"Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6Wn19.62$dn3.25537 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> news:8mn19.42089$Fq6.3837975 at news2.west.cox.net...> > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Fel19.698$7p.507207 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > > news:lZk19.41024$Fq6.3791761 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, gold is the worst thing that could be used. The inflation
> rates
> > > used by the Federal Reserve are the best.
> > >
> >
> > The Federal Reserve is controlled by jews who do nothing but LIE, and
you
> > accept this? For 3,000 years, gold was a perfectly acceptable standard,
> and
> > just 30 years ago, the jews decided to use paper dollars rather than
gold,
> > and you *accept* this? The entire rest of the world refuses to use
> American
> > dollars and instead demands that gold be used as a standard, and you
> believe
> > the jewish LIES about the "inflation rates"?
>> Gold was not a perfectly acceptable standard, that's why it was changed.
> And most developed countries in the world DO NOT use gold.
>> > This is ridiculous.
>> Take a course in macroeconomics, or read a book.
>> > > > But by comparing median incomes and median home prices in *current*
> > > dollars,
> > > > we're eliminating the need to rely on unreliable statistics like
> > "consumer
> > > > price indexes".
> > >
> > > No you're not. Housing prices are an unreliable measure.
> > >
> > > If you use the 2000 dollars, in the very census table you were using
> then
> > > you already take purchasing parity into account, and thus your
> comparison
> > to
> > > housing costs is completely useless.
> >
> > We're not using housing prices as a "measure". We're measuring the
> ability
> > of Americans to simply buy a place to live in, something that most
people
> in
> > the world don't have so much trouble either doing or understanding.
>> Yes you are. You're using housing prices as a measure of inflation.
>
I am using gold as a measure of inflation. Measured against gold, housing
prices are down. Using the rubber band called the "dollar" to measure
inflation is more worthless than using Microsoft stock to measure inflation.
> > The Japanese pay CASH for their housing, have no mortgage debt, save 33%
> of
> > every yen they earn, put $2 trillion MORE into personal savings last
year,
> > but you think it's irrelevant that Americans' incomes didn't keep up
with
> > prices?
>> They do. American incomes have increased, in real terms. Evidently while
> housing costs seem to have increased, the costs of other things have
> decreased even more.
>
And why didn't you at least name one thing that you think has decreased in
cost? Could it be because what American consumers used to buy from American
companies they now buy from foreign companies, so costs can't be compared.
The original top of the line Mustang cost $3,000 in 1966, brand new. They
now cost $24,000, very old. Should we use Mustang's as an index, which
means that the value of the dollar is down 8 fold?
Or should we use a top of the line Mustang today, one that costs $28,100, as
an index? Do you believe the value of the dollar is down almost ten fold
since then?
Both housing and gold prices suggest this isn't far off, don't they?
What about the price of a loaf of bread? What was 20 cents in 1966 is now
$3.00 today. Should we use a loaf of bread as an index? Is the value of
the dollar against bread down 15 fold?
> So a country that saves 100% of their income is in the best possible
> situation, isn't it?
>
How do you get this? No country which was quoted does any such thing. The
highest savings rate is Singapore, and they save "only" 52%.
But saving NOTHING is criminal.
> > > > > > Well, it is FALSE. Here is the math using *your* approach.
This
> is
> > a
> > > > > valid
> > > > > > approach, but it's misleading because it views ratios rather
than
> > > > absolute
> > > > > > dollars (and absolute dollars are far more important in this
> > instance
> > > > than
> > > > > > ratios). Let's define Purchasing Power as median incomes as a
> > > > percentage
> > > > > of
> > > > > > median home prices. Median incomes decreased from 37.3% of
median
> > > home
> > > > > > prices in 1970 to 24.9% by 2000, as the ratio of men in the
labor
> > > force
> > > > > > decreased 7% and the ratio of women increased 42%. This 33%
loss
> of
> > > > > > purchasing power of the American worker could only have occurred
> if
> > > > women
> > > > > > workers are counter-productive.. It cannot be explained by them
> > being
> > > > > > merely unproductive:
> > > > >
> > > > > No, you did it wrong again. Use the income adjusted for
inflation.
> > > That
> > > > is
> > > > > how you do these things.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The only reliable way to adjust for inflation is to use the gold
> > standard.
> > > > There are too many jews involved in fabricating these "consumer
price"
> > > > indexes.
> > >
> > > Nope. The gold standard hasn't been a standard for quite some time.
> > Money
> > > is a numerical value, and it has been that way for a reasonable length
> of
> > > time.
> > >
> > > Note: Those figures were already adjusted for inflation. What do you
> > think
> > > current dollars mean?
> > >
> >
> > "Current dollars" means the ACTUAL cost at the time using the value of
the
> > dollar at the time. *Constant* dollars are adjusted for inflation, but
> it's
> > EXTREMELY easy to mislead a citizenry which doesn't even understand
> > calculus, much less algebra.
>> Basic algebra is much simpler than calculus. You really can't do calculus
> without it.
>> Actually, I was mistaken. Look at 2000 dollars for the ACTUAL cost,
> adjustend for inflation.
>> I misread the legend.
>
You just flunked TIMSS. Could it be that confusing constant dollars with
current dollars, denying the fact of probability and statistics, and arguing
that a clear as a bell physics question is "ambiguous", are why your
perspective is so "liberal".
> > > > > > This suggests that the negative productivity of one woman worker
> is
> > > > equal
> > > > > to
> > > > > > one half of the positive productivity of one man worker, which
is
> > > > baloney.
> > > > > > It takes more men employees than that just to move file cabinets
> for
> > > > women
> > > > > > employees, not to mention the three firemen that have to be sent
> in
> > to
> > > > > carry
> > > > > > out a firewoman and the fire victim she dropped down the stairs.
> > > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm> > > > >
> > > > > The cost of a house is not equal to the cost of living. I'm
afraid
> > > you're
> > > > > still wrong, and will continue to be wrong until you use the
figures
> > for
> > > > > median income adjusted for inflation.
> > > >
> > > > ok, let's adjust for inflation.
> > > >
> > > > median income 1970 = 224 ounces of gold
> > > > median income 2000 = 151 ounces of gold
> > > > median home price 1970 = 602 ounces of gold
> > > > median home price 2000 = 606 ounces of gold
> > >
> > > Gold is irrelevant. You might as well base it on Microsoft stock.
> > >
> >
> > Mircosoft stock!? That's not just irrelevant--it's worse than
irrelevant.
> > It's not based on assets, it's based on pure jewish hype and hot air.
The
> > two thirds plunge in the value of Microsoft since January 2000 just
barely
> > scratches the surface of how much hot air's involved. Basing values on
> MSFT
> > stock would be like using a baloon to measure a mile. The Chinese,
> > Japanese, Muslims, Indians, Russians, or Europeans would never accept
> > Microsoft stock for payment of something [read: anything], but they'd
take
> > gold in a heartbeat.
>> My point was that it was irrelevant.
>> You do know that currency markets operate on currency, and not gold,
> correct? I buy American dollars to buy American goods with Canadian
> dollars. An American buys Japanese Yen with American dollars in order to
> buy Japanese goods. They don't use gold.
>
You do know that the US is not the center of the universe, correct? What
happens in the US has almost zero effect in most of the rest of the world,
in spite of little "liberals"' puffed up little chests proclaiming that this
nation, the one with a NEGATIVE personal savings rate, is "the world's last
superpower".
The REST of the world still uses the gold standard, just as we did for most
of the successful life of this country, and just as our ancient forefathers
before us did for millennia.
http://christianparty.net/gold.htm
btw, if you HAD established Microsoft stock as the standard in January 2000,
you might "think" that the value of gold is up three fold since then, but
that's only because the value of Microsoft's hyper-inflated stock is down
three fold since then.
Stick to gold.
John Knight
