Post by formerexpat on Feb 14, 2011 23:53:27 GMT -5
Where do you plan to take it?
My moving of assets wouldn't be to avoid a fiat currency but rather the compression of spread on my assets from higher taxation [both personal and corporate] and more regulation - regulation that leads a net negative investment flow out of this country...more than has already been done to date. I would move my assets to more capital friendly nations just like business owners.
While every individual will have a different story to tell and different feelings about whether they are better off or worse off I prefer to look at the position of the country compared to four years ago. In many ways we are worse off as a country simply because we have chosen to accelerate the spending habits of the last several decades and have made no substantial changes to the fundamentals of our economy, the way we allow business to be conducted in Washington or addressed the underlying issues that continue to divide us as a people. Instead we bury our heads in the sand and follow and defend any person who can give a good speech or in many cases we defend anyone who is affiliated with the party that we identify with. Lets face the fact that we may have increased the speed but we have not changed the direction over the last four years so any unbiased analysis would have to conclude we as a country are worse off then four years ago today.
Post by olderburgher on Feb 15, 2011 9:31:38 GMT -5
Yes e are better off. We have retired and found we can live fairly comfortably on our SS and pensions etc. No we are not better off as our health after four more years is four years older ( you only live once.) Yes we are better off in that all four of our kids are employed and three own their own homes. No we aren't better off as we lost some money in investments about 2-3 years ago. No we may not be better off as our dear DIL may loose her job at the end of the school year. Yes we are because our oldest granddaughter has started college and taken to it like duck to water. Yes we are because we are about to become grandparents again. All in all, yeah, we probably are somewhat better off.
Post by safeharbor37 on Feb 15, 2011 13:54:55 GMT -5
My response #33 was directed at thyme4change's response #32
I got stuck on #1. Wouldn't that mean you could buy more stuff then for $1 than you can now? I don't think that is true. Is the rest of the list as meaningless as the first non-truth posted?
The point is not that the standard of living in 2011 is not higher than in 1913. From my observation, life gets better over all as time goes on. That doesn't mean that there aren't values lost along the way. The "cost of living" standard simply reflects the relative value of [in the case of the US] the dollar. Those who have money tend to suffer from inflation while many of those with property frequently profit from inflation. The government gets to pay off its debts with "cheaper money." Simple and, unless you're the one being paid back with "cheaper money," painless. If you are an economic parasite, it doesn't matter except that it provides the government the power to give you things you didn't earn and diminish the wealth of those who did earn it. That, of course, makes the parasites happy [as do "taxes on the rich"]. When things CHANGE, some benefit, some suffer ~ obviously CHANGE helps those who are currently uncomfortable and hurts those who are currently comfortable ~ That's what change is. CHANGE is scary for those with anything to lose, or who think they have anything to lose. CHANGE is not necessarily beneficial, but it is inevitable. The question is, "What kind of Change?" Inflation is CHANGE in the value of the unit of currency [the dollar, in our case]. Inflation is not inherently good, but it is probably inevitable, eventually.
Post by safeharbor37 on Feb 15, 2011 14:33:07 GMT -5
$1/$21 = the decimal value of a 1913 dollar = about 5% in 2008. Thus it was worth [according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics] about 20 times as much as a 2008 dollar. Now you have to understand that computers, TV's, etc. weren't available in 1913 and very few automobiles were ~ even those that were were "playthings for the rich." The Bureau of Labor Statistics did the calculation, I didn't. Relatively: if the ratio is 20/1, then a 1913 dollar has lost 95% of it's value [$1 - $.95 = $.05] so that a 1913 dollar was worth a nickel in 2008 and ~ therefore $20 in 1913 was worth $1 in 2008. The problem with your reasoning is that, "....a 1913 dollar is" NOT "now worth $21....", but only a nickle [$.05]. [false premise] Hope that helps. I apologize if my terms are confusing ~ when I say that a 1913 dollar is now worth only about a nickle ~ it would probably better phrased as: a 1913 dollar is worth 20 2008 dollars ~ since it is not the 1913 dollar losing value, but "the abstract dollar" so that the 2008 dollar is less valuable than the 1913 dollar. I think that is one of the reasons that there are disagreements regarding fiscal policy, the terms are sometimes confusing. But you can click the link in my #33 and read it for yourself. Another way to put it: A dollar in 2008 was worth about the same as a nickle in 1913.