"Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:sQd29.2388$sI2.1287508 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> news:sYb29.52587$Fq6.4564142 at news2.west.cox.net...> >
> > "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.
>> Gold is just as worthless as the dollar. It only has perceived value, not
> intrinsic. It's not like water, food, or a useful metal.
You're a moron, parsetree. You might just as well claim that your life has
no intrinsic value, and that water and food are more important than your
life.
>> > > > 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?
>> If they took the design of the original 1966 Mustang and began
manufacturing
> it, it would be worth very little. The car would be of exceptionally low
> quality.
You know even LESS about cars than you do about probability and statistics,
or "ambiguous" TIMSS questions. This country CANNOT even build such a car
any more, because of MORONS like you who "think" you're educated, but can't
grasp the simplest concepts. But on top of that, even a 37 year old Mustang
is a better car than ANY hunk of Japanese junk that you "think" is superior.
>>> > 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?
>> There are other stats which disagree with you.
Like WHAT? Where are your references? This is disingenuous.
>> > 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?
>> The value of the computer is down. The value of machinery is down. The
> value of consumer electronics is generally down.
>
You have "price" and "value" confused, but even if you'd used the proper
term, you're still way out there in left field.
> Also, the quality of goods is vastly improved.
>
Certainly you "liberals" "think" this, but it's pure jewish bs. There are a
FEW products which are improved, but NONE of them are being manufactured in
this country. And it's not because of our "high labor costs", as you
"liberals" like to claim--it's because students who can't even add and
subtract make pis. poor employees, it takes 8 productive men workers JUST to
make up for the counterproductivity of ONE woman worker, and feminized men
aren't the answer.
> > > 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.
>> I don't recall seeing any country that saved nothing. Even the US was
> listed at 15%.
>
This 15% is gross savings, and NO other country except the US has more
interest payments on the debts than their gross savings, which is how we end
up with a NEGATIVE personal savings rate, and Japan ends up with one between
25-50%.
> > > > "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".
>> You really shouldn't be debating probability and statistics with me.
> Especially since I have demonstrated you wrong on several occassions.
>> Also, the physics question is ambiguous. Evidently the people that wrote
> the test had an inferior education, and weren't told about Hooke's Law.
>
In your dreams. You're a moron, and the people who wrote the test are
geniuses by comparison. YOU are the one who "thinks" that not enough
students took TIMSS to be a representative sample, remember?
> > > > > > > > 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>> That didn't list countries that use gold. I know the UK does not, and
> neither does Canada.
>> > 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.
>> Gold prices fluctuate just like Microsoft stock does.
>
Before morons like you were permitted to go to our once fine universities so
they could pretend to be "educated", before jews took charge of our national
bank, before women were allowed to vote, gold prices were as stable as the
day was long. For more than a century and a half (and actually for
thousands of years prior to that) an ounce of gold had a defined VALUE. In
dollars, it was $19.39 from 1792 right up until 1833. It's only because
Americans now "think" that they can learn "economics" from jews, from
TalmudVision, or from the Wall Street Jewrinal, that you "think" "Gold
prices fluctuate just like Microsoft stock does".
The ONLY thing fluctuating is the dollar, not gold prices. A thousand
ounces of gold bought exactly the same house 40 years ago that a thousand
ounces of gold buys today. An ounce of gold bought a good men's suit in
1650, and an ounce of gold still buys exactly that same suit today. When
that nickel soda pop was replaced by the dollar soda pop, the value of soda
pop didn't change--ONLY the value of the dollar changed.
The big jewish LIE that keeps you unaware of how the jews are looting the
country is the LIE that a paper dollar backed by nothing but mountainous
debts IS worth something, whereas the ounce of gold which is used by 95% of
the world today, and has been for millennia, is NOT.
This isn't a complex abstract concept. This isn't something "the
patriarchy" dreamed up just to "oppress women for millennia". This is a
FUNDAMENTAL religious and economic principle which millions of people before
us, for thousands of years, understood intrinsically.
John Knight
