Barry Ritholtz Does Not Seem to Understand the Purpose of "Core Inflation"
The Federal Reserve's mandate to maintain price stability requires that whenever significant inflation threatens it is supposed to hit the economy on the head with a brick: raise interest rates, and so discourage investment spending, lower capacity utilization, raise unemployment, and so create excess supply. The Federal Reserve would rather not do this unless it has no other option. If the rise in inflation is thought to be (a) transitory and thus (b) self-limiting, the Fed would prefer to let sleeping dogs lie rather than hit the economy on the head with a brick.
The Fed cannot, however, just say "we regard this rise in inflation as (a) transitory and thus (b) self-limiting, and so are going to let sleeping dogs lie." A Fed that does that quickly loses its credibility as an inflation-fighter, and a modern central bank with no inflation-fighting credibility is in a world of hurt.
However, when increases in inflation are confined to (i) energy and (ii) food prices, odds are that the increase is transitory and will be self-limiting. Hence the concept of "core inflation." If the Federal Reserve concludes that the current rise in inflation is transitory and self-limiting, it can point to the core inflation number as a principled excuse for not hitting the economy on the head with a brick.
The Fed uses the concept of core inflation not because it doesn't recognize that food and energy prices are not rising, but because it doesn't want to hit the economy on the head with a brick when it isn't necessary just because it has to demonstrate that it is one tough mujer.
If any of the bears are so confident of the science behind their logic, they should be willing to submit a research papers to well known economics research publications, propose a alternative coherent theory and be willing to defend their logic based on science and statistics rather than rhetoric flourish and 50000 posts which reiterate same "belief". Personal beliefs and wrong understanding of concept is not science, even though publications like Wall Street Journal and Business Week for whatever reason allow such pseudo science without challenging it.
Any such research paper if it proves established and documented economic science and theory as wrong will win a Nobel Prize.