Gold. GOLD!!!!! Gooooollllllllllddddddd!!!!!!!!

[NoDrama]

You're a moron... Price went down so did the size & weight you silly fuck...

We now know why your wife works....

Price didn't go down, All the 2000 prices are adjusted for inflation. They were ALL lower in actual price, but since they were adjusted for inflation, that means they raised the prices by however much the inflation rate was for those 10 years. This makes it appear that prices have actually gone down, they haven't, only when "Adjusted" for inflation.

Smoke and Mirrors my friend.

 

[tokeprep]

Very good, so lets use what every human uses and has used since the beginning of mankind. Food, Energy and rents.


All of those are substantially increased in currency terms over the last 6 years.

Oh sure, you can tell me that the price of filet Mignon hasn't really gone up, because I now eat hamburger, but the price on the package went from $1.45 a lb to over $5.

The price of a Big Mac ( the world standard of currency valuation) has increased by 120% in the last 6 years.

They don't use Food, energy or rents when figuring the inflation index.

Don't piss on my back and tell me its raining.

Your claim is that the government is fudging the inflation measures, but now you seem to be saying that the proper measure is three essentials--food, energy, rent. Aren't you the one fudging now? You're ignoring everything else the consumer buys in order to focus on the bad stuff that supposedly makes your case. Are you really measuring inflation or are you just measuring the things you selected yourself?

Of course, housing prices are far cheaper now in real terms than they were six years ago, and that's probably the largest item by far in most household budgets, so I'm not even sure how this is supposed to make your case.

Your assertion that they don't use any of that stuff in calculating inflation is absolutely false. Housing alone accounts for a substantial portion of the basket (more than 1/3 of it). Food and energy are also included as well, accounting for substantial portions of the basket. You seem to be confusing CPI with Core CPI and equating them together even though they're totally different numbers.

 

[UncleBuck]

Oh shit, I just figured out that your little image has all the prices from 2000, adjusted for inflation.LOL it says so right there!!! LMAO what a crock of shit, they are actually increasing the prices of the items from 2000 by whatever the official inflation measures were for those years to try and convince you that the prices didn't change.

HOLY FUCK! You would have to be ULTRA stupid to fall for that.

adjusting for inflation is not a trick, it is done to make the comparison more accurate. you're not some genius for noticing that, you just know how to read. it is clear that you know how to read since your plagiarization that you have been called on depends on being able to read.

the price of a big mac fell over that 10 year period, deal with it.

 

[UncleBuck]

Sure you can, by stealing it. Otherwise a 5 pound bag of flour is the smallest size you can get and will indeed cost far more than $.99.

You would know these things if you ever did any shopping or paid attention to prices, but since you don't do any shopping you have to depend on graphics that use prices and then adjust those prices for inflation.

i've never used a 5 pound bag of flour to make a single loaf of bread.

 

[UncleBuck]

Price didn't go down, All the 2000 prices are adjusted for inflation. They were ALL lower in actual price, but since they were adjusted for inflation, that means they raised the prices by however much the inflation rate was for those 10 years. This makes it appear that prices have actually gone down, they haven't, only when "Adjusted" for inflation.

Smoke and Mirrors my friend.

smoke and mirrors describes the process you are using to overcome your conniption about the price of big macs.

measured using a dollar with the same purchasing power, you can buy more big macs in 2010 than you could in 2000, 2.68% more in fact.


sorry that makes you cry. check your mailbox for your farmer welfare, you'll feel better.

 

[UncleBuck]

Your claim is that the government is fudging the inflation measures, but now you seem to be saying that the proper measure is three essentials--food, energy, rent. Aren't you the one fudging now? You're ignoring everything else the consumer buys in order to focus on the bad stuff that supposedly makes your case. Are you really measuring inflation or are you just measuring the things you selected yourself?

Of course, housing prices are far cheaper now in real terms than they were six years ago, and that's probably the largest item by far in most household budgets, so I'm not even sure how this is supposed to make your case.

Your assertion that they don't use any of that stuff in calculating inflation is absolutely false. Housing alone accounts for a substantial portion of the basket (more than 1/3 of it). Food and energy are also included as well, accounting for substantial portions of the basket. You seem to be confusing CPI with Core CPI and equating them together even though they're totally different numbers.

he'll conflate the two when it serves him, and look at them separately if it serves him better.

ya see, our friend here is a farmer whose living depends on welfare checks from the government, otherwise he would not be able to afford to keep planting his monsanto crops. the best part of all this is how he argues against government intervention into the "free market".

he's also been caught plagiarizing before, so if he seems to make a coherent point, run it across a google search to make sure he's not just using someone else's words.

 

[heckler73]

Sorry, that was all me. Why wouldn't others say the same thing, it's fact. EVERYTHING I mentioned has gone up quickly and sharply. Tokeprep's assertion that those increases are offset by price drops on other necessities is ludicrous, there are no prices dropping...on anything. His example of gas is completely absurd, gas prices are insanely high.

If you want to say something like "prices are through the roof" etc. then you need to substantiate that claim in the face of contrary data (what I presented).
Everything you are stating is pure conjecture; show me your receipts or records indicating such action is happening to the extent you believe, then there is room for debate.

What I am demonstrating in the charts is that some prices (in your "basket") were AS HIGH, pre-GFC, compared to now, and no sign of price shocks post-GFC. At least none that couldn't be explained through simple microeconomics (like our recent Bacon shortage in Ontario, Canada).

But, as I tried to imply, there are issues with geography and aggregation.
BREAD, for example, has different subsets. And Meat has plenty more (Pork, Beef, Chicken, etc & subsets of those).
What someone pays in Washington will probably be different from Florida.

AFTER one whittles down the data carcass into the minutiae, THEN other issues (such as Herfindahl-Hirschman indices) have to be considered before any causation can be gleaned from correlation.

However, making generalized statements (and it doesn't matter WHAT side of the debate one is on) without basic empiricism is grounds for ridicule, at the least.

Think Reinhart and Rogoff... do you know how disastrous their error is? Now imagine if they made all those claims about 90% Debt-to-GDP ratios WITHOUT even their faulty data...
This is the same type of situation. People run around jibbering about fall of the dollar and centrally planned economies and yadda-yadda-yadda... and where is their evidence? Where is their thorough investigation?
Ex Nihilo appeals to emotion... just like those dreaded Federal Reserve Notes that everyone goes ape-shit over because they "aren't backed by gold".
Or even worse, it's just made-up bullshit by fear-mongers looking to rip off Granma one more time because she is a dotty old fool with some savings leftover from the last hustle (and that's something all the gold-bugs and silver-stackers need to be aware of. Those two scammers--Schiff and Rogers--are only the tip of the iceberg)...

Now if you want to discuss the fact Real Wages have been relatively stagnant for 30+ years (for the lower quintiles anyway), which DOES cause price increases to be an issue, I'm completely ready to back you up on that, but there is no data at the national level to vindicate your (or any of your peers') prior statements as fact.

Yet just like Keynes, I am ready to "change my mind with the facts". So, present them...

In the meantime, check out this vid of Pro-moron Schiff getting checked by Fox, of all people...
(from Oct 2012)

[video=youtube;gVhcpNlq92U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVhcpNlq92U[/video]
​

 

[heckler73]

Nope, I bet if I look at the data they are using prices from one part of the country vs from another part of the country to try and fool the idiots who will just go with whatever is presented to them.

Why don't you go look at the data then and report back with your findings (don't forget links so it can be peer-reviewed).

 

[tokeprep]

adjusting for inflation is not a trick, it is done to make the comparison more accurate. you're not some genius for noticing that, you just know how to read. it is clear that you know how to read since your plagiarization that you have been called on depends on being able to read.

the price of a big mac fell over that 10 year period, deal with it.

It makes no sense to compare 2007 wages against 2013 prices, just as it makes no sense to compare 2013 wages to 2007 prices. 2013 wages to 2013 prices is the only measure that matters.

 

[UncleBuck]

It makes no sense to compare 2007 wages against 2013 prices, just as it makes no sense to compare 2013 wages to 2007 prices. 2013 wages to 2013 prices is the only measure that matters.

you're way too composed to be posting in the politics section. this is your first warning, start insulting others immediately.*











*i have no authority and my advice on insulting others should not be listened to.

 

[londonfog]

he'll conflate the two when it serves him, and look at them separately if it serves him better.

ya see, our friend here is a farmer whose living depends on welfare checks from the government, otherwise he would not be able to afford to keep planting his monsanto crops. the best part of all this is how he argues against government intervention into the "free market".

he's also been caught plagiarizing before, so if he seems to make a coherent point, run it across a google search to make sure he's not just using someone else's words.

or pics.......

 

[NoDrama]

adjusting for inflation is a trick, it is done to make the comparison more palatable for idiots. you're a genius for noticing that, you just know how to read. it is clear that you know how to read.

the price of a big mac went sky high over a 10 year period, deal with it.

I fixed that for you.

 

[NoDrama]

i've never used a 5 pound bag of flour to make a single loaf of bread.

LOL do they sell flour by the ounce where you live?

You wouldn't know, you have never purchased flour in your lifetime.

 

[NoDrama]

smoke and mirrors describes the process you are using to overcome your conniption about the price of big macs.

measured using a dollar with the same purchasing power, you can buy more big macs in 2010 than you could in 2000, 2.68% more in fact.


sorry that makes you cry. check your mailbox for your farmer welfare, you'll feel better.

Inflation is inflation no matter how much you "Adjust" for it. The price of a Big Mac wasn't $3.68 in 2000 and it isn't at $3.68 now. If we adjust for inflation is the price of gold the same as it was in 1970?

Cherry pick all you want.

 

[NoDrama]

Why don't you go look at the data then and report back with your findings (don't forget links so it can be peer-reviewed).

I am not the one who put the data up, the onus is on Bucky Beaver, not me.

 

[NoDrama]

adjusting for inflation is not a trick,

Its a trick.

How else do you explain there is no inflation, and then you go and adjust for it? If there is no inflation, then there would be no adjustment for it. You pretty much argued yourself into a corner.

 

[UncleBuck]

Inflation is inflation no matter how much you "Adjust" for it. The price of a Big Mac wasn't $3.68 in 2000 and it isn't at $3.68 now. If we adjust for inflation is the price of gold the same as it was in 1970?

Cherry pick all you want.

lol. i'm the one cherrypicking?

no, my plagiaristic little amiga, you were the one who used the big mac as an example.

the fact is that given the same purchasing power, you could buy more big macs in 2010 than you could in 2000. 2.68% more big macs to be exact.

you are such a little crybaby, it's hilarious to watch.

 

[UncleBuck]

I am not the one who put the data up, the onus is on Bucky Beaver, not me.

i put the data up, but you were the one who made the quite unsubstantiated claim about them choosing odd, mismatched data sets.

you're just having a little hissy fit, chill out woman.

 

[UncleBuck]

Its a trick.

How else do you explain there is no inflation, and then you go and adjust for it? If there is no inflation, then there would be no adjustment for it. You pretty much argued yourself into a corner.

you are pretty much dumber than a bag of cocks.

yes, inflation occurred between 2000 and 2010.

given that inflation and the big mac's pace with it, one is able to purchase more big macs in 2010 than in 2000 with the same purchasing power, ceterus parabus.

i have a bowl of corn flakes here if you need something to sop up your tears, veronica.

 

[heckler73]

Here is the Big Mac index from the Economist (the people who started this joke in 1986).

http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index

We pay too much for those pieces of shit in Canada... or our loonie is over-valued... But check out India !!! Now there's a cheap sacred cow on a bun, for ya.
But wait... the Maharaja Mac is made from CHICKEN!
Is it a fair comparison?