PING: Some thoughts for Economist Olson [long]

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

Not after you took out for rent, food, clothes, beer and cigarettes!

"dsybok" wrote in message
m...

"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.

I didn't say it was worthless, dip****, I implied that it was worth
less.

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


That would be the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
that appealed the remaining parts of the
1933 Glass-Steagall act. Again Senator Phil Gram
of Texas authored the bill.

Don't you mean REpeal, not APpeal?

Yes Repeal... As if you have never ever made a mistake
in your life?

2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
started going up. It went up ever year from that
point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
swaps that the government now has to buy.

Gas prices have gone up steadily over the entire course of my life,
which began considerably longer ago than 2001.

Gas prices from 2001 to now have risen faster and sharper
than it did in the last 40 years. I remember the late 1970's
and 1980's jump. It was not to the elevated levels of the last
eight years. ($1.45 a gallon in 2000 / $4.00 a gallon in July
of 2008)

If I read that correctly, you are saying that the rise from 1961 to 2001
is smaller in terms of speed and sharpness than the rise from 2001 to
date.

The price of gas here in North Lugburz in 1961 was around $0.29. In 2001
it was around $1.45, as you point out. That's a fivefold increase over
the period in question.
The price of gas here in North Lugburz in 2001 was around $1.45. On
February 17, 2009 I just filled up my tank for $1.86 a gallon. That's
slightly more than a one-fourth fold increase over the period in question.


You are basing your response to the current price
And not the overall long term price. Gas prices
were much more stable and predictable from
1960 through 2000. While the price of gas did go
up, it was never the wild price swings within a
12-month period from 2001 through 2008. Each year
it went higher in price faster than the last
40-years.

From 2001 through 2008 gas prices have had a
much wider swings in prices. Overall, the yearly
increase has been greater from 2001 through
2008. The difference was created from the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Crude oil is
now allowed to be traded as a single commodity.
It was not allowed on the futures trade before.



Well, somebody had to do it. You'd prefer that the Saudis do it?
They're just folks, too.

I would respond by saying a BALANCE BUGETS like
the ones the United States had during most of
the 1990's, would have been a better choice. The
Republican party lost the moral ground on physical
spending policy since they started the spending
deficits before the terrorist attach of 9-11. The
Republican controlled house, and senate from 2001
through 2006 bare the biggest responsibility for
this. I am not letting the Democrats off the hook
on this as well. They could have shut down the
Federal Government if they shown some backbone
to get the budget balance.

Just exactly how could they have done that?

A filibuster in the U.S. Senate. The Republicans did not have
the 60 votes to stop the Democrats from doing a Filibuster on
the Senate Floor from 2001 through 2006. The Democrats
could have shut down the Federal Government and force a
balance budget. It would have made them look bad politically
with the rest of the nation if they did a Filibuster on the Senate
floor. The mood of the people was much different then. The
Democrats went along with the Republicans.

Remember the Democrats got three Republicans to go along on
the Senate version of the current Stimulus Bill. Otherwise, the
Republicans would kill it with a Filibuster. One party needs 60
members in the U.S. Senate to block the other party from doing
a Filibuster on a piece of Legislation.


Every global recession has lead to terrible upheavals
in the world. Wars will break out within the next four
years. History is a very good at repeating itself. Weather
the United States will get involved in a future conflict
remains to be seen. I for one would like the see Congress
start funding Selected Service again and start drafting
some four million young men in the military. It would not
only dry up the labor market for a short time, but would
place the United States in a better position to deal with
any conflict that will be coming up.

Yeah, it takes a lot of soldiers to counterbalance the nuking of a
Great City. Let me guess - you're beyond draft age.


You should have seen my mom back in the 1970's
when I got my draft card in the mail. I though
she was going to break down and cry. My dad was
drafted and served from 1943 through 1946. My
dad viewed anyone joining the reserves as a
low life "draft dodger".

I guessed correctly about your age then. You might canvass the attitudes
of people under 35 to see how many agree with you on the draft issue.

If you turned this essay in to an English teacher, you'd get a note
at the top that said "See me." Then you and the teacher would have
a discussion about doing your own original thinking, and not
claiming somebody else's ready-to-wear opinion as your own.

James
It would seem you have your own "READY TO WEAR" opinions James.

Very little of what I have expressed, either in the OP or in either of my
responses to you, could reasonably be classified as "opinion." Please go
back and read what I wrote once again. You will find most of it either
asking questions or pointing out the obvious. As for my English teacher
prediction, let's just say that a third of a century in the classroom
taught me to separate out certain papers for further "analysis."

James

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

Not after you took out for rent, food, clothes, beer and cigarettes!

Not being a smoker, I already use my cig money on coins!

James

RWF wrote:
"dsybok" wrote in message
m...

"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.

I didn't say it was worthless, dip****, I implied that it was worth
less.

Who, exactly, is on first?

James

Arizona Coin Collector wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...


That would be the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
that appealed the remaining parts of the
1933 Glass-Steagall act. Again Senator Phil Gram
of Texas authored the bill.

Don't you mean REpeal, not APpeal?

Yes Repeal... As if you have never ever made a mistake
in your life?

I make mistakes all the time. Where did I say that I hadn't?

2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
started going up. It went up ever year from that
point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
swaps that the government now has to buy.

Gas prices have gone up steadily over the entire course of my life,
which began considerably longer ago than 2001.

Gas prices from 2001 to now have risen faster and sharper
than it did in the last 40 years. I remember the late 1970's
and 1980's jump. It was not to the elevated levels of the last
eight years. ($1.45 a gallon in 2000 / $4.00 a gallon in July
of 2008)

If I read that correctly, you are saying that the rise from 1961 to
2001 is smaller in terms of speed and sharpness than the rise from
2001 to date.

The price of gas here in North Lugburz in 1961 was around $0.29. In
2001 it was around $1.45, as you point out. That's a fivefold
increase over the period in question.
The price of gas here in North Lugburz in 2001 was around $1.45. On
February 17, 2009 I just filled up my tank for $1.86 a gallon. That's
slightly more than a one-fourth fold increase over the period
in question.

You are basing your response to the current price
And not the overall long term price. Gas prices
were much more stable and predictable from
1960 through 2000. While the price of gas did go
up, it was never the wild price swings within a
12-month period from 2001 through 2008. Each year
it went higher in price faster than the last
40-years.

From 2001 through 2008 gas prices have had a
much wider swings in prices. Overall, the yearly
increase has been greater from 2001 through
2008. The difference was created from the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Crude oil is
now allowed to be traded as a single commodity.
It was not allowed on the futures trade before.

Sorry, your initial proposal did not include such detail. I took what you
said at face value, silly me. Now that you have been called out, you wish
to factor in all sorts of additional variables. That would get you thrown
out of any debate conducted according to traditional rules. But if you want
to talk oil stability and predictability, let's talk the oil embargo of the
1970s and the effect it had on our economy. On second thought, let's not.
I don't have time to build a case, so you're in luck.

Well, somebody had to do it. You'd prefer that the Saudis do it?
They're just folks, too.

I would respond by saying a BALANCE BUGETS like
the ones the United States had during most of
the 1990's, would have been a better choice. The
Republican party lost the moral ground on physical
spending policy since they started the spending
deficits before the terrorist attach of 9-11. The
Republican controlled house, and senate from 2001
through 2006 bare the biggest responsibility for
this. I am not letting the Democrats off the hook
on this as well. They could have shut down the
Federal Government if they shown some backbone
to get the budget balance.

Just exactly how could they have done that?

A filibuster in the U.S. Senate. The Republicans did not have
the 60 votes to stop the Democrats from doing a Filibuster on
the Senate Floor from 2001 through 2006. The Democrats
could have shut down the Federal Government and force a
balance budget. It would have made them look bad politically
with the rest of the nation if they did a Filibuster on the Senate
floor. The mood of the people was much different then. The
Democrats went along with the Republicans.

Remember the Democrats got three Republicans to go along on
the Senate version of the current Stimulus Bill. Otherwise, the
Republicans would kill it with a Filibuster. One party needs 60
members in the U.S. Senate to block the other party from doing
a Filibuster on a piece of Legislation.

I'm happy to see that you understand that basic fact of legislation. But
filibusters are not automatic, and I would hesitate to speculate as to why
no filibuster was used at that time. You would be well advised to hesitate
as well, unless you have documentation.

James

Mr. Jaggers wrote:
RWF wrote:
"dsybok" wrote in message
m...

"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.

I didn't say it was worthless, dip****, I implied that it was worth
less.

Who, exactly, is on first?

James

And don't you dare answer, "Exactly!" 8)

James

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

"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.

I didn't say it was worthless, dip****, I implied that it was worth
less.

Who, exactly, is on first?

James

And don't you dare answer, "Exactly!" 8)

James

I don't give a damn.

"RWF" wrote in message
...

"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.

Can't let it die, eh?

On Feb 17, 10:59*am, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com
wrote:
For quite some time now, you have been making dire predictions about the
future of the economy, not only that of the U.S., but that of the entire
world. *I classify this as "problem finding."

Now I seek solutions to the problems, which I name "problem solving."
Perhaps you can be instrumental in this process as well.

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. *We have certainly
experienced this over the course of our lives, and have learned to
compensate and adjust. *We have even had a couple of periods of fairly rapid
decline, and we obviously survived those.

But "worthless," the word I see you using, is an entirely different
situation. *That means that all the fiat money in the world would not buy a
piece of bubble gum, and all investments that consist of 0s and 1s in a
computer somewhere would be deleted and the hard drive wiped. *Each of us
would be reduced to the real estate and personal property at our immediate
disposal. *Even those would have no "value," other than what we could
exchange them, or barter them, for. *It would take a long time, I believe,
for any kind of stable system of exchange to become established. *How many
stuffed teddy bears, for example, equal a quart of milk?

2) *A situation that resulted in total worthlessness of all paper financial
instruments, as well as all the fiat coinage, would certainly wreak instant
hardship on anyone who did not have an alternative. *Those people will need
to eat today - and tomorrow, and the next day. *The numbers of the destitute
would increase rapidly and exponentially, and we could easily see half the
U.S. population desperate within just one short week. *We are not going to
have a stable society by any stretch of the imagination under such
circumstances. *We can talk about stockpiling firearms and ammunition to
deal with the occasional intruder upon our property, bent on stealing what
we have, but there are few of us who could hold off attack by a mob of, say,
even twenty-five persons. *Sure, we can blow away a few of them, but not all
of them. *We are talking ultimate desperation here, and such people will not
be deterred by the fall of a few of their compatriots. *Law enforcement,
which would have already been decimated by layoffs and retrenchment of
budgets, would be virtually powerless to protect the collective population.