cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Veteran Advisor

Re: Hauser's law

Do you know the value of gold during the "Gold Standard Days"?  Not much.  When nixon ended what was left of the gold standard in 1971 it was at a fixed rate of $35 oz.  The value has to be fixed and the different countries have to use it as a fixed amount also.  It does matter how much gold there is because all paper money has to be backed by gold because a person could exchange his paper for gold.  Too much money and not enough gold is not a good situation.  So with the limited amount of gold that has been brought out of the earth and the amount of value there is in the world today, there isn't enough gold to back it unless one or the other or both are devalued to a much less value.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Hauser's law

I know you`ve discounted this before Don, but what can I say, I`m a glutton for punishment. During Clinton`s reign our country had a personal computer boom, the "tech bubble". Blindfolded monkeys picked 30% annual return stocks by throwing a dart at a stock list. All Clinton had to do was not meddle with things, just sit back and relax in the Oval Office heh heh. To his credit he did handle that job quite well. There was a tremendous "wealth effect" from the 90`s boom "retire at 50!!" "you know stocks only go up" "Honey, I quit my job and am going to be a daytrader!!"  "I flipped a couple houses yesterday and made a cool $million!!!". Well Bush took office January, 2001 7 monthes and change later 9/11 hit. Since then we`ve only been able to keep this engine running on ether, aka tax cuts, bailouts and the printing press. Republicans need the tax cuts in place as a bargining chip to get the real prize......spending cuts. This is how the sausage is made, horse trading and having some red meat to bring home to the Tea Party that put `em in office. 

Senior Contributor

Re: Hauser's law

You are correct. Spending cuts is the only way out of this mess. Raising taxes is never an answer.

Advisor

Re: Hauser's law

  Not much?  Where does that reasoning come from?   The buying power of the dollar has declined a tad bit since 1913, when the fed took over valueing money.  If one was to have bought one of your bulls for $100 dollars in 1913, that $100 dollars would buy $2012.20 cents of 2010 bull.   That is 2107% inflation. - - http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ 

 

  You can read a lot about the value of real money by googling something like-- buying power of dollar since 1913, the first two hits I got is the above and this-- http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/1826-the-long-goodbye-the-declining-purchasing-power-of-the-doll...

 


 

  snip-The first chart in every edition of The AIER Chart Book shows the purchasing power of the dollar since 1792, the first date from which relevant statistics can be calculated. Starting at a value of $1 in 1792, through many fluctuations both above and below that value during the 19th and early 20th centuries, a startling conclusion emerges: The price level always had a central tendency of $1 for as long as the United States was on a gold standard (1792-1933, with an 18-year hiatus during and right after the Civil War). 

 

ppd_lg.png

Advisor

Re: Hauser's law

 The second link has a good chart of the decline of the dollars buying power from 1913 to 2010, but it did not cut and paste.   

Veteran Advisor

Re: Hauser's law

I'm no economist john, but just wondering how it fits in when I realize that I'm old enough to remember paying 19.9 cents a gallon for gas when I first started driving. And that 20 cents was often harder to get ones hands on than what it took to get whatever it has cost since.  In the early 1960s the 2.5 bucks it took to fill the tank was a bigger chunck out of the household budget than the 15-30 or so has been since for most people who dirve.

 

Just sayin'...and not defending all of the hideously irresponsible leveraging and the deregulation and lack of oversight that allowed for it, or the excess printing and "easing"...but the funny money has facilitated a good deal of (not necesarily responsible) growth and consumption. It may just be as many are saying that we are way too far off kilter, too concentrated at the top and too tolerant of corruption, and not so much the "system" in principle itself.

Advisor

Re: Hauser's law

  Not certain if I follow you.  I do not believe those of us who are making less than $100k have gained as much as those who benifit from the manipulation of the value of money as  those who have their snout in the feed trough.

 http://www.truth-out.org/andy-kroll-the-new-american-oligarchy65597

 

 

snip--Not surprisingly, political power has a way of following wealth. What that means is: you can't understand how the rich seized control of American politics, and arguably American society, without understanding how a small group of Americans got so much money in the first place.

 

 

That story begins in the late 1970s and continues through the Obama years, a period in which American policy has been so skewed toward the rich that we're now living through the worst period of income inequality in modern history. Consider the statistics: 50 years ago, the wealthiest 1% of Americans accounted for one of every 10 dollars of the nation's income; today, it's nearly one in every four. Between 1979 and 2006, the average post-tax household income (including benefits) of the wealthiest 1% increased by 256%; the poorest households saw an increase of 11%; middle class homes, 21%, much of which was due to the arrival of two-job families.

 

 

Tax guru David Cay Johnston recently crunched new Social Security Administration data and discovered an even starker divide. On the one hand, the number of Americans earning a steady income declined by 4.5 million between 2008 and 2009, and the average wage in the U.S. dipped by 1.2%, to $39,055. On the other hand, the average wage among Americans earning more than $50 million per year was $91 million in 2008 and $84 million in 2009. 

 

 cc

In 1999, President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a bevy of deregulatory measures that obliterated Glass-Steagall. In December of the following year, Gramm quietly snuck the 262-page Commodity Futures Modernization Act into a massive $384-billion spending bill. Gramm's bill blocked regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from cracking down on the shadowy "over-the-counter derivatives" market, home to billions of dollars of opaque financial instruments that would, years later, nearly demolish the American economy.

As presidents, both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush wrapped their arms around financial deregulation. As a result, in a binge of financial gluttony, Wall Street grew fat in ways never previously seen. Between 1929, the year the Great Depression began, and 1988, Wall Street's profits averaged 1.2% of the nation's gross domestic product; in 2005, that figure peaked at 3.3% as industry bonuses soared ever-higher. In 2009, bad times for most Americans, bonuses hit $20 billion. So much wealth in so few hands. Nothing explains the rise of the new American oligarchy more starkly.

cc

c

Veteran Advisor

Re: Hauser's law

The problem is that I get that 1913 100 dollars each and every month.  Of course, they call it inflation now.  That seems to be a fact of life.  Until you figure out a way to reduce BOTH wages AND prices, why worry about it.  What we have is what we have.

Senior Advisor

Re: Hauser's law

You should have sold your corn for $3.50 because more revenue is never the answer.

Senior Contributor

Re: Hauser's law

I do have a little sold for $3.75. If I want to pay off debt, I will look for ways to cut my spending first. I don't think you are serious about paying off the debt.