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

[tokeprep]

Who got the $16B? http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/

Who got the $16 trillion? The banks that borrowed it and paid it back got the $16 trillion.

PCE, CPI, CPE, PCI, KMA... whatever the acronym of the day is, if you don't figure in fuel and food, what good is it to you and me?

Since PCE and CPI both consider fuel and food, it should be a lot of good to you if that's what you're concerned about.

I think I have discovered the problem. 25 cents to $13 is not a 520% increase, check your math.
But that is not the real issue, anyway. The measurements we use are from 100 years of debt issued fiat currency/inflation. We cannot use the numbers that would exist if we had NOT started this madness. Statistics are like a bikini, they show a lot but they don't show everything and what they don't show is often more revealing than what they DO show.
Where would we be economically if we had taken the high road and said NO to the Creature from Jekyll Island? There is no way to be certain but I suspect that the wealth gap would not be nearly what it is and that prosperity (and the freedom from the IRS crawling up your ass on a yearly basis) would be greater than in any time in out history.

Obviously I mistakenly left a zero off--5200% increase. That furthers my point, not yours.

It's not statistical magic. That prices, on average, have increased by something like 2,300% over the last 100 years is cancelled out by the fact that wages, on average, have increased by 5,200%.Your equivalence argument is an empty one. We know what the average wage was in 1913 and we know it was today; likewise, we know what prices were in 1913 and we know what they are today. When you have both pieces of information, you can easily make comparisons.

 

[tokeprep]

Didn't show up in my search either but there it is.....kinda serves to show you aren't reading everything posted here.

I read everything, but I certainly don't remember the contents of 40 pages worth of posts, especially if my relevant post came long after yours.

 

[tokeprep]

Your opinion of this simply doesn't matter....just like the central planners opinion on this doesn't matter. It is the law, not because it's written on paper....just like gravity....... and if manipulated the correction comes on with a VENGANCE. You are missing the point of gold/silver vs paper investments....paper might pay better if someone's grandpa were to invest but gold/silver has no risk of loss as a long term investment because its value is compared to our current fiat currency. You have yet to address this.

I think I've been addressing that constantly, here and elsewhere. Currency is not an investment but a means of transacting. Investments are denominated in currency, but currency itself is not an investment; currency is used to purchase investments. You experience real loss only when you make a bad investment, whether it's in precious metals or anything else. Anyone who wants to invest in precious metals has total freedom to do so.

Here's a question for you: the world's GDP was equivalent to about $5 trillion in 2013 dollars, in 1913. World GDP in 2012 was about $71 trillion. With the supply of precious metals relatively fixed and the volume of economic activity having increased by 14 times over 100 years, how is the gold/silver standard even workable in the modern world?

See how that works? We pay more because the supply is shorter? If we could simply build more silver/gold fabrication capacity wouldn't we have already? Fiat currency is not produced in the core of a Supernova explosion......it is produced in the mind and this is why it is unstable when people "lose faith" in it. People produced the modern world DESPITE fractional reserve lending holding them back.

You're talking about a contingency. No one's lost faith in fiat currency (at least not many).

Why don't we just increase the minimum wage to whatever we want to make everything awesome? Let's make it $100 per hour and solve the world's problems that should work right?

If you're suggesting that's the equivalent of QE, it's not. The fact that inflation has remained so low directly contradicts the dire Austrian warnings about QE and should give people pause to think maybe the Fed isn't destroying everything after all. 10 years from now, if we aren't embroiled in the dire crisis all of you are predicting, I expect you to eat a hat; and if we are, I'll wholeheartedly eat mine.

 

[twostrokenut]

I read everything, but I certainly don't remember the contents of 40 pages worth of posts, especially if my relevant post came long after yours.

Oh snap bam you win LOL. The Federal Reserve System has created an Unemployment Class that depends on its (The Fed's) ability to print "money". That's just an opinion of mine that has become fact by my decree.

lol seriously, its an explanation of fluctuations around the Civil War period.

 

[tokeprep]

dont be deliberately obtuse, the DX badge was disciontinued a few years ago, the base model LX is now what the DX used to be. i should think you would be able to figure out what Base Model means, even if they shuffle the letters about.

I've never owned a car and I really know nothing about cars, but this makes me doubt that you know much either. I honestly didn't know what the letters meant, so I just looked it up and found this page with a good explanation: http://www.ehow.com/list_7331241_difference-honda-lx_-dx-ex.html. If it's not an accurate summation, enlighten me and point me elsewhere. The fact that the LX seems to now be Honda's base model doesn't mean that it's properly compared to a DX in the past, since there were evidently real differences that people were paying for.

Slapping the title "base model" on the cars in different years doesn't make the prices comparable. A Honda LX, with all the features of a Honda LX, should be compared against a Honda LX, not a Honda DX, which evidently was a lesser car with inferior features when it was offered.

http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/1990-Honda-Accord-Price-c2164

1990 Honda accord DX: $12,145 (Base Model)

http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/price.aspx

2013 honda accord LX : $21,680 (base Model)

so thats pretty close to 2x the price, but by your own logic the 1990 accord was bought using 1990 dollars,, while the 2013 accord must be bought using the new, more plentiful and less valuable 2013 Obama-Bucks

you cannot have it both ways.

Fortunately, I don't even have to quibble about comparing the DX to the LX to make my point. $12,145 in 1990 = $21,607.41 in 2013; $21,680 - $21,607.41 = $72.59. 23 years of inflation and the real price of the car has increased by $73. You want to call that magic math, so let's use another benchmark: the median income was about $30,000 in 1990 versus about $50,000 today. Keeping your comparison intact, the car cost about 40% of median income in 1990 and about 43% of median income in 2013. That would make it a bit more expensive.

Of course, we aren't comparing the same car, as I already noted. A Honda LX in 1990 cost $14,895, the equivalent of $26,500 today. A Honda LX now costs $21,680. If you want to measure the cost as a percent of median income, it was about 49% in 1990 and it's about 43% in 1900. In real terms--the purchasing power people actually have now versus what they had then--the Honda LX has actually decreased in price over the past 23 years.

This is only not true if you left $15,000 under your mattress for 23 years expecting it to buy the same model of car in 2013.

further, 2013 accord LX in california costs $22470 + taxes (higher than 1990) dealer prep (higher than 1990) registration (higher than 1990) etc etc etc.

http://melraptonhonda.uptracs.com/inventory/new.html?manufacturer=Honda&model=Accord&start_index=1

So what? Why do we care about those specifics in California when they have no impact whatsoever on hundreds of millions of Americans experiencing inflation?

so the car costs nearly 2x more than it did in 1990, for the same base model. are entry level clerical workers making 2x more now than they were in 1990?
are janitors making 2x more now than they were in 1990?
are teachers making 2x more now than they were in 1990?

Again, the car that's actually the same car, the LX, costs 1.46 times as much; comparing the DX to the LX, it's 1.78 times as much. But tell us, Kynes, how much did they make and how much are they making? Obviously I don't have profession-specific data for average wages in 1990 and 2013.

If you go on the median wage, then yes. $30,000 versus $50,000 = 1.66 times as much.

If you go on the minimum wage, then yes. $3.80 versus $7.25 = 1.90 times as much.

If you go on the average hourly wage, then yes. $10.20 versus $23.87 = 2.34 times as much.

your patently obvious math games are unconvincing, under your deliberately deceptive arithmetic acrobatics, the dollar is MORE powerful now than it was in 1990, and buys MORE shit, and that is clearly untrrue since the treasury and the fed have a TARGET of 3% loss of value every fucking year for the dollar

You aren't ignorant enough to be able to pretend that I'm making any such claim. $1 in 1990 bought $1 worth of stuff in 1990; $1 in 2013 buys $1 worth of stuff in 2013. In 1990, when the median household only made $30,000, a Honda LX cost $15,000; in 2013, when a median household will make about $50,000, a Honda LX costs $21,680. After 23 years of inflation, the same model car is cheaper for the median household now than it was then. Period.

Your fixation on the value of $1 over time is what's unconvincing and deliberately deceptive, since it ignores how many of those dollars people have. Purchasing power is a matter of value and quantity, not just one or the other.

 

[twostrokenut]

Here's a question for you: the world's GDP was equivalent to about $5 trillion in 2013 dollars, in 1913. World GDP in 2012 was about $71 trillion. With the supply of precious metals relatively fixed and the volume of economic activity having increased by 14 times over 100 years, how is the gold/silver standard even workable in the modern world?

I can't get past the first sentance....how do you know what the world gdp was in 1913? How do you convert that to 2013 dollars??
Show your work and sources.


I think I know the root of this problem.....

I've never owned a car and I really know nothing about cars, but this makes me doubt that you know much either.

Isn't that usually the problem when you try and argue about cars with ppl who actually do own them?

Like I just said, I have absolutely no investment in the system. I don't work in economics, banking, or finance (I don't work in anything, for that matter)

Then why don't you put your money where your mouth is when someone is kind enough to give you some.... Like, totally vote with your wallet dood.

 

[budsmoker87]

I've seriously NEVER, EVER seen anybody with such a "know-it-all" attitude as tokeprep...he discredits logic until he's blue in the face, and then he changes his argument..."well inflation DOES exist, and it IS substantial, but rising wages have accounted for it"...don't you realize that people have NOT NEEDED to "invest" their money just to maintain its value, for a VERY long time? Why should hard working Americans be forced to gamble with their savings just to maintain? There once was a time, not too long ago, when anybody could open a savings account and generate a nice little return to stay ahead of the game but those days are long gone. You honestly think even HALF of the country earns enough to stash some cash in investments?

 

[tokeprep]

I can't get past the first sentance....how do you know what the world gdp was in 1913? How do you convert that to 2013 dollars??
Show your work and sources.

I think I know the root of this problem.....

1913 nominal GDP was equivalent to approximately $2.8 trillion in 1990 dollars. $2.8 trillion in 1990 dollars is equivalent to approximately $5 trillion in 2013 dollars.

Maddison, 2007: http://books.google.com/books?id=I242EL00ieAC. The World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html.

If you're going to say that the dollar value growth just reflects inflation, that cannot possibly be true. The world's population was under 2 billion people in 1913, most of whom lived in abject poverty; now it's more than 7 billion people, with more people at a higher standard of living than ever before in human history.

Isn't that usually the problem when you try and argue about cars with ppl who actually do own them?

Since the information is very easily looked up, no. Price and features don't require any special expertise to understand; something with the designation "LX" in one year is probably supposed to be equivalent to something with the designation "LX" in another year.

Then why don't you put your money where your mouth is when someone is kind enough to give you some.... Like, totally vote with your wallet dood.

When I said I didn't work, I meant for anyone else. I have put my money where my mouth was: I owned stocks during the financial crisis (I was making money) and I've owned CDs (because I wanted to spend the money a year later, not because they were the best investments). I beat the inflation rate, so the value of my assets gained purchasing power, it didn't lose any. And purchase I did! I spent all of the money I had earned, that's why I don't have any assets.

Once I have a "real" job, I'll be seeking and making the best investments I can find. If gold dropped to $500 an ounce and silver dropped to $8 an ounce, I might think they were good investments, but probably not at current prices. Likewise, I wouldn't be buying stocks at current prices either (at least not intending to buy and hold them). I'd probably be looking for short opportunities, and I wouldn't be shorting metals at these levels.

 

[cannabineer]

LOL You somehow edited MY POST!!!

OMG the Internet just went WACKO!!

Aww shoot. I meant to reply, and hit the wrong button. I did a mod whoopsie. I'm sorry. cn

 

[UncleBuck]

This is only not true if you left $15,000 under your mattress for 23 years expecting it to buy the same model of car in 2013.

that's not only the trick miss kynes is hoping to accomplish with his rhetorical flourish, but that is also how he plans to save up for his farm.

it's a philosophy of baffling with bullshit in place of dazzling with brilliance. they complain about how public teacher's unions are so greedy and powerful and teachers are so highly paid, then he tries to make it sound like teachers haven't had COLAs for 23 years.

of course, it's hard to catch buried under so much BS.

 

[ginwilly]

I think I cursed this thread when I called it civil.

 

[tokeprep]

I've seriously NEVER, EVER seen anybody with such a "know-it-all" attitude as tokeprep...he discredits logic until he's blue in the face, and then he changes his argument..."well inflation DOES exist, and it IS substantial, but rising wages have accounted for it"...don't you realize that people have NOT NEEDED to "invest" their money just to maintain its value, for a VERY long time? Why should hard working Americans be forced to gamble with their savings just to maintain? There once was a time, not too long ago, when anybody could open a savings account and generate a nice little return to stay ahead of the game but those days are long gone. You honestly think even HALF of the country earns enough to stash some cash in investments?

I've never said inflation didn't exist and never said it wasn't substantial; I've always said inflation can only be meaningfully considered along with wages, since purchasing power can only be determined by considering income and asset values in relation to prices. I've always said that the value of an individual dollar is a pittance compared to 100 years ago but that it isn't meaningful because everyone has more dollars that actually buy more than a smaller number of significantly more valuable dollars.

Realistically, as you point out, most people have no assets, so most people don't need to invest their money to maintain its value, because purchasing power is maintained as wages increase. This isn't a change from the past--most people have never had assets; only 1 out of 4 people owned a home in 1913. For people who do have assets, the returns and values of assets tend to outpace inflation, meaning that purchasing power is either unchanged or increased.

 

[twostrokenut]

LOLing at the 500 and 8 per OZ....when Congress passes a Bill, does that become a law?

 

[NoDrama]

Do you not recall the last discussion we had about inflation numbers? You explained how they worked to everyone, and then we figured out that you were totally wrong. The result you predicted, based on your understanding of how inflation was calculated, was directly contradicted by the result BLS calculated (your estimate was no inflation in a category, while the BLS actually showed 100% inflation, or something like that).

Indeed, I seem to recall you never replying at all to that post. Maybe you ought to dredge it up if you want to talk about incorrect math.

You mean when I said that the BLS uses substitution? I explained it perfectly and I am correct, the BLS DOES USE SUBSTITUTION. Its not my problem that " We use Substitution" means something else to you.

I could dredge it up, but then you would look like a fool for having said that I never replied to your little rant how CD's are good investments if you want to beat inflation.

Then you give a story about investing in a CD and not beating inflation.

I don't really even have to argue a point, you will eventually just contradict anything you said previously anyway, just gotta wait.

 

[tokeprep]

You mean when I said that the BLS uses substitution? I explained it perfectly and I am correct, the BLS DOES USE SUBSTITUTION. Its not my problem that " We use Substitution" means something else to you.

I could dredge it up, but then you would look like a fool for having said that I never replied to your little rant how CD's are good investments if you want to beat inflation.

Here it is: https://www.rollitup.org/politics/646501-gold-gold-gooooollllllllllddddddd-51.html#post9043605. That BLS uses substitution was never in question, only what that meant for the numbers. Your thesis about what it meant was garbage.

Indeed, you must have realized that, because you clipped the first half of the post off and chose to only respond to the second half.

Then you give a story about investing in a CD and not beating inflation.

My story about investing in a CD? Evidently you misread it: "I owned stocks during the financial crisis (I was making money) and I've owned CDs (because I wanted to spend the money a year later, not because they were the best investments). I beat the inflation rate..."

I don't really even have to argue a point, you will eventually just contradict anything you said previously anyway, just gotta wait.

Point one out.

 

[cannabineer]

OK now I just gotta ask. HOW did you manage to outperform inflation with a CD? cn

 

[tokeprep]

OK now I just gotta ask. HOW did you manage to outperform inflation with a CD? cn

I had a 5% CD in 2008. Since that's harder to do these days, a CD typically isn't a rational investment.

 

[Harrekin]

OK now I just gotta ask. HOW did you manage to outperform inflation with a CD? cn

A powerful imagination...?

 

[cannabineer]

I had a 5% CD in 2008. Since that's harder to do these days, a CD typically isn't a rational investment.

Not to stir up the same old ****, but it was my experience that prices (for all but houses) rose waaay faster in that span than the nominal inflation rate suggested. cn

 

[tokeprep]

Not to stir up the same old ****, but it was my experience that prices (for all but houses) rose waaay faster in that span than the nominal inflation rate suggested. cn

If you give me an example (or even ten) we can look at the underlying data.

In my experience, experience is misleading. When you go to the grocery store every week, you easily notice price changes when you're paying more; you're not so apt to notice other changes that are less visible, or to acknowledge when you're paying less. For example, if you buy one loaf of bread a week for $2 and the price doubles to $4, you're paying $2 more each week and $104 more each year; you notice that easily by looking at your receipt each week, especially if many items increased in price.

If you buy one airline ticket a year and the price fell from $400 to $320 from year to year, do you think "Awesome, that $80 I saved on the ticket cancelled out $80 worth of my bread price increase"? Likewise, if the average consumer buys 5 CDs a year and the price fell from $20 per CD to $10 CD, do you think about the fact that you're saving $50 on CDs over what you paid in the past? Our memories are quite selective, which is why the CPI measures prices of thousands of things in aggregate based on reams of data. The data yields truth that the greedy human mind tends to conveniently forget.