PDA

View Full Version : An interesting though about the minimum wage



Crepitus
09-25-2016, 03:13 PM
In 1964 minimum wage was $1.25 hr.

That's 5 quarters. In 1964 those quarters were 90% silver. Today a 1964 quarter habe a minimum value of $3.61 because that's the value of the silver in it. So those 5 quarters are now worth $18.05.

How come an hour's labor isn't?

zelmo1234
09-25-2016, 03:14 PM
In 1964 minimum wage was $1.25 hr.

That's 5 quarters. In 1964 those quarters were 90% silver. Today a 1964 quarter habe a minimum value of $3.61 because that's the value of the silver in it. So those 5 quarters are now worth $18.05.

Because a quarter is still only worth a quarter.

How come an hour's labor isn't?

Chris
09-25-2016, 03:45 PM
Inflation and you're paid in paper no longer redeemable in gold or silver.

Newpublius
09-25-2016, 04:01 PM
Its not interesting at all because, simply put, prices aren't fixed. Prices vary based on ever changing tastes and preferences.

http://www.aei.org/?attachment_id=791739

You might get less silver for your buck but you get a helluva lot more toaster, that's for sure, among many, many things.

Crepitus
09-25-2016, 05:33 PM
Not a 1964 quarter.

Dr. Who
09-25-2016, 06:50 PM
Its not interesting at all because, simply put, prices aren't fixed. Prices vary based on ever changing tastes and preferences.

http://www.aei.org/?attachment_id=791739

You might get less silver for your buck but you get a helluva lot more toaster, that's for sure, among many, many things.
You get better technology, but a lot of very cheap parts.

zelmo1234
09-25-2016, 07:52 PM
Not a 1964 quarter.

Which was made when???

1964 was the first year that the Mustang came out? it was less that 2K when it was introduced.

If you have a 1964 Mustang today? how much is it worth?

Chris
09-25-2016, 07:54 PM
You get better technology, but a lot of very cheap parts.

Cheap because production is more efficient?

zelmo1234
09-25-2016, 08:00 PM
Here is what people don't understand.

At the end of this year. 3 of my people are going to leave and start their own company. I Think they will do Great. I will of course allow them to use some of the more expensive equipment to help them get started.

I will have to Hire people to replace them, which I will hire the best from the level just below us. The Home builders that build 500 to 800K homes. When them move up to my level, they will make more money. Those people will hire people from the started home markets and they will get raises and the starter home companies will hire people from other industries or college grads.

That is how you increase income. When there are more jobs than workers them wages will rise quickly, It has bee a long time since that has happened. Trump is going to try and make that happen.

Newpublius
09-25-2016, 08:19 PM
Cheap because production is more efficient?


You get better technology, but a lot of very cheap parts.

The adage, "They don't make them like they used to" is something I'll catch myself saying with respect to buildings. I personally feel they took a bit more time on the aesthetics of Beaux Arts, Art Sedo skyscrapers which are, hands down, visually quite stunning. But there's no question about the other advantages modern buildings have......same with cars.....particularly the chrome bumpers and other metal parts.....but there's no question about the other advantages in modern cars.

Common
09-25-2016, 08:56 PM
I think the point he was making is a good one, the 5 quarters you were paid an hour in 1964 is 2 1/4 times what the minimum wage per hour is today, thats how far out of whack the min wage is.

Another point who the hell in their right mind would get out of bed, spend the cost to travel to work, work 40 hrs, then come home wihout enough to buy even basics. Id go on welfare too.

Dr. Who
09-25-2016, 09:16 PM
Cheap because production is more efficient?
No cheap because they don't care if a toaster has longevity, so they use plastics that deteriorate.

Dr. Who
09-25-2016, 09:29 PM
The adage, "They don't make them like they used to" is something I'll catch myself saying with respect to buildings. I personally feel they took a bit more time on the aesthetics of Beaux Arts, Art Sedo skyscrapers which are, hands down, visually quite stunning. But there's no question about the other advantages modern buildings have......same with cars.....particularly the chrome bumpers and other metal parts.....but there's no question about the other advantages in modern cars.
The new technology is great, but they cheap out on ridiculous things, not so much in cars because they are subject to recalls and safety issues, but in the parts of products that don't present a safety hazard. If a refrigerator from 1950 could last 40 years without breaking down, why does a refrigerator today often last no more than 5 years? We are still talking about a compressor and refrigerant. It's about the cheap parts used in the compressor. Worse still it's perhaps a $5 difference in the cost of parts. The difference in cost is not enough to have any real bearing on the overall cost of the unit, only the longevity.

Crepitus
09-25-2016, 10:19 PM
Which was made when???

1964 was the first year that the Mustang came out? it was less that 2K when it was introduced.

If you have a 1964 Mustang today? how much is it worth?
The point is everything else increased in value more than an hours work.

Newpublius
09-25-2016, 10:20 PM
The new technology is great, but they cheap out on ridiculous things, not so much in cars because they are subject to recalls and safety issues,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Lincoln_b.jpg

That bumper today would be very expensive of course. Today's bumper is underneath a plastic skin.


If a refrigerator from 1950 could last 40 years without breaking down, why does a refrigerator today often last no more than 5 years?

https://api-a.eyefi.com/3/files/2162151196/thumbnails/8672d100863b379e12f37cf426765e5cd1a2765a/s2048/image.jpg?v=4

$2,936 in 2016. I have no real insight on how long they would last of course, but what I am familiar with is that in the 1950s ice was still being delivered and stored in iceboxes. Everybody had ice boxes, not everybody had refrigerators.

Real cost of refrigerators from 1950s to 1980s decreases by a factor of 5: https://books.google.com/books?id=zj5pCSy4dUAC&lpg=PA30&ots=C-rJzZfxYy&dq=refrigerator%2C%20penetration%20rate%2C%20usa%2 C%201950&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false

Most household appliances basically go through this in the past 50-100 years. Vacuum cleaners, stoves/ranges/microwaves, air conditioning, refrigerators, dishwashers and slightly off that track TV's. I still remember going to the shore with my parents in the 1970s and the motels advertising 'color' TV as being a reason you'd want to stay there!

We are still talking about a compressor and refrigerant. It's about the cheap parts used in the compressor. Worse still it's perhaps a $5 difference in the cost of parts. The difference in cost is not enough to have any real bearing on the overall cost of the unit, only the longevity.[/QUOTE]

Crepitus
09-25-2016, 10:20 PM
I think the point he was making is a good one, the 5 quarters you were paid an hour in 1964 is 2 1/4 times what the minimum wage per hour is today, thats how far out of whack the min wage is.

Another point who the hell in their right mind would get out of bed, spend the cost to travel to work, work 40 hrs, then come home wihout enough to buy even basics. Id go on welfare too.
Thank you.

Crepitus
09-25-2016, 10:28 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Lincoln_b.jpg

That bumper today would be very expensive of course. Today's bumper is underneath a plastic skin.



https://api-a.eyefi.com/3/files/2162151196/thumbnails/8672d100863b379e12f37cf426765e5cd1a2765a/s2048/image.jpg?v=4

$2,936 in 2016. I have no real insight on how long they would last of course, but what I am familiar with is that in the 1950s ice was still being delivered and stored in iceboxes. Everybody had ice boxes, not everybody had refrigerators.

Real cost of refrigerators from 1950s to 1980s decreases by a factor of 5: https://books.google.com/books?id=zj5pCSy4dUAC&lpg=PA30&ots=C-rJzZfxYy&dq=refrigerator%2C penetration rate%2C usa%2C 1950&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false

Most household appliances basically go through this in the past 50-100 years. Vacuum cleaners, stoves/ranges/microwaves, air conditioning, refrigerators, dishwashers and slightly off that track TV's. I still remember going to the shore with my parents in the 1970s and the motels advertising 'color' TV as being a reason you'd want to stay there!

We are still talking about a compressor and refrigerant. It's about the cheap parts used in the compressor. Worse still it's perhaps a $5 difference in the cost of parts. The difference in cost is not enough to have any real bearing on the overall cost of the unit, only the longevity.[/QUOTE]

http://www.brandsmartusa.com/images/product/addl/large/17791.jpg?isrc=1111
Samsung Chef Collection RF24J9960S4 Side...
4.665 user reviews (https://www.google.com/shopping/product/17541551700118596305/reviews?q=Samsung+RF24J9960S4/AA&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS697US697&oq=Samsung+RF24J9960S4/AA&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQvCQItQE)


SponsoredShop now


$4,994.60·AJ Madison (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi6pd3RiqzPAhWRi2kKHfFPAW8YABAQ&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASJORoi9fC3197mdOYnlrtnLuUop5WmFKHPzhdXH7GJP aAsSeZlg&sig=AOD64_3qCzqcawSlvGQ6QPr_TbMGO3Hitw&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQ9A4IvAE&adurl=)Free shipping, no tax
$5,395.10·Appliances Connection (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi6pd3RiqzPAhWRi2kKHfFPAW8YABAS&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASJORoi9fC3197mdOYnlrtnLuUop5WmFKHPzhdXH7GJP aAsSeZlg&sig=AOD64_0yB-kbnK5S93CkQa7PDZmxeaAW6g&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQ9A4IvgE&adurl=)Free shipping, no tax
$5,049.00·Home Depot (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi6pd3RiqzPAhWRi2kKHfFPAW8YABAU&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASJORoi9fC3197mdOYnlrtnLuUop5WmFKHPzhdXH7GJP aAsSeZlg&sig=AOD64_1ENP539lnjGV5EuT3BDsDMeVeFzg&ctype=46&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQqSUIwAE&adurl=)http://thepoliticalforums.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABIAAAAaCAQAAAA QlMSxAAABIElEQVQoz33Su0oDQRTG8W+9lBKw0xTaGOv1htZuo Y+T4v8C2ggisVbQR0khQiBdoiaW+gBpAm5C3F2LzY4ze5upzjk/hjmHI0lCEusccc+IOXM+6HDIWloxh03eiEmsGzOkkZUlceKU7X u8fI1GJUmI2ZDEKu81KGHAijggqkURvri1El+cSxIB31b2RgxN 8Mspy2Y4s94fiJkJZs5Q/vM/IjRB6KDQRmMTLNjDkyQ89lmY/Eg8Wl98SWdMg1cr+yAunYYn9OkzcXIXosm0dk5TmpLo1qJu2sd uLdrJtuC5kjxlWyBalahlrR2dUnJnT1cSnwUyzq+vCAoocMgSX jvkSiVEePQM6eGVvCNJbBu0pQoiCZ+ICD/35QJr086TP2Vuu1ZEzgpbAAAAAElFTkSuQmCCIn store

$5,399.10·AHC Appliances (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi6pd3RiqzPAhWRi2kKHfFPAW8YABAW&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASJORoi9fC3197mdOYnlrtnLuUop5WmFKHPzhdXH7GJP aAsSeZlg&sig=AOD64_12N4rfMgEuCP3g-wQAQYK1v1QBaw&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQ9A4IwgE&adurl=)Free shipping, no tax
$4,998.97·PC Richard & Son (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi6pd3RiqzPAhWRi2kKHfFPAW8YABAY&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASJORoi9fC3197mdOYnlrtnLuUop5WmFKHPzhdXH7GJP aAsSeZlg&sig=AOD64_1ltXqXMqNDwmtAR-NUbj9SMfoSJQ&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQ9A4IxAE&adurl=)
More than keeping pace with inflation

zelmo1234
09-25-2016, 10:35 PM
The point is everything else increased in value more than an hours work.

No everything increased in price because the Dollar is not longer backed by Gold and Silver.

Thus inflation cause everything to increase except the value of our money.

The problem with mandating a minimum wage is the fact that it costs jobs. Or they will hire illegals to get around it.

You know that restaurants and fast food will put up self order terminals so fast it will make your head spin. Grocery Stores will put in more self check out. Services will be reduced.

Some jobs are not worth 15 or ever 10 dollars an hour. But the jobs that we want, that are worth more than that, are no longer in this country, because things like the minimum wage cause inflation to force them out.

Dr. Who
09-25-2016, 10:37 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Lincoln_b.jpg

That bumper today would be very expensive of course. Today's bumper is underneath a plastic skin.



https://api-a.eyefi.com/3/files/2162151196/thumbnails/8672d100863b379e12f37cf426765e5cd1a2765a/s2048/image.jpg?v=4

$2,936 in 2016. I have no real insight on how long they would last of course, but what I am familiar with is that in the 1950s ice was still being delivered and stored in iceboxes. Everybody had ice boxes, not everybody had refrigerators.

Real cost of refrigerators from 1950s to 1980s decreases by a factor of 5: https://books.google.com/books?id=zj5pCSy4dUAC&lpg=PA30&ots=C-rJzZfxYy&dq=refrigerator%2C penetration rate%2C usa%2C 1950&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false

Most household appliances basically go through this in the past 50-100 years. Vacuum cleaners, stoves/ranges/microwaves, air conditioning, refrigerators, dishwashers and slightly off that track TV's. I still remember going to the shore with my parents in the 1970s and the motels advertising 'color' TV as being a reason you'd want to stay there!

We are still talking about a compressor and refrigerant. It's about the cheap parts used in the compressor. Worse still it's perhaps a $5 difference in the cost of parts. The difference in cost is not enough to have any real bearing on the overall cost of the unit, only the longevity.[/QUOTE]
My parents kept a refrigerator from the 50's until something like 2008 as a second fridge. It was still working when they got rid of it. I'm not sure when they purchased it - perhaps 1958, so it was still working after 50 years. If you amortize that and let's take your $2900 figure, that's $58 per year, so a refrigerator that lasts only 5 years should only cost $290.00. Realistically, they don't cost $300.00, do they?

Newpublius
09-25-2016, 10:38 PM
http://www.brandsmartusa.com/images/product/addl/large/17791.jpg?isrc=1111
Samsung Chef Collection RF24J9960S4 Side...
4.665 user reviews (https://www.google.com/shopping/product/17541551700118596305/reviews?q=Samsung+RF24J9960S4/AA&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS697US697&oq=Samsung+RF24J9960S4/AA&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQvCQItQE)


SponsoredShop now


$4,994.60·AJ Madison (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi6pd3RiqzPAhWRi2kKHfFPAW8YABAQ&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASJORoi9fC3197mdOYnlrtnLuUop5WmFKHPzhdXH7GJP aAsSeZlg&sig=AOD64_3qCzqcawSlvGQ6QPr_TbMGO3Hitw&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQ9A4IvAE&adurl=)Free shipping, no tax
$5,395.10·Appliances Connection (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi6pd3RiqzPAhWRi2kKHfFPAW8YABAS&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASJORoi9fC3197mdOYnlrtnLuUop5WmFKHPzhdXH7GJP aAsSeZlg&sig=AOD64_0yB-kbnK5S93CkQa7PDZmxeaAW6g&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQ9A4IvgE&adurl=)Free shipping, no tax
$5,049.00·Home Depot (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi6pd3RiqzPAhWRi2kKHfFPAW8YABAU&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASJORoi9fC3197mdOYnlrtnLuUop5WmFKHPzhdXH7GJP aAsSeZlg&sig=AOD64_1ENP539lnjGV5EuT3BDsDMeVeFzg&ctype=46&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQqSUIwAE&adurl=)http://thepoliticalforums.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABIAAAAaCAQAAAA QlMSxAAABIElEQVQoz33Su0oDQRTG8W+9lBKw0xTaGOv1htZuo Y+T4v8C2ggisVbQR0khQiBdoiaW+gBpAm5C3F2LzY4ze5upzjk/hjmHI0lCEusccc+IOXM+6HDIWloxh03eiEmsGzOkkZUlceKU7X u8fI1GJUmI2ZDEKu81KGHAijggqkURvri1El+cSxIB31b2RgxN 8Mspy2Y4s94fiJkJZs5Q/vM/IjRB6KDQRmMTLNjDkyQ89lmY/Eg8Wl98SWdMg1cr+yAunYYn9OkzcXIXosm0dk5TmpLo1qJu2sd uLdrJtuC5kjxlWyBalahlrR2dUnJnT1cSnwUyzq+vCAoocMgSX jvkSiVEePQM6eGVvCNJbBu0pQoiCZ+ICD/35QJr086TP2Vuu1ZEzgpbAAAAAElFTkSuQmCCIn store

$5,399.10·AHC Appliances (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi6pd3RiqzPAhWRi2kKHfFPAW8YABAW&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASJORoi9fC3197mdOYnlrtnLuUop5WmFKHPzhdXH7GJP aAsSeZlg&sig=AOD64_12N4rfMgEuCP3g-wQAQYK1v1QBaw&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQ9A4IwgE&adurl=)Free shipping, no tax
$4,998.97·PC Richard & Son (http://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi6pd3RiqzPAhWRi2kKHfFPAW8YABAY&ohost=www.google.com&cid=CAASJORoi9fC3197mdOYnlrtnLuUop5WmFKHPzhdXH7GJP aAsSeZlg&sig=AOD64_1ltXqXMqNDwmtAR-NUbj9SMfoSJQ&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwjNp9jRiqzPAhUH4IMKHSpLBPMQ9A4IxAE&adurl=)
More than keeping pace with inflation[/QUOTE]

But the vast majority of people don't buy that model. My refrigerator is $500

Newpublius
09-25-2016, 10:40 PM
The point is everything else increased in value more than an hours work.

No, that's false actually. And I might add the point you're making about relating the wage to silver is true because the price of silver today is higher than in the 1960s. In the year 2000, that wasn't the case, silver was cheaper then actually. A worker in 1960 working at the minimum wage could have a certain amount of silver. In the year 2000, the minimum wage then would get that worker MORE silver, and in 2016, that worker would get LESS silver.

zelmo1234
09-25-2016, 10:42 PM
The point is everything else increased in value more than an hours work.

The hours worked changed to

In 64 the hours were worked in Factories that produce nearly everything that we needed. They were worked on farms and hard labor.

Now they are worked behind computers, and in Stores where groups of employee's stand around and do nothing. There was work ethic in 64 and now? there is the Fuck it's.

Kids in 64 mowed lawns and shoveled snow, and picked fruit, and bailed hay to get money. Today they cry to mommy and daddy.

Think of what Wages would be if we sent the 11 to 17 million illegals home and all of those jobs went to US citizens. It would cause Wages to increase by more than a dollar an hour.

What we need are jobs and the wages will fix themselves

Crepitus
09-25-2016, 10:44 PM
No everything increased in price because the Dollar is not longer backed by Gold and Silver.

Thus inflation cause everything to increase except the value of our money.

The problem with mandating a minimum wage is the fact that it costs jobs. Or they will hire illegals to get around it.

You know that restaurants and fast food will put up self order terminals so fast it will make your head spin. Grocery Stores will put in more self check out. Services will be reduced.

Some jobs are not worth 15 or ever 10 dollars an hour. But the jobs that we want, that are worth more than that, are no longer in this country, because things like the minimum wage cause inflation to force them out.
Everything increased but the value of an hours basic work. That wasn't inflation, it was careful and clever maneuvering by the big corporations.

Crepitus
09-25-2016, 10:50 PM
The hours worked changed to

In 64 the hours were worked in Factories that produce nearly everything that we needed. They were worked on farms and hard labor.

Now they are worked behind computers, and in Stores where groups of employee's stand around and do nothing. There was work ethic in 64 and now? there is the Fuck it's.

Kids in 64 mowed lawns and shoveled snow, and picked fruit, and bailed hay to get money. Today they cry to mommy and daddy.

Think of what Wages would be if we sent the 11 to 17 million illegals home and all of those jobs went to US citizens. It would cause Wages to increase by more than a dollar an hour.

What we need are jobs and the wages will fix themselves
Productivity trends upward most years.

http://www.epi.org/files/2013/ib388-figurea.jpg.538

Newpublius
09-25-2016, 10:50 PM
My parents kept a refrigerator from the 50's until something like 2008 as a second fridge. It was still working when they got rid of it. I'm not sure when they purchased it - perhaps 1958, so it was still working after 50 years. If you amortize that and let's take your $2900 figure, that's $58 per year, so a refrigerator that lasts only 5 years should only cost $290.00. Realistically, they don't cost $300.00, do they?

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/appliance.jpg

50 is an outlier. I have a 2004 Chrysler Sebring Convertible that won't break. Car thinks its a Toyota!

Crepitus
09-25-2016, 10:53 PM
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/appliance.jpg

50 is an outlier. I have a 2004 Chrysler Sebring Convertible that won't break. Car thinks its a Toyota!
Check out the wage on 2013 in your chart. LOL.

Also, lst time I looked at a sebring it was a slightly enlarged mitsubishi.

Newpublius
09-25-2016, 11:03 PM
Check out the wage on 2013 in your chart. LOL.

They're relating it to a more common wage as opposed to the minimum wage. No matter, the same principle applies for any wage.


Also, lst time I looked at a sebring it was a slightly enlarged mitsubishi.

Nobody ever raved about the Sebring's quality, I just happened to get one that didn't break. I also bought it as a third car and have been using it as a third car (only 83000 miles), so to be fair I'm not really stressing the car, its my fair weather friend and I'll keep it until it breaks down....

Crepitus
09-25-2016, 11:17 PM
They're relating it to a more common wage as opposed to the minimum wage. No matter, the same principle applies for any wage.
But it does matter because it's misleading. the others are at minimum wage and the most recent one is not. The chart is dishonestly trying to make things look a certain way to push your agenda. The $432 fridge is 54.4 hours at minimum wage, almost 2.5 times what it says in the chart. Plus that $432 fridge is FAR from the median price of a new refrigerator.

Newpublius
09-25-2016, 11:22 PM
But it does matter because it's misleading. the others are at minimum wage and the most recent one is not. The chart is dishonestly trying to make things look a certain way to push your agenda. The $432 fridge is 54.4 hours at minimum wage, almost 2.5 times what it says in the chart. Plus that $432 fridge is FAR from the median price of a new refrigerator.

There's no agenda the real price of these things has truly decreased no matter how you slice it. Silver has not.

exploited
09-25-2016, 11:23 PM
Jesus H. Christ. Metal-backed currency is sh*t. Why on earth is anyone arguing for it.

Bethere
09-26-2016, 01:25 AM
Jesus H. Christ. Metal-backed currency is sh*t. Why on earth is anyone arguing for it.

It's a great illustration of how far adrift the gop is, after all, richard nixon was the guy behind getting rid of the gold standard.

They are way out of the mainstream.

And of course a chapter of milton friedman's classic, Capitalism and Freedom, is about abolishing the gold standard.

I wonder how many of our learned friends have read it?

zelmo1234
09-26-2016, 02:05 AM
Productivity trends upward most years.

http://www.epi.org/files/2013/ib388-figurea.jpg.538

There is no productivity rating for the service industry. Which is what we are now.

But yes due to automation productivity is up. Why would it not be.

I don't want more people to be out of a job, but liberals are hell bent on getting the minimum so high that no Teens or College kids will have a job and many more adults will be beholden to the government.

zelmo1234
09-26-2016, 02:16 AM
Jesus H. Christ. Metal-backed currency is sh*t. Why on earth is anyone arguing for it.

There is no way to get back to it, I was not arguing for it, just pointing out that because we are not backed by Gold, the value of a dollar is less. If a country today had a Gold Standard currency it would be the world trading currency.

Actually many are preparing for a massive Currency failure, as we have seen in Japan in the 80's and now with the bankruptcy of Greece.

Your country is leading the way by coining 1/16 oz Gold coins that are in plastic tear pouches for trading.

But the left will not face this until we are in the crisis. Just as they would not move to correct the housing crisis in the USA, before it collapsed.

Bethere
09-26-2016, 03:28 AM
But the left will not face this until we are in the crisis. Just as they would not move to correct the housing crisis in the USA, before it collapsed.

16236

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 03:34 AM
In 1964 minimum wage was $1.25 hr.

That's 5 quarters. In 1964 those quarters were 90% silver. Today a 1964 quarter habe a minimum value of $3.61 because that's the value of the silver in it. So those 5 quarters are now worth $18.05.

How come an hour's labor isn't?

Inflationary monetary policy is the biggest tax on the working classes there is.

The price of commodities like energy, food, and housing are inflated above their market rates which decreases the purchasing power of a person's wages.

And the lower skilled jobs are almost always the last ones to adjust to price inflation, meaning the American worker is perpetually trying to catch up with inflated prices.

Every year, billions if not trillions of dollars are redistributed from the working classes to the banking cartel via inflation.

Yet almost nobody talks about this issue anymore, least of all the corporate media.

And, yes, there is a reason for that calculated silence.

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 03:39 AM
Jesus H. Christ. Metal-backed currency is sh*t. Why on earth is anyone arguing for it.

Gold and silver have outlasted every FIAT money in history. So which one is really shit? The market-based currencies that have lasted for thousands of years or the ephemeral paper assets that only have value because of their monopoly status?

Crepitus
09-26-2016, 07:27 AM
There is no productivity rating for the service industry. Which is what we are now.

But yes due to automation productivity is up. Why would it not be.

I don't want more people to be out of a job, but liberals are hell bent on getting the minimum so high that no Teens or College kids will have a job and many more adults will be beholden to the government.
Why would there be no productivity rating for the service industry? why would that not be included in the over all rating?

exploited
09-26-2016, 07:34 AM
Gold and silver have outlasted every FIAT money in history. So which one is really shit? The market-based currencies that have lasted for thousands of years or the ephemeral paper assets that only have value because of their monopoly status?

That is like saying the horse and buggy is a better system than a car.

exploited
09-26-2016, 07:58 AM
It's a great illustration of how far adrift the gop is, after all, richard nixon was the guy behind getting rid of the gold standard.

They are way out of the mainstream.

And of course a chapter of milton friedman's classic, Capitalism and Freedom, is about abolishing the gold standard.

I wonder how many of our learned friends have read it?

By every metric, the Gold Standard was terrible, yeah. Price variance, deflation, monetary liquidity, the ability to finance emergency projects... All of that was lacking. It is a dead system for a reason. Metals are a good value store for the conservative investor though.

Chris
09-26-2016, 08:54 AM
Gold and silver have outlasted every FIAT money in history. So which one is really shit? The market-based currencies that have lasted for thousands of years or the ephemeral paper assets that only have value because of their monopoly status?


That is like saying the horse and buggy is a better system than a car.


Except the horse and buggy has not retained value, so it's the opposite of what he said.

exploited
09-26-2016, 09:06 AM
Except the horse and buggy has not retained value, so it's the opposite of what he said.

Tell that to the Amish. In any case, neither has gold or metal as a currency. Which is why no country uses it, and no economist recommends it. It is a terrible system that is inferior in every way other than being ideologically useful to certain types.

Chris
09-26-2016, 09:57 AM
Tell that to the Amish. In any case, neither has gold or metal as a currency. Which is why no country uses it, and no economist recommends it. It is a terrible system that is inferior in every way other than being ideologically useful to certain types.

Yes, indeed, fiat money has worked wonders.

exploited
09-26-2016, 09:58 AM
Yes, indeed, fiat money has worked wonders.

Yes, it has performed better than the Gold Standard in every metric. I wouldn't call it "wondrous" but I'm glad you're enthusiastic.

Bethere
09-26-2016, 11:02 AM
By every metric, the Gold Standard was terrible, yeah. Price variance, deflation, monetary liquidity, the ability to finance emergency projects... All of that was lacking. It is a dead system for a reason. Metals are a good value store for the conservative investor though.

Metals are a fine hedge. That's about it.

Chris
09-26-2016, 11:48 AM
Yes, it has performed better than the Gold Standard in every metric. I wouldn't call it "wondrous" but I'm glad you're enthusiastic.

Yes it's done remarkably well at increasing inflation and the national debt so the government could spend money it doesn't have.

exploited
09-26-2016, 12:14 PM
Yes it's done remarkably well at increasing inflation and the national debt so the government could spend money it doesn't have.

Yeah, I was wondering when you'd bring out that ideological axe to grind. I was hoping for it, actually. Let's take a look at inflation under fiat v. gold-standard, historically, shall we?

https://media.ycharts.com/charts/ae688d2b1cb32dc34a477f9340080018.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg/2000px-US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg.png

Whoops! Doesn't back up your point, does it? Notice how deflation is no longer a problem at all, and that inflation-deflation variance is lower since adopting fiat currency?

As for debt spending, that is a problem with politicians, not a problem with fiat currency.

Next?

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 12:14 PM
That is like saying the horse and buggy is a better system than a car.

No it isn't.

Because the car has only been around for a little over a century whereas FIAT money has been around for thousands of years.

And wouldn't you know it? Every FIAT money in history was outlasted by gold and silver which have never failed as money.

Seems pretty obvious which one is shit.

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 12:22 PM
Tell that to the Amish. In any case, neither has gold or metal as a currency. Which is why no country uses it, and no economist recommends it. It is a terrible system that is inferior in every way other than being ideologically useful to certain types.

Gold and silver have never failed. They are still used as money to this day in numerous private contexts and are kept as reserves by governments and central banks. FIAT money, on the other hand, has a history of repeated and often times monumental failure. There isn't a single FIAT money in history that has lasted as long as gold and silver. Not even close. Probably why Alan Greenspan (an economist) said this:

Gold is a currency. It is still by all evidences the premier currency where no fiat currency, including the dollar, can match it. (http://www.cfr.org/financial-crises/alan-greenspan-central-banks-stagnation-gold/p35762)

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 12:24 PM
Yes, it has performed better than the Gold Standard in every metric. I wouldn't call it "wondrous" but I'm glad you're enthusiastic.

Which metrics would those be?

exploited
09-26-2016, 12:29 PM
Gold and silver have never failed. They are still used as money to this day in numerous private contexts and are kept as reserves by governments and central banks. FIAT money, on the other hand, has a history of repeated and often times monumental failure. There isn't a single FIAT money in history that has lasted as long as gold and silver. Not even close. Probably why Alan Greenspan (an economist) said this:

Gold is a currency. It is still by all evidences the premier currency where no fiat currency, including the dollar, can match it. (http://www.cfr.org/financial-crises/alan-greenspan-central-banks-stagnation-gold/p35762)

Yes, you have already said that metal-backed currencies have been around longer. Of course that doesn't in any way speak to its virtues or negatives. Next?

Bethere
09-26-2016, 12:34 PM
Yes, you have already said that metal-backed currencies have been around longer. Of course that doesn't in any way speak to its virtues or negatives. Next?

There's a silver bubble happening around my place right now! My money's going up in smoke.

;-)

nathanbforrest45
09-26-2016, 12:38 PM
I once heard someone say, in 1920 you could take a 20 dollar gold piece and buy a new suit with it. The fact remains that the amount of gold in that 20 dollar gold piece (an ounce) will still allow you to buy a new suit. Its not the gold that has changed its value, but the fiat money through inflation.

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 12:44 PM
Yeah, I was wondering when you'd bring out that ideological axe to grind. I was hoping for it, actually. Let's take a look at inflation under fiat v. gold-standard, historically, shall we?

https://media.ycharts.com/charts/ae688d2b1cb32dc34a477f9340080018.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg/2000px-US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg.png

Whoops! Doesn't back up your point, does it? Notice how deflation is no longer a problem at all, and that inflation-deflation variance is lower since adopting fiat currency?

As for debt spending, that is a problem with politicians, not a problem with fiat currency.

Next?

Deflation is not a "problem", it is merely a symptom of underlying changes in supply and demand. For example, if an economy's productivity increases, that can cause prices to decrease. Apparently, you would have us believe that increased productivity is a bad a thing simply because it results in price deflation. Or we could see price deflation as a result of increased energy supplies, since they serve as an input into nearly every factor of production. Again, you would have us believe that more affordable energy is somehow a bad thing simply because it can cause the general price level to decrease.

As for your second graph, why the assumption that we need "inflation-deflation variance" to be lower or that constant inflation is a desirable alternative?

Stable systems are not characterized by constant growth. That typically presages some kind of a correction, like a great depression or a great recession.

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 12:46 PM
Yes, you have already said that metal-backed currencies have been around longer. Of course that doesn't in any way speak to its virtues or negatives. Next?

Gold and silver have never failed, whereas dozens if not hundreds of FIAT monies have failed.

One is incredibly successful and the other is incredibly unsuccessful.

Really, the results speak for themselves.

Must be why even Greenspan admits that gold is superior to FIAT money.

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 12:55 PM
Yeah, I was wondering when you'd bring out that ideological axe to grind.

As if you weren't grinding your own ideological ax.

exploited
09-26-2016, 01:01 PM
Gold and silver have never failed, whereas dozens if not hundreds of FIAT monies have failed.

One is incredibly successful and the other is incredibly unsuccessful.

Really, the results speak for themselves.

Must be why even Greenspan admits that gold is superior to FIAT money.

You have yet to put forward an actual argument, and are instead repeating yourself. I'll check back later to see if you've come up with something.


Deflation is not a "problem", it is merely a symptom of underlying changes in supply and demand. For example, if an economy's productivity increases, that can cause prices to decrease. Apparently, you would have us believe that increased productivity is a bad a thing simply because it results in price deflation. Or we could see price deflation as a result of increased energy supplies, since they serve as an input into nearly every factor of production. Again, you would have use believe that more affordable energy is somehow a bad thing simply because it can cause the general price level to decrease.

As for your second graph, why the assumption that we need "inflation-deflation variance" to be lower or that constant inflation is a desirable alternative?


Stable systems are not characterized by constant growth. That typically presages some kind of a correction, like a great depression or a great recession.

Ah, I almost missed this. Finally, a point. Deflation isn't a problem? It leads to hoarding money, and drastically increases the longevity and severity of market corrections. When it gets bad enough, it leads to what is called a deflationary spiral. In any case, inflation was higher and more varied under a gold standard, so my overarching argument is still valid.

Constant inflation of 1-3% per year is desirable. It allows for labour markets to return to an equilibrium faster, gives central banks and regular banks room to maneuver, encourages savers to lend money for productive use instead of hoarding it, stabilizes prices and prevents rapid swings in either direction, and stabilizes the financial markets by providing predictability and stability.

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 01:39 PM
You have yet to put forward an actual argument, and are instead repeating yourself. I'll check back later to see if you've come up with something.

The argument is that gold and silver are successful whereas FIAT monies are not.

Sorry if you cannot find a way to refute this argument, but that's your problem, isn't it?


Ah, I almost missed this. Finally, a point. Deflation isn't a problem? It leads to hoarding money, and drastically increases the longevity and severity of market corrections. When it gets bad enough, it leads to what is called a deflationary spiral. In any case, inflation was higher and more varied under a gold standard, so my overarching argument is still valid.

Deflation isn't a cause, it's a symptom of underlying changes in supply and demand. Also, you totally ignored the points I made about some of the causes of price deflation, i.e., increases in productivity or supplies.

Your simplistic "deflation = bad" dogma would have us believe that increased productivity is somehow a bad thing because it causes prices to decrease.

And inflation on net was not higher prior to the FIAT standard because for every increase in inflation there was a corresponding increase in deflation. That's called "balance" and represents a dynamic, self-correcting system.

The FIAT standard, on the other hand, is characterized by constant inflation with no corresponding corrections, which is highly imbalanced.

That's probably why the worst depression in American history happened during the FIAT era.


Constant inflation of 1-3% per year is desirable.

According to who?


It allows for labour markets to return to an equilibrium faster, gives central banks and regular banks room to maneuver, encourages savers to lend money for productive use instead of hoarding it, stabilizes prices and prevents rapid swings in either direction, and stabilizes the financial markets by providing predictability and stability.

You accuse me of not making an argument and then respond with a series of empty assertions that do nothing more than parrot conventional wisdom.

How's that for irony.

But all constant inflation does is redistribute money from the working classes to the banking cartel. You have swallowed aristocratic propaganda about inflation and central banking hook, line, and sinker and count it as some kind of a virtue. How perverse.

exploited
09-26-2016, 01:41 PM
And this, folks, is why you shouldn't bother with ideologues.

What a tremendous waste of time.

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 01:46 PM
...and stabilizes the financial markets by providing predictability and stability.

This is too funny.

Is there anyone in their right mind who would characterize western financial markets as "predictable" and "stable"?

Haven't alleged leftists like exploited been telling us that western financial markets are basically an insider's paradise where the capitalist class runs amok at everyone else's expense?

Yet he also wants us to believe they're predictable and stable!

Comedic gold!

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 01:48 PM
And this, folks, is why you shouldn't bother with ideologues.

What a tremendous waste of time.

Why do you keep pretending like you're not an ideologue? Do you think the Keynesian dogma your're spouting isn't ideological?

Anyway, you lost the second you could not refute my position on the performance of precious metals as compared to FIAT money.

Precious metals have never failed as money, whereas FIAT monies have done nothing but fail. That proves that precious metals are far superior as money. Or are we supposed to judge the utility of money based on something other than its successes and failures? Talk about an ideologue!

exploited
09-26-2016, 01:49 PM
You know what I dislike most about myself? My highly tuned sense of vicarious embarrassment.

Dude, you sound like an uneducated conservative hack. We both know you have literally zero understanding of the monetary system, and that you just picked this sh*t up off of some disastrous anti-federal reserve blog, probably today. Why bother trying to pass this off as an educated point of view, and just admit that you dislike fiat currency because it has been used by political systems you are ideologically opposed too? This garbage about how the gold standard is better because it was used longer is like saying praying for a cure is better than antibiotics, and everything else you've said is just speculative partisan drivel.

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 02:01 PM
You know what I dislike most about myself? My highly tuned sense of vicarious embarrassment.

Dude, you sound like an uneducated conservative hack. We both know you have literally zero understanding of the monetary system, and that you just picked this sh*t up off of some disastrous anti-federal reserve blog, probably today. Why bother trying to pass this off as an educated point of view, and just admit that you dislike fiat currency because it has been used by political systems you are ideologically opposed too? This garbage about how the gold standard is better because it was used longer is like saying praying for a cure is better than antibiotics, and everything else you've said is just speculative partisan drivel.

I sound like someone who is presenting facts and arriving at logical conclusions based on those facts.

One of the most salient facts is the comparative success of precious metals relative to FIAT monies.

The former has never failed whereas the latter has done nothing but fail.

For some reason, you want people to judge the utility of money based on something other than its record of success and failure, which is incredibly ironic since you keep pretending like you don't have an ideological ax to grind.

You also keep parroting conventional wisdom as if it were the word of God. Re: Constant inflation of 1-3% per year is desirable.

Well, not according to Milton Friedman, who earned his Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of monetary neutrality. According to him, the optimal inflation rate is zero.

And if you ask F.A. Hayek, another Nobel Prize winner in economics, he will tell you that the optimal inflation rate is determined exclusively by the market, which is why he favors a market for competing currencies.

Apparently, not every economist agrees with your empty assertion.

exploited
09-26-2016, 02:17 PM
I sound like someone who is presenting facts and arriving at logical conclusions based on those facts.

One of the most salient facts is the comparative success of precious metals relative to FIAT monies.

The former has never failed whereas the latter has done nothing but fail.

For some reason, you want people to judge the utility of money based on something other than its record of success and failure, which is incredibly ironic since you keep pretending like you don't have an ideological ax to grind.

You also keep parroting conventional wisdom, as if it were the word of God.

"Constant inflation of 1-3% per year is desirable."

Not according to Milton Friedman, who earned his Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of monetary neutrality. According to him, the optimal inflation rate is zero.

And if you ask F.A. Hayek, another Nobel Prize winner in economics, he will tell you that the optimal inflation rate is determined exclusively by the market, which is why he favors a market for competing currencies.

Apparently, not everyone agrees with your empty assertion.

What a disaster. You are simply asserting things without any actual evidence whatsoever, and you quite obviously have no understanding of how money works. Literally every other sentence is categorically wrong.


Your simplistic "deflation = bad" dogma would have us believe that increased productivity is somehow a bad thing because it causes prices to decrease.

Wrong. Deflation is a bad thing because it results in hoarding money, where it is not put to productive use. It also results in a decrease in overall economic productivity, as investment falls, and people are encouraged to hoard.


And inflation on net was not higher prior to the FIAT standard because for every increase in inflation there was a corresponding increase in deflation. That's called "balance" and represents a dynamic, self-correcting system.

Wrong. If I am a drunk, and on my walk home, stumble from the left of the street to the right forty times, would you call that being well-balanced? Of course not. What an utterly ridiculous point.


The FIAT standard, on the other hand, is characterized by constant inflation with no corresponding corrections, which is highly imbalanced.

Wrong. Fiat money undergoes market corrections all the time, however, these corrections are less drastic, which is better for the economy. Now the drunk is at least on the sidewalk the whole time.


You accuse me of not making an argument and then respond with a series of empty assertions that do nothing more than parrot conventional wisdom.
Wrong. You have done nothing more than quote right-wing blogs, who are operated by people as ideologically-driven as you are. Have you even read Hayek? I can guarantee you that you have not.


It is agreed that hoarding money, whether in cash or in idle balances, is deflationary in its effects. No one thinks that deflation is in itself desirable.

Who said that, Ethereal?


The former has never failed whereas the latter has done nothing but fail.

Wrong. Gold has failed many times, and currencies collapsed all the time, especially after a major gold find was announced.


Not according to Milton Friedman, who earned his Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of monetary neutrality. According to him, the optimal inflation rate is zero.

Wrong. Friedman believed that optimal policy involved eliminating incentives to economize on the use of money. In other words, a central bank should eliminate the difference between interest rates on monetary instruments and on other securities, thus making holding money "costless." Note that on average this would require an inflationary rate of 2-4% (or 1-3% depending on who you ask), throughout US history (see "k-percent rule").

Chris
09-26-2016, 02:26 PM
There is a natural ebb and flow, rise and fall in the value of anything naturally according what subjective value people place on things because they have a stake in making it more valuable, and that according to dynamic knowledge they possess locally and often tacitly. This is true of fiat money as well. But fiat money suffers an additional problem in the government bureaucrats, who have not take in it and lack the knowledge to determine whether they should flood the market with more printed money and cheapen its value. Thus the government runs up the debt to fund imaginative but unrealistic policies. Of course statists appreciate and cheer it on.

exploited
09-26-2016, 02:56 PM
There is a natural ebb and flow, rise and fall in the value of anything naturally according what subjective value people place on things because they have a stake in making it more valuable, and that according to dynamic knowledge they possess locally and often tacitly. This is true of fiat money as well. But fiat money suffers an additional problem in the government bureaucrats, who have not take in it and lack the knowledge to determine whether they should flood the market with more printed money and cheapen its value. Thus the government runs up the debt to fund imaginative but unrealistic policies. Of course statists appreciate and cheer it on.How does one manage to type an entire paragraph that says literally nothing?

The price of a pineapple isn't determined by local knowledge, and nobody has an interest in the increase of price of a pineapple other than those who farm them, and only then up to a certain degree (what the market will bear).

Here, I'll do you a favour, and eliminate all the extra junk you've stuffed into that paragraph:

"...statists..."

Do the world a favour and leave monetary policy to those with even a cursory grasp of economics.

Dr. Who
09-26-2016, 06:46 PM
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/appliance.jpg

50 is an outlier. I have a 2004 Chrysler Sebring Convertible that won't break. Car thinks its a Toyota!
$450 buys you a pretty low budget i.e. lousy refrigerator today. The sort of thing you throw into cheap rental units.

Peter1469
09-26-2016, 06:58 PM
I think I spent just under $1000 for my last fridge for my condo. I do have space limitations, so I couldn't get something big like posted above.

Cthulhu
09-26-2016, 07:03 PM
That is like saying the horse and buggy is a better system than a car.
Well. If you have enough horses you have infinite transportation.

I've never seen a truck give a sedan muffler sex and have a compact car materialize in 9 months in the drive way.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

exploited
09-26-2016, 07:18 PM
Well. If you have enough horses you have infinite transportation.

I've never seen a truck give a sedan muffler sex and have a compact car materialize in 9 months in the drive way.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

lol, well played.

Ethereal
09-26-2016, 08:11 PM
What a disaster. You are simply asserting things without any actual evidence whatsoever, and you quite obviously have no understanding of how money works. Literally every other sentence is categorically wrong.

Wrong. Deflation is a bad thing because it results in hoarding money, where it is not put to productive use. It also results in a decrease in overall economic productivity, as investment falls, and people are encouraged to hoard.

Deflation isn't a cause, it's a symptom of underlying changes in supply and demand.

For example, if supplies increase due to increased productivity it will cause prices to fall. Your simplistic dogma would have us believe that is somehow a bad thing.


Wrong. If I am a drunk, and on my walk home, stumble from the left of the street to the right forty times, would you call that being well-balanced? Of course not. What an utterly ridiculous point.

Relative to falling down in a ditch, yes, it's stable.


Wrong. Fiat money undergoes market corrections all the time, however, these corrections are less drastic, which is better for the economy. Now the drunk is at least on the sidewalk the whole time.

You call the great depression and the great recession less drastic? Does that tie into your assertions about the "predictable" and "stable" financial markets that do not exist?


Wrong. You have done nothing more than quote right-wing blogs, who are operated by people as ideologically-driven as you are. Have you even read Hayek? I can guarantee you that you have not.

I haven't quoted any blogs, right-wing or otherwise. And your guarantees and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

F.A. Hayek: Denationalization of Money (https://mises.org/system/tdf/Denationalisation%20of%20Money%20The%20Argument%20 Refined_5.pdf?file=1&type=document)

Read 'em and weep, son.


Wrong. Gold has failed many times, and currencies collapsed all the time, especially after a major gold find was announced.

There has never been a modern society where precious metals like gold and silver stopped performing as money. You are just making things up and hoping no one will notice.

FIAT monies, on the other hand, have failed again and again and again. Really, there is no end to the failure of FIAT money.


Wrong. Friedman believed that optimal policy involved eliminating incentives to economize on the use of money. In other words, a central bank should eliminate the difference between interest rates on monetary instruments and on other securities, thus making holding money "costless." Note that on average this would require an inflationary rate of 2-4% (or 1-3% depending on who you ask), throughout US history (see "k-percent rule").

You are obviously quite confused. The k percent rule pertained to the growth of the monetary base, not the inflation rate.


Kansas City Fed: What Is the Optimal Inflation Rate? (https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/pdf/2q08billi_kahn.pdf)

...That said, in some monetary models the optimal inflation rate is the inflation rate that results when the nominal interest rate is zero. At zero nominal interest rates, the opportunity cost of holding money is zero and, hence, there is no need to conserve on holdings of money balances, as argued by Friedman.

Subdermal
09-26-2016, 10:11 PM
The point is everything else increased in value more than an hours work.

Increased in cost.

That's not the same thing.

del
09-26-2016, 10:16 PM
Increased in cost.

That's not the same thing.

ooh, look at derpie getting his semantics on.

have a cookie

Subdermal
09-26-2016, 10:16 PM
Jesus H. Christ. Metal-backed currency is sh*t. Why on earth is anyone arguing for it.

Because people like you offer ridiculously vapid arguments - like that one - against it?

Mac-7
09-26-2016, 10:16 PM
$450 buys you a pretty low budget i.e. lousy refrigerator today. The sort of thing you throw into cheap rental units.

I dont see cars and trucks on that list

tree huggers have driven up the relative cost of autos

Dr. Who
09-26-2016, 10:22 PM
I dont see cars and trucks on that list

tree huggers have driven up the relative cost of autos
In 1950 the cost of a car was about half of a family's annual income - of course, there was usually only one breadwinner in those days.

Crepitus
09-26-2016, 10:47 PM
Oh, are we gonna do hairsplitting and semantics now?

Increased in cost.

That's not the same thing.

Subdermal
09-26-2016, 11:18 PM
How does one manage to type an entire paragraph that says literally nothing?

The price of a pineapple isn't determined by local knowledge, and nobody has an interest in the increase of price of a pineapple other than those who farm them, and only then up to a certain degree (what the market will bear).

Here, I'll do you a favour, and eliminate all the extra junk you've stuffed into that paragraph:

"...statists..."

Do the world a favour and leave monetary policy to those with even a cursory grasp of economics.

You're a smarmy little punk you actually thinks that merely disparaging an argument by claiming that it doesn't exist is the basis of debate.

Subdermal
09-26-2016, 11:19 PM
Oh, are we gonna do hairsplitting and semantics now?

If you think 'cost' and 'value' are synonyms, there is no point in furthering the attempt to grant you understanding.

exploited
09-27-2016, 12:07 AM
Deflation isn't a cause, it's a symptom of underlying changes in supply and demand.

For example, if supplies increase due to increased productivity it will cause prices to fall. Your simplistic dogma would have us believe that is somehow a bad thing.



Relative to falling down in a ditch, yes, it's stable.



You call the great depression and the great recession less drastic? Does that tie into your assertions about the "predictable" and "stable" financial markets that do not exist?



I haven't quoted any blogs, right-wing or otherwise. And your guarantees and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee.

F.A. Hayek: Denationalization of Money (https://mises.org/system/tdf/Denationalisation of Money The Argument Refined_5.pdf?file=1&type=document)

Read 'em and weep, son.



There has never been a modern society where precious metals like gold and silver stopped performing as money. You are just making things up and hoping no one will notice.

FIAT monies, on the other hand, have failed again and again and again. Really, there is no end to the failure of FIAT money.



You are obviously quite confused. The k percent rule pertained to the growth of the monetary base, not the inflation rate.

I just want to requote this so it doesn't get lost. Classic.

Truth Detector
09-27-2016, 06:14 AM
In 1964 minimum wage was $1.25 hr.

That's 5 quarters. In 1964 those quarters were 90% silver. Today a 1964 quarter habe a minimum value of $3.61 because that's the value of the silver in it. So those 5 quarters are now worth $18.05.

How come an hour's labor isn't?

The average hourly wage in America is over $25 an hour.

http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/vv286/dr_mario1/fail.jpg

Link: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm

Crepitus
09-27-2016, 06:16 AM
If you think 'cost' and 'value' are synonyms, there is no point in furthering the attempt to grant you understanding.
OK, I don't play word games so I'll see ya later.

Truth Detector
09-27-2016, 06:17 AM
I think the point he was making is a good one, the 5 quarters you were paid an hour in 1964 is 2 1/4 times what the minimum wage per hour is today, thats how far out of whack the min wage is.

Another point who the hell in their right mind would get out of bed, spend the cost to travel to work, work 40 hrs, then come home wihout enough to buy even basics. Id go on welfare too.

The premise was false. That stated, in 1990 an IBM Computer with 640K and a color monitor would cost you $3,000. Today you can get a million times more power in a tablet for about $89.00.