%, which is higher than the previous month.
Accuracy
The Federal Reserve's target rate is 2%.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that the CPI report will inspire the Fed to cut rates when it's not clear if this is true or not. Secondly, Bloomberg economists Anna Wong and Stuart Paul are quoted as saying that core CPI rose 0.3% in February which contradicts other sources such as BLS who reported a rise of 1%. Thirdly, the article uses sensationalism by stating that it's been the least since April 2021 when this is not entirely accurate.
Bloomberg economists Anna Wong and Stuart Paul are quoted as saying core CPI rose 0.3% in February which contradicts other sources such as BLS who reported a rise of 1%.
The article uses sensationalism by stating that it's been the least since April 2021 when this is not entirely accurate.
The title implies that the CPI report will inspire the Fed to cut rates
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites Bloomberg Economics as saying that the monthly report on US consumer prices won't convince Federal Reserve officials it's safe to begin lowering interest rates. This statement implies that Bloomberg Economics is a reliable source of information and their opinion carries weight, which is not necessarily true.
A monthly report on US consumer prices due Tuesday won’t convince Federal Reserve officials it’s safe to begin lowering interest rates, according to Bloomberg Economics.
