Let's pick on Paul Krugman

Paul says:

The key is not to look at the headline number; you should keep your eyes on the core.

Core inflation — like the Keynesian multiplier — is one of those much-ridiculed concepts (hey, you’re measuring inflation without the inflation!) that has in fact performed extremely well in recent years. Back in 2010-11, when rising gas prices were sending headline numbers up, I and many others received a lot of hostile comments for claiming that there wasn’t any real inflation bulge; but core inflation has indeed been a much more reliable guide than headline inflation, which fluctuates wildly.

Now, these two variables seem to swing together, Headline has a more volatile swing, but their periods match up.   So, if I look at core inflation I can fairly predict headline and visa versa, Each of these contain the same information, they each move in proportion to their peaks.  Paul is frankly full of crap


But more, Paul says everything was OK in 2011, let's look:

This is Illinois unemployment, it was declining up to Apr 2011, then is reversed and rose from Apr 2011 to Sept 2011.  How is that OK?

And what was happening in the last half of 2011? Oil prices peaking, that would be headline inflation, mainly driven by oil shortages causing unemployment in Illinois, which is a traffic hub, mostly dependent on oil. 

Should we look at headline inflation?
If you are a statistically incompetent Keynesian working for Obama, then I would look, because Illinois is Obama's home state. That double recession dip in Illinois was caused by fiscal stimulus from incompetent economists who took Krugman's advice. They have since been fired.