PING: Some thoughts for Economist Olson [long]

"oly" wrote in message
...

....
We are busy today (take a look at fdic.gov and you might
guess why).

Your job must be a growth industry right now.

I will expand on "worthlessness" later. I do mean
worthless, not "worth less".

Please do.

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...


Does the TART bill have anything to do with legalizing prostitution?

OOOPS, "TARP" no "TART"

Thank goodness we caught that in time! 8).


I actually started to read with a lot more interest until now...

:-(

Michael Benveniste wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wroteL

1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would become
"worth less" is understandable; an increase in the money supply,
which is contemplated by the government, will be inflationary, and
continue, or perhaps even accelerate, the decline in the value of
paper assets, making them "worth less" tomorrow than they were today.

In my wallet today is a 50 billion dollar "special agro-cheque" issued
by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe on 15-May-2008. At today's spot price
and exchange rate to USD, the note is worth about about 2.67
_trillionths_ of a gram of gold. That's well less than a dollar per
atom of gold.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe is around 10% a day. That works out
to an inflation rate of about 128,330,558,000,000,000 percent.

That's real life proof that "worth less" can deteriorate into
worthless.

A legitimate question might be, "At what point in the descent would it be
reasonable to change the designation from "worth less" to "worthless"?

James

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Michael Benveniste wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wroteL

1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would become
"worth less" is understandable; an increase in the money supply,
which is contemplated by the government, will be inflationary, and
continue, or perhaps even accelerate, the decline in the value of
paper assets, making them "worth less" tomorrow than they were
today.

In my wallet today is a 50 billion dollar "special agro-cheque"
issued
by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe on 15-May-2008. At today's spot
price
and exchange rate to USD, the note is worth about about 2.67
_trillionths_ of a gram of gold. That's well less than a dollar per
atom of gold.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe is around 10% a day. That works out
to an inflation rate of about 128,330,558,000,000,000 percent.

That's real life proof that "worth less" can deteriorate into
worthless.

A legitimate question might be, "At what point in the descent would it
be reasonable to change the designation from "worth less" to
"worthless"?

Someone said when the largest denomination bill no longer has any
purchasing power.
I'd have to say $100 ain't what it used to be!
In 1969 I earned $100/week and managed to live on that (albeit
frugally).
Try doing that today!

"RWF" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Michael Benveniste wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wroteL

1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would become
"worth less" is understandable; an increase in the money supply,
which is contemplated by the government, will be inflationary, and
continue, or perhaps even accelerate, the decline in the value of
paper assets, making them "worth less" tomorrow than they were today.

In my wallet today is a 50 billion dollar "special agro-cheque" issued
by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe on 15-May-2008. At today's spot price
and exchange rate to USD, the note is worth about about 2.67
_trillionths_ of a gram of gold. That's well less than a dollar per
atom of gold.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe is around 10% a day. That works out
to an inflation rate of about 128,330,558,000,000,000 percent.

That's real life proof that "worth less" can deteriorate into
worthless.

A legitimate question might be, "At what point in the descent would it be
reasonable to change the designation from "worth less" to "worthless"?

Someone said when the largest denomination bill no longer has any
purchasing power.
I'd have to say $100 ain't what it used to be!
In 1969 I earned $100/week and managed to live on that (albeit frugally).
Try doing that today!

In 1962 I lived on $78 per month, before taxes and the obligatory
contribution to my Unit Fund as well as the Savings Bond thingy. Of course
the three meals and a bunk were priced right, but I had to pay for my own
laundry and dry cleaning. And the occasional beer. So, let's see. That
left about $50 for laundry and beer. Hell, I had it better than I do today!

RWF wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Michael Benveniste wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wroteL

1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would
become "worth less" is understandable; an increase in the money
supply, which is contemplated by the government, will be
inflationary, and continue, or perhaps even accelerate, the
decline in the value of paper assets, making them "worth less"
tomorrow than they were today.

In my wallet today is a 50 billion dollar "special agro-cheque"
issued
by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe on 15-May-2008. At today's spot
price
and exchange rate to USD, the note is worth about about 2.67
_trillionths_ of a gram of gold. That's well less than a dollar per
atom of gold.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe is around 10% a day. That works out
to an inflation rate of about 128,330,558,000,000,000 percent.

That's real life proof that "worth less" can deteriorate into
worthless.

A legitimate question might be, "At what point in the descent would
it be reasonable to change the designation from "worth less" to
"worthless"?

Someone said when the largest denomination bill no longer has any
purchasing power.
I'd have to say $100 ain't what it used to be!
In 1969 I earned $100/week and managed to live on that (albeit
frugally).
Try doing that today!

I could make big progress in my coin collection with $100 a week, even
today.

James

Bruce Remick wrote:
"RWF" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Michael Benveniste wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wroteL

1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would
become "worth less" is understandable; an increase in the money
supply, which is contemplated by the government, will be
inflationary, and continue, or perhaps even accelerate, the
decline in the value of paper assets, making them "worth less"
tomorrow than they were today.

In my wallet today is a 50 billion dollar "special agro-cheque"
issued by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe on 15-May-2008. At today's
spot price and exchange rate to USD, the note is worth about about
2.67 _trillionths_ of a gram of gold. That's well less than a
dollar per atom of gold.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe is around 10% a day. That works out
to an inflation rate of about 128,330,558,000,000,000 percent.

That's real life proof that "worth less" can deteriorate into
worthless.

A legitimate question might be, "At what point in the descent would
it be reasonable to change the designation from "worth less" to
"worthless"?

Someone said when the largest denomination bill no longer has any
purchasing power.
I'd have to say $100 ain't what it used to be!
In 1969 I earned $100/week and managed to live on that (albeit
frugally). Try doing that today!

In 1962 I lived on $78 per month, before taxes and the obligatory
contribution to my Unit Fund as well as the Savings Bond thingy. Of
course the three meals and a bunk were priced right, but I had to pay
for my own laundry and dry cleaning. And the occasional beer. So,
let's see. That left about $50 for laundry and beer. Hell, I had it
better than I do today!

So, tell us why you wasted any of that on laundry. 8)

James

"RWF" wrote in message
...

Someone said when the largest denomination bill no longer has any
purchasing power.
I'd have to say $100 ain't what it used to be!
In 1969 I earned $100/week and managed to live on that (albeit frugally).
Try doing that today!


If it were true that $100 is not what it used to be then why do fast food
restaurants, and many stores refuse to accept $100 bills? Because a hundred
bucks still buys you plenty of goods and services that's why.

$100 is not worth what it used to be for sure, but it is far from worthless.

D

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:
"RWF" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Michael Benveniste wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wroteL

1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would
become "worth less" is understandable; an increase in the money
supply, which is contemplated by the government, will be
inflationary, and continue, or perhaps even accelerate, the
decline in the value of paper assets, making them "worth less"
tomorrow than they were today.

In my wallet today is a 50 billion dollar "special agro-cheque"
issued by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe on 15-May-2008. At today's
spot price and exchange rate to USD, the note is worth about about
2.67 _trillionths_ of a gram of gold. That's well less than a
dollar per atom of gold.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe is around 10% a day. That works out
to an inflation rate of about 128,330,558,000,000,000 percent.

That's real life proof that "worth less" can deteriorate into
worthless.

A legitimate question might be, "At what point in the descent would
it be reasonable to change the designation from "worth less" to
"worthless"?

Someone said when the largest denomination bill no longer has any
purchasing power.
I'd have to say $100 ain't what it used to be!
In 1969 I earned $100/week and managed to live on that (albeit
frugally). Try doing that today!

In 1962 I lived on $78 per month, before taxes and the obligatory
contribution to my Unit Fund as well as the Savings Bond thingy. Of
course the three meals and a bunk were priced right, but I had to pay
for my own laundry and dry cleaning. And the occasional beer. So,
let's see. That left about $50 for laundry and beer. Hell, I had it
better than I do today!

So, tell us why you wasted any of that on laundry. 8)


They wouldn't let you have beer in the brig.

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Michael Benveniste wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wroteL

1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would
become
"worth less" is understandable; an increase in the money supply,
which is contemplated by the government, will be inflationary, and
continue, or perhaps even accelerate, the decline in the value of
paper assets, making them "worth less" tomorrow than they were
today.

In my wallet today is a 50 billion dollar "special agro-cheque"
issued
by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe on 15-May-2008. At today's spot
price
and exchange rate to USD, the note is worth about about 2.67
_trillionths_ of a gram of gold. That's well less than a dollar
per
atom of gold.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe is around 10% a day. That works out
to an inflation rate of about 128,330,558,000,000,000 percent.

That's real life proof that "worth less" can deteriorate into
worthless.

A legitimate question might be, "At what point in the descent would
it be reasonable to change the designation from "worth less" to
"worthless"?

Someone said when the largest denomination bill no longer has any
purchasing power.
I'd have to say $100 ain't what it used to be!
In 1969 I earned $100/week and managed to live on that (albeit
frugally).
Try doing that today!

In 1962 I lived on $78 per month, before taxes and the obligatory
contribution to my Unit Fund as well as the Savings Bond thingy. Of
course the three meals and a bunk were priced right, but I had to pay
for my own laundry and dry cleaning. And the occasional beer. So,
let's see. That left about $50 for laundry and beer. Hell, I had it
better than I do today!

That undercuts your long running argument about US currency retaining
its value.