## The dual nature of the dual form

Respectively, for 2000, we have 0.799 (0.833: 1.043), and for 2003 - 0.963 (0.893: 0.927). Fix that real inflation in 2000 with the devaluation of the ruble was 20.1%, not 16.7%, but in 2003 - only 3.7% instead of 10.7%, as a consequence of its formal calculation disregarding the real devaluation.

Step 5. Given the excessive assumptions about a possible devaluation (in 2000) and revaluation (in 2003) of the entire mass of the ruble, and assuming that the effect of these processes in Russia, there were approximately 15% of the total mass of the ruble, we find the rate of inflation given the limited devaluation and revaluation of the ruble. For 2000, we have (0.833 x 0.85) + (0.799 x 0.15) = 0.828. And for 2003: (0.893 x 0.85) + (0.963 x 0.15) = 0.904.

On the basis of the estimates finally fix that takes into account the real inflation in the country in 2000 was as follows: (1.000 - 0.828) x 100 = 17.2%, not 20.2%. Accordingly, in 2003: (1.000 - 0.904) x 100 = 9.6%, not 12%, as it is officially announced.

Step 6. Determine the price increase in 2000 by 20% and in 2003 - by 12%. If in Russia in 2000, inflation rose by 20%, then, in view of these considerations (ie, with full or partial devaluation of the ruble mass), the estimated increase in consumer prices was not 20%, as it is Apparently, there was in fact and is represented in everyday life, and 25% (the exact figure is 25.3%), as follows from the logic of the account of inverse numbers (1.0: 0.8), and the 30% or more (the exact figure is 30.6%). The maximum: 1.25 x 1.0415 = 1.306, where 1.045 = 1.0: 0.957 and 0.957 = 1.0 - 0.043.

The corresponding figure for the minimum, with a limited share of the ruble supply in the foreign exchange treatment of 15%: 1.25 x 0.85 x 0.15 + 1.045 = 1.219. That is, in this case, the overall increase in prices was in 2000 would not 20.2%, and 21.9%.

The same goes for all the other cases, when inflation is accompanied and therefore increases the devaluation of national currencies. In contrast, our assertion will be unfair if inflation is accompanied by a revaluation and deflation - devaluation, or there is a simultaneous process of deflation and revaluation.

It is clear that in all the cases, the "countdown" is not excluded, and may be feigned aberration numbers. For if, for example, in 2003, inflation was 12%, then the estimated rate of increase in prices would be equal to 13.6%, not 12%, as is The situation really is. This is precisely feigned aberration. The reasoning of this kind can build a lot.

Step 7. Determine whether the estimate will change with the inflation and devaluation of the ruble revaluation in euros. When the quote ruble in euros rather than in U.S. dollars, its devaluation will be fixed in 2003, and the revaluation - in 2000 and then presented estimates undergo appropriate modification. Measure and form of this modification will be determined each time a particular interest convertible ruble supply in the respective currencies and treated as a combined average devaluation or revaluation of the ruble. For this reason, the calculated and published estimates of inflation may also undergo corresponding specifications. Differences in estimates of inflation, according to its understanding of and adjustment to the devaluation and revaluation, as we see, in all cases considered so significant that they can not be neglected.