> I am looking for some reason for not including asset
 > prices in the calculation of the rate of inflation. Or
 > have we been remiss all along?


Try this one: financial assets represent either a share of ownership 
in a firm that produces a good (or service) or represent a claim on 
(e.g., bonds) the stream of income of a goods producing firm. When 
the price of a good goes up, the firm's share price and bond prices 
should also rise. What is to be added by including all three prices 
(with a concommitant increase in the volume of sale of goods, shares, 
and bonds) in one's index of prices? Two of the prices are derived 
from the first.

However, it  isn't as if there's only ONE price index now. So there 
isn't a single "the" rate of inflation. Depends on which index (or 
deflator) one's using.
No one's stopping you from constructing the 'Neill All-Assets Index'.

Good luck.

David Hammes