Rampant statistical fraud in economics

Simon Wren Lewis:

In mid-2010 the Swedish central bank started raising interest rates (from 0.25% to 2%), despite forecasts that inflation would stay below target and with unemployment well above its natural rate. They did this explicitly because they were worried about the build up of household debt and a possible housing bubble. Inflation began to fall, and since 2013 it has been at or below zero.

This is weird, I think, so I think about it, this is weird, maybe I should find out why. I find this:

Chart - CPI inflation Sweden 2010 (yearly basis)


What! Inflation does the exact opposite of what he says.

Inflation rose and rose about 2%. When you  put back in the data Simon clipped out, you find a price adjustment, then a return to the usual decline that most of Europe suffers.  So my point is, why bother being a teacher or an economist if your goal is to commit statistical fraud. Then we find later that Krugman does the same thing, clip out the data that proves them wrong, and tie back in the data that proves them right.  Romer and Romer ditto.

Like in Romer and Romer. They identify spots where the central banker let rates rise, we get this big inflation hump, and eventually the rates and prices go back to meandering. Yet on their regression series none of this shows up! Where did it go? Oh yes, they removed it as part of their study.

I mean, why bother, this is the internet, you are going to be data checked.