Originally posted by Bardock42
Because it's an order of magnitude less...For example, if I say I pay you a 1000$ for a job, but once you worked and finished the job I only give you 100$....that'd be considerably less. That's the same as the difference between 90% and 99%
So assuming you are correct and the dollar lost 90% of its value, then my point stands. It is just simply masked by the fact that we have many more dollars to purchase with.
Originally posted by psmith81992
So assuming you are correct and the dollar lost 90% of its value, then my point stands. It is just simply masked by the fact that we have many more dollars to purchase with.
Well, first off, your claim of 99% does not stand, so maybe don't say that again.
Secondly, the general point that inflation exists that you make is correct, no one denies that it exists, but it's only worthwhile to compare it in context. The dollar has lost its value, but people actually have more purchasing power (and they can buy more cool stuff, cause more cool stuff exists). So just stating the 90% figure as some sort of doom and gloom scenario is incorrect in reality, and if you do it consciously from now on it would be very disingenuous.
My statement: The dollar has lost the majority of its value since 1950 (amended).
Your statement: No it hasn't.
My statement is correct, your statement is misleading. Any way you want to phrase it, even with infinitely more dollars today, the fact remains that the dollar has lost the majority of its value.
And I'm all for the gold standard with a logical gold cover clause ratio.
Originally posted by psmith81992
My statement: The dollar has lost the majority of its value since 1950 (amended).
Your statement: No it hasn't.My statement is correct, your statement is misleading. Any way you want to phrase it, even with infinitely more dollars today, the fact remains that the dollar has lost the majority of its value.
And I'm all for the gold standard with a logical gold cover clause ratio.
You are putting words in my mouth. What I said is that the dollar not being strong is a myth. That needs a holistic evaluation, and not just a look at whether there has been any inflation.
Originally posted by Bardock42The dollar not being as strong is not a myth. It is offset by the qty of dollars but that doesn't negate the fact that the dollar isn't as strong.
You are putting words in my mouth. What I said is that the dollar not being strong is a myth. That needs a holistic evaluation, and not just a look at whether there has been any inflation.
Originally posted by psmith81992
My statement: The dollar has lost the majority of its value since 1950 (amended).
Your statement: No it hasn't.My statement is correct, your statement is misleading. Any way you want to phrase it, even with infinitely more dollars today, the fact remains that the dollar has lost the majority of its value.
And I'm all for the gold standard with a logical gold cover clause ratio.
There needs to be a diversified backed standard. Gold, Silver, rare earth metals, etc. If you're going to back a currency with something "tangible", then you need more than gold. There's not enough gold in the world to cover the US money, alone. And with inflation and economic growth, we couldn't cover those increases with mining operations to keep pace. Meaning, it becomes economically unfeasible to mine more gold to just keep pace with inflation and economic growth of our nation.
Even then, a massive find in one of the resources could greatly change the value of the dollar if it had a diversified back standard.
Let me give you an example.
In Russia, they run across a massive palladium deposit. They mine it and refine it and then start shipping it. Speculators catch wind of this and the next Monday morning, palladium is grossly devalued. This causes the value of palladium to plummet. The dollar derives 12% of its value from palladium. The value of palladium drops by 10% due to the flooding of palladium in the market. The dollar loses 10% in one business day.
Now, of course, this is a very silly and absurdly simplistic scenario but it can show you how having a back currency can have massive issues when it is even backed by a diversified standard (that's the best way, by the way).
There needs to be a diversified backed standard. Gold, Silver, rare earth metals, etc. If you're going to back a currency with something "tangible", then you need more than gold. There's not enough gold in the world to cover the US money, alone. And with inflation and economic growth, we couldn't cover those increases mining operations to keep pace. Meaning, it becomes economically unfeasible to mine more gold to just keep pace with inflation and economic growth of our nation.
Originally posted by psmith81992
There was, relative to our historical strength.
Yes, but that historical strenght was built in a different economical system, so the comparision is difficult to make accuratedly. Also the relative commodities in modern lifestyle are day and night compared (for example) with those of the fifties.
Originally posted by Bentley
Yes, but that historical strenght was built in a different economical system, so the comparision is difficult to make accuratedly. Also the relative commodities in modern lifestyle are day and night compared (for example) with those of the fifties.
That I understand. Then it should be basic common sense that the dollar isn't what it once was (IE not backed by gold or something tangible). No era defining context is required.
Hilary is a sinking ship
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary is a sinking ship
I'm not surprised. Do some dishonest shit? Get a dishonest appraisal from people around you.
The GOP Clinton-smear campaign has done its job. She could have done better to make it not so bad such as...no miring "personal" e-mails with business and then deleting lots of stuff in an extremely suspicious fashion.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary is a sinking ship
💃 💃
Thanks, TI. That really brightens up my day. 🙂
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary is a sinking ship
There are a lot of people who will vote for her regardless.