Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[twostrokenut]

Whatever actually read what I wrote ........your little "indisputable fact" $17.50 today for a Peace Dollar 1935 http://www.coinflation.com/unitedstates/

Peace dollar in 1950 scrap silver price <75cents so the coin was worth $1 face in 1950.

Peace dollar in 1960 scrap silver price <90cents so the coin was worth $1 face in 1960.http://www.silverinstitute.org/site/silver-price/silver-price-history/1950-1960/

Your indisputable fact is just made up.

 

[twostrokenut]

edit: double post

"In 1935, the US produced silver coins."

The US still mints silver coins to this day. They don't produce them however. They purchase round blanks from Oregon and stamp them.

 

[tokeprep]

youre looking at the whole thing upside down.

silver in coins before 1934 = the value of the coin. a quarter contained 25 cents worth of silver at the time it was minted. if the price of silver went up the quarter would increase in value and buy more shit, if the priooce of silver went down, the coin would buy LESS shit.

That just isn't true at all. Let's use the 1916-1930 silver quarter. To equal the face value of 25 cents, the price of silver would have to be $1.38 an ounce. It never even came close in that period, so the quarter never contained "25 cents worth of silver at the time it was minted." In 1920, a silver quarter contained only 12 cents worth of silver. The face value was still 25 cents, so the quarter was worth 25 cents, whatever the price of silver was.

The silver price in 1920 was 65 cents an ounce; 25 cents bought the equivalent of $2.91 in 2013. The silver price was 34 cents an ounce in 1940; 25 cents bought the equivalent of $4.15 in 2013. The silver price was 91 cents an ounce in 1960; 25 cents bought the equivalent of $1.96 in 2013. There was no relationship between purchasing power and the price of silver.

the disappearance of silver from our coinage was the direct result of devaluing of the currency, not the inflation of prices. when making a coin becomes m ore expensive than the coin is worth then SOMETHING has changed.

has copper become so rare and hard to get that a penny must now be made of zinc, or has the value of the penny dropped so low that the copper is worth more than the coin it makes?

it's a chickenm/egg connundrum, until you examine all the other things which have become no much more expensive, and suddenly the "wild fluctuations" in the silver price vanish and you are left with wild fluctuations in the value of the currency.

copper didnt get more expensive, pennies lost nearly all their value. land hasn't become super expensive, the currencies you trade for that land have become weak and ineffective.

$1 doesnt even buy you a soda any more, and this is not because the cost of water sugar and flavourings has increased, but the dollar just doesnt carry as much value.

it doesnt require more work to grow wheat, in fact it requires LESS work to grow it, but the price of bread has not fallen, it has more than quadrupled since the mid 80's. this does not indicate that bread is rarer, harder to get or more valuable, it means the dollar is weaker than ever before, and soon we will need a wheelbarrow full of c-notes to buy a sandwich.

all your ring-around-the-rosie jibber jabber doesnt change the simple fact, that the dollar is sinking and everything else, from the stock market to the price of gold only looks so much higher because we are standing at the bottom of a really deep hole.

and the hole is getting deeper.

We've already been through inflation several times and you were proven dreadfully wrong.

The fact that $1 buys less now than it did in 1960 is only meaningful if the purchasing power of a person is actually less than it was in 1960. The median income in 1960 was $5,600; the median income now is more like $50,000. Sure, bread was 22 cents in 1960, but let's so some quick math on that. $50,000 / $5,600 = 8.93. 22 cents x 8.93 = $1.96. If you tell me bread is $3-4 a loaf now, I'm going to tell you that you're crazy, because I was just at the grocery store. I pay less than $3 a loaf every week for non-store brand 100% whole wheat bread.

By all means, let's compare the prices of anything you want to compare and see whether the person in 1960 with that "real" dollar or the person in 2013 with that fiat dollar comes out ahead. We both already know the answer.

if we went back to the constitutional standard of 1 dollar = 24 grams of silver we would be unable to make good on all the outstanding notes, and would thus be bankrupt. if we were to divy up all of the treasury's silver stockpile among all the outstanding notes and establish that value as the standard a dollar would be worth NOTHING. fiat currencies have trapped us in an endless cycle of inflation (devaluing of the currency with the result of apparently increasing prices for goods) and even the term "Inflation" is deceptive, creating a false impression of increasing something, when it should be described as it was in times past as "Debased Money" which provides the appropriate air of judgmental scorn.

considering how dramatic the slope has become, we need something even more disturbing to describe "inflation" perhaps "Financial Syphilis" or "Money Cancer" or "Bank Pox"

by examining the spiraling debasement of our currency from the relativistic position of the dollar it seems that everything else is shooting skyward, spiraling out of reach, but from the position on top of a sack of diamonds or gold or silver, you and the dollar are are falling off a cliff into a deep deep chasm.

one of these perspectives is accurate, hint: it's not the one you have been using in your fervent defense of the fractional reserve money machine and the endless debt cycle.

You're evidently just speaking for yourself. Who here wants to trade places with someone (in order to have the standard of living they had) in 1900? 1920? 1940? 1960? 1980? Any volunteers? Rationally, no one should want to do it, because it would be a much crappier life, and that is an undeniable fact. Your ranting about the destitute purchasing power of the dollar is just ignorant of reality.

 

[tokeprep]

Whatever actually read what I wrote ........your little "indisputable fact" $17.50 today for a Peace Dollar 1935 http://www.coinflation.com/unitedstates/

Peace dollar in 1950 scrap silver price >75cents so the coin was worth $1 face in 1950.

Peace dollar in 1960 scrap silver price >90cents so the coin was worth $1 face in 1960.http://www.silverinstitute.org/site/silver-price/silver-price-history/1950-1960/

Your indisputable fact is just made up.

I read all of it. Since my post talked about the declining purchasing power of the silver coins from the 30s to the 60s, I'm not sure why you're quoting today's price as if it's meaningful. Likewise, I don't understand what point you're trying to make about scrap value. If the coin was worth $1 in 1950 and 1960 and contained exactly the same amount of silver, that means the relative value of the coins declined. The same silver coin in 1950 bought less than it did in 1960. That was my point.

 

[tokeprep]

lol that's the point IF I still had my paycheck from 1955 in coinage....I would be way up...IF I put my paychecks from 1955 in a savings account or in a pillow as notes or even government backed silver certificates.....I would be way down....paper gambling aside of course please don't begin to try to explain to me what a mutual fund is or similar.
​

Why would you put your paycheck into a savings account, pillow, or government silver certificate?

How much would you have if you put your paycheck into IBM stock in 1955? How much would you have if you put your money into bank CDs since 1955? How much would you have if you had invested in treasury securities since 1955? Do you actually know the answer?

 

[Dr Kynes]

That just isn't true at all. Let's use the 1916-1930 silver quarter. To equal the face value of 25 cents, the price of silver would have to be $1.38 an ounce. It never even came close in that period, so the quarter never contained "25 cents worth of silver at the time it was minted." In 1920, a silver quarter contained only 12 cents worth of silver. The face value was still 25 cents, so the quarter was worth 25 cents, whatever the price of silver was.

The silver price in 1920 was 65 cents an ounce; 25 cents bought the equivalent of $2.91 in 2013. The silver price was 34 cents an ounce in 1940; 25 cents bought the equivalent of $4.15 in 2013. The silver price was 91 cents an ounce in 1960; 25 cents bought the equivalent of $1.96 in 2013. There was no relationship between purchasing power and the price of silver.



We've already been through inflation several times and you were proven dreadfully wrong.

The fact that $1 buys less now than it did in 1960 is only meaningful if the purchasing power of a person is actually less than it was in 1960. The median income in 1960 was $5,600; the median income now is more like $50,000. Sure, bread was 22 cents in 1960, but let's so some quick math on that. $50,000 / $5,600 = 8.93. 22 cents x 8.93 = $1.96. If you tell me bread is $3-4 a loaf now, I'm going to tell you that you're crazy, because I was just at the grocery store. I pay less than $3 a loaf every week for non-store brand 100% whole wheat bread.

By all means, let's compare the prices of anything you want to compare and see whether the person in 1960 with that "real" dollar or the person in 2013 with that fiat dollar comes out ahead. We both already know the answer.



You're evidently just speaking for yourself. Who here wants to trade places with someone (in order to have the standard of living they had) in 1900? 1920? 1940? 1960? 1980? Any volunteers? Rationally, no one should want to do it, because it would be a much crappier life, and that is an undeniable fact. Your ranting about the destitute purchasing power of the dollar is just ignorant of reality.

meh ok, youre right, silver has never had any value, and all currencies throughout history have been subject to 1.5%-3% annual devaluation.

nobody ever traded their corn harvest for silver nor did they hold that silver until such time as they might purchase something else with it months or even years later since any money that's not working FOR you is working AGAINST you, and always has.

pirates never buried treasue since buried treasure LOSES value.

farmers never silo grains since storing anything causes it to LOSE value.

the russians arent currently sitting on a stockpile of diamonds because sitting on a stockpile of diamonds would devalue them over time

anyone who has gold is thorwing their Fiat money away, since fiat money is the measure against which all value is drawn, and always has been.

zimbabwe's economy is a first rate example of a sound, well run fiat currency economy, and thats why they are world leaders in finance, industry and technology.

yep. youre totally right. fractional reserve banking is the only way to go, and it "Creates value, unlocking the human potential"

economists are always the wisest and most intelligent members of the species, and they are always right, especially when they make contradictory assertions using the exact same evidence.

wall street is totally not a giant casino, and buying stocks on margin is like totally not wagering. it's an investment. and i bet you got a foolproof system too right?

 

[tokeprep]

meh ok, youre right, silver has never had any value, and all currencies throughout history have been subject to 1.5%-3% annual devaluation.

nobody ever traded their corn harvest for silver nor did they hold that silver until such time as they might purchase something else with it months or even years later since any money that's not working FOR you is working AGAINST you, and always has.

pirates never buried treasue since buried treasure LOSES value.

farmers never silo grains since storing anything causes it to LOSE value.

the russians arent currently sitting on a stockpile of diamonds because sitting on a stockpile of diamonds would devalue them over time

anyone who has gold is thorwing their Fiat money away, since fiat money is the measure against which all value is drawn, and always has been.

zimbabwe's economy is a first rate example of a sound, well run fiat currency economy, and thats why they are world leaders in finance, industry and technology.

yep. youre totally right. fractional reserve banking is the only way to go, and it "Creates value, unlocking the human potential"

economists are always the wisest and most intelligent members of the species, and they are always right, especially when they make contradictory assertions using the exact same evidence.

wall street is totally not a giant casino, and buying stocks on margin is like totally not wagering. it's an investment. and i bet you got a foolproof system too right?

I didn't say any of that, and your choice to spew all of this nonsense over substantively responding to what I did say, as always, is exceedingly telling.

Your fixation on inflation is silly because anyone can easily beat inflation following your recipe. You want to be on the gold or silver standard? Then buy it. Done.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I didn't say any of that, and your choice to spew all of this nonsense over substantively responding to what I did say, as always, is exceedingly telling.

Your fixation on inflation is silly because anyone can easily beat inflation following your recipe. You want to be on the gold or silver standard? Then buy it. Done.

your recipe is 100 more years of more of the same, with the US dollar being worth 1.5%-3% less year over year endlessly, and thats the PLAN, not an unavoidable side effect, that shit is built into the scheme!

your recipe eliminates the working class, and turns everyone into the investment class or they live in ever-deepening poverty

your recipe is not only foolish and wrong headed, it is designed to put the entire world into the hands of the banks.

your recipe assumes that everybody has a few hundred thousand bucks lying around to put into the market, and assume the risks of investment (which you scrupulously avoid mentioning in your glowing praise for the rich dad/poor dad theosophy of finance) and you assume that nobody will ever feel the sting of those risks (which you have mentioned a grand total of 0 times while advocating everybody invest in anything but gold) and nobody will ever lose everything on a margin call or foolishly dump all their investments into a company that just got a big government contract and is backed by a personal friend of the president of the US (lol solyndra)

your recipe is the sort of twaddle that gives credence to the lefty claims that conservatives want everybody to either decide to become rich or quit whining.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Idk bro I don't think silk and salt are finite resources, or on the periodic table anywhere. But you're right they slightly fluctuate on supply and demand just as anything else does....but I agree as a whole.

salt was once a currency value commodity, and in the middle ages through the age of exploration silk and spice trading was THE way to get rich quick, but now, silk is actually pretty cheap by comparison, and even poor folks can buy spices

these things have lost their value the same way fiat currencies do, by overabundance.

also salt is on the periodic table as sodium, and chlorine.

carbon is on the periodic table too, but it's still relatively valueless since is has very little desirability and almost no scarcity despite it's tremendous utility.

only the things which are essential for life (food, shelter, water, land, etc.. ) can be used as a measure of objective value since we must all have these things, and nobody is making any new water, or land, food hasnt changed much in the last 5000 years and shelter is still what takes up abut 33% - 50% of everyone's wealth no matter where you go.

 

[tokeprep]

your recipe is 100 more years of more of the same, with the US dollar being worth 1.5%-3% less year over year endlessly, and thats the PLAN, not an unavoidable side effect, that shit is built into the scheme!

your recipe eliminates the working class, and turns everyone into the investment class or they live in ever-deepening poverty

your recipe is not only foolish and wrong headed, it is designed to put the entire world into the hands of the banks.

If that's true, why do people have substantially more purchasing power now than they did 100 years ago? Because wages increased alongside inflation. When you only look at half of the picture, you only see half of the picture.

your recipe assumes that everybody has a few hundred thousand bucks lying around to put into the market, and assume the risks of investment (which you scrupulously avoid mentioning in your glowing praise for the rich dad/poor dad theosophy of finance) and you assume that nobody will ever feel the sting of those risks (which you have mentioned a grand total of 0 times while advocating everybody invest in anything but gold) and nobody will ever lose everything on a margin call or foolishly dump all their investments into a company that just got a big government contract and is backed by a personal friend of the president of the US (lol solyndra)

If you put $1,000 into stocks each year for 25 years and earn 10% a year on your investments, you'll have about $110,000 in 25 years. You don't need hundreds of thousands of dollars to make successful investments any more than you need that amount of money to make successful investments in metals.

Margin calls? You only get a margin call if you buy on margin. Tell me, Kynes, how many people even have margin privileges on their investment accounts? Most people don't even know what margin is in the first place, and you have to fill out paperwork to get it. Solyndra? Individual people couldn't invest in that company--it was owned by venture capitalists.

And the risks of investing in gold or silver based on a few decades of price history? What if gold stays at $1,500 an ounce for 10 years? What if the price of silver plummets to $10? If your thesis is that neither event will occur and instead you'll see the same kinds of price increases that we've seen since the price was allowed to float, then by all means, invest your money in gold and silver. But you're still taking a risk, since we have no idea what the outcome will be.

 

[twostrokenut]

I read all of it. Since my post talked about the declining purchasing power of the silver coins from the 30s to the 60s, I'm not sure why you're quoting today's price as if it's meaningful. Likewise, I don't understand what point you're trying to make about scrap value. If the coin was worth $1 in 1950 and 1960 and contained exactly the same amount of silver, that means the relative value of the coins declined. The same silver coin in 1950 bought less than it did in 1960. That was my point.

Oh now its "relative value" oh now I get it dang that was easy lol.....relative to WHAT?? Drumroll please......................relative to the federal reserve note. Yes silver went form $0.75 to $.90 from 1950-60 but the face value was higher.

We're going in circles. You're making things too complicated. This has been covered in older posts. At this point I am convinced that you are dodging the issue.

The point I made about scrap value serves to back up my point that in real terms, a minimum wage employee in 1955, made more that the best min wage does today....which is why the economy is all screwy today, which is why it takes more than one income in the household today, which is why more and more are struggling today....and the bank has convinced you we are all ok but we are working for WAY LESS than we were and we are paying WAY MORE for things even though those things are WAY EASIER to produce today so they should cost WAY LESS than they did even WAY BACK THEN.........It is all top to bottom marvelously illustrated in older posts.

The coin from 50-60 purchasing power was one dollar because it has a face value just like the Sacajawea Dollar right now buys a dollar worth of stuff even though the scrap of it is.............
1. Calculate 88.5% copper value :

(3.2723 × .00220462262 × 8.1 × .885) = $0.0517141


2. Calculate 6% zinc value :

(0.8159 × .00220462262 × 8.1 × .06) = $0.0008741


3. Calculate 3.5% manganese value :

(2400.00 × (1.0 × 10[SUP]-6[/SUP]) × 8.1 × .035) = $0.000680


4. Calculate 2% nickel value :

(6.7319 × .00220462262 × 8.1 × .02) = $0.0024041


5. Add the four together :

$0.0517141 + $0.0024041 + $0.000680 + $0.0008741 = $0.0556723


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Yep the [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Sacajawea Dollar is worth 6 cents.....[/FONT]

 

[cannabineer]

We only produce a small proportion, less than 1%, of what is produced naturally. Not my argument anyway. My argument is that global warming hasn't occured, in fact, there has been global cooling recently. The change from "man caused global warming" to "man caused climate change" is evidence that the argument never held weight to begin with.

This is not correct if you look at it in a different way. Each year there is a massive amount of CO2 emitted and reabsorbed during the course of the year. If you count total emissions, then yes we contribute less than 1%. If you cancel out seasonal reabsorption, it's perhaps greater than unity, since the amount being buffered out by the oceans (and reducing their remaining capacity to do so) is subtracted from the overall annual increase in gas burden. We are the prime source of each year's leftover carbon dioxide surplus once the cyclics have been taken out.
The "less than 1%" statistic is beloved of the business-as-usual contingent because it has the authority we've been taught to give the numbers. I think Sam Clemens's cautionary epigram about lies, damned lies and statistics bears remembering in this and many other instances. The other maxim applicable to those who lightly sauté the numbers is cui bono? cn

 

[tokeprep]

Oh now its "relative value" oh now I get it dang that was easy lol.....relative to WHAT?? Drumroll please......................relative to the federal reserve note. Yes silver went form $0.75 to $.90 from 1950-60 but the face value was higher.

We're going in circles. You're making things too complicated. This has been covered in older posts. At this point I am convinced that you are dodging the issue.

What do you mean the face value was higher? The face value was exactly the the same. So long as the price of silver was below $1.38 an ounce, the silver coins in that era were worth more at face value than they were by metal content. Accordingly, face value is all that mattered, because if you traded your coins for silver, you would have had less purchasing power, meaning that no one did it.

The same amount of silver bought less and less and less. That's the indisputable fact that you haven't refuted (and that Kynes also failed to refute previously, when he attempted to argue that a given amount of silver had exactly the same purchasing power over thousands of years).

The point I made about scrap value serves to back up my point that in real terms, a minimum wage employee in 1955, made more that the best min wage does today....which is why the economy is all screwy today, which is why it takes more than one income in the household today, which is why more and more are struggling today....and the bank has convinced you we are all ok but we are working for WAY LESS than we were and we are paying WAY MORE for things even though those things are WAY EASIER to produce today so they should cost WAY LESS than they did even WAY BACK THEN.........It is all top to bottom marvelously illustrated in older posts.

Except a minimum wage employee in 1955 didn't make more than the lowest minimum wage today. 75 cents in 1955 is equivalent to $6.51 today, and the minimum wage is above that.

You've been trying to prove your claim by arguing that a minimum wage employee in 1955 earned x ounces worth of silver, which would be worth $x today. On that basis, you would be correct. My whole point has been that employees weren't effectively paid x ounces of silver, they were paid $x--the face value of the coins. The metal value was totally irrelevant to workers in 1955 because it was below the face value of the coins.

 

[twostrokenut]

We've already been through inflation several times and you were proven dreadfully wrong.

The fact that $1 buys less now than it did in 1960 is only meaningful if the purchasing power of a person is actually less than it was in 1960. The median income in 1960 was $5,600; the median income now is more like $50,000. Sure, bread was 22 cents in 1960, but let's so some quick math on that. $50,000 / $5,600 = 8.93. 22 cents x 8.93 = $1.96. If you tell me bread is $3-4 a loaf now, I'm going to tell you that you're crazy, because I was just at the grocery store. I pay less than $3 a loaf every week for non-store brand 100% whole wheat bread.

By all means, let's compare the prices of anything you want to compare and see whether the person in 1960 with that "real" dollar or the person in 2013 with that fiat dollar comes out ahead. We both already know the answer.

taking your word on the price of bread in 1955 and not looking up you "median incomes" to confirm.........$3 bread if you make 50k per year is 0.006% of your yearly income to buy the bread.

22cent bread @ 56 hundie per year is 0.004% of yearly income to buy the bread.

6 is bigger than 4.

 

[twostrokenut]

Why would you put your paycheck into a savings account, pillow, or government silver certificate?

How much would you have if you put your paycheck into IBM stock in 1955? How much would you have if you put your money into bank CDs since 1955? How much would you have if you had invested in treasury securities since 1955? Do you actually know the answer?

Yes I know how gambling works silly.

 

[cannabineer]

Wait..Didn't you like a post of some dude saying our country is ruined? Are you bi polar?

You mean I have competition? cn

 

[tokeprep]

taking your word on the price of bread in 1955 and not looking up you "median incomes" to confirm.........$3 bread if you make 50k per year is 0.006% of your yearly income to buy the bread.

22cent bread @ 56 hundie per year is 0.004% of yearly income to buy the bread.

6 is bigger than 4.

For bread. What about everything else? Purchasing power must be calculated in aggregate. Milk? Eggs? Housing? You need to calculate everything to arrive at meaningful numbers.

Either way, where's that 90% plus devaluation? Not there.

 

[tokeprep]

Yes I know how gambling works silly.

Investing in silver in 1955 was gambling as much as investing in IBM stock was. The difference is that you'd have more money now had you invested in IBM stock.

 

[cannabineer]

The minimum wage in 1955 was 75 cents. In 1955, an ounce of silver was worth $1.29 in 1955 dollars. Could you trade your silver dollar for $1.29 in 1955? Nope--it was worth $1. The real value of a 1955 dollar in 2013 is $6.51; the minimum wage in 2013 is $7.25. The minimum wage obviously has beaten inflation. Of course, silver certainly wouldn't offer you stability. In 1980, the price was $20 an ounce; in 2000, it was $5 an ounce. A couple years ago it was above $40, and now it's below $25.

On needing 2 full time working parents to maintain a household: that's really a matter of how we live. How big was the average house in 1955? Almost half the size of a house today. Did the 1955 house have air conditioning and a full suite of appliances? How many cars did the average household have? How much did the average household pay each year for computers, smartphones, and internet access? How often did the average family buy and cook their own food versus dining out? How much did the average household spend on clothes, shoes, and handbags? The reality is that the average American in the 1950s was content (or forced, since much of the stuff wasn't available) to have far less than the average American today. When you want more, you have to pay more.

When I use CPI-based engines I get $8.60, and it's worth remembering that the CPI (as figured by BLS) gets diddled by those who have an interest in keeping its rise low. It's figured differently in 2013 than 1955.

If we look at better indicators of value, such as the price of a day in the hospital or an ounce of gold or a gallon of gas or a mortgage, the conversion is more like 15-40x.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/consumerpriceindex.asp

My dad bought his first Benz in '69 for $5k. The equivalent today is $60k. Even allowing for the modern miracle of globalization, that's 12 to 1. cn

 

[twostrokenut]

salt was once a currency value commodity, and in the middle ages through the age of exploration silk and spice trading was THE way to get rich quick, but now, silk is actually pretty cheap by comparison, and even poor folks can buy spices

these things have lost their value the same way fiat currencies do, by overabundance.

also salt is on the periodic table as sodium, and chlorine.

carbon is on the periodic table too, but it's still relatively valueless since is has very little desirability and almost no scarcity despite it's tremendous utility.

only the things which are essential for life (food, shelter, water, land, etc.. ) can be used as a measure of objective value since we must all have these things, and nobody is making any new water, or land, food hasnt changed much in the last 5000 years and shelter is still what takes up abut 33% - 50% of everyone's wealth no matter where you go.

Cool I misunderstood, you are comparing silk and salt to fiat currency. Still don't see NaCl on the table though lol that's an ionic compound of two elements not an element itself but I digress. An overabundance of silver, gold, palladium ect...methinks there will never be arrrrrrrr..............