Opinions on cashing out some silver

"oly" wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 9:55 pm, oly wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:41 pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote:





"RWF" wrote in message

...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...
As for the dollar, a loaf of bread costs about the same percentage
of
an average hourly wage today as it did fifty years ago. So I don't
see
that our currency losing its buying power as long as increasing
wages
follow the rising cost of essential goods. Is the dollar losing its
value or are things becoming more expensive? Or has the wage-price
relationship remained much the same over the past fifty years?

That's a very inane comment.
Those on fixed incomes are finding it harder to make ends meet.
Even a half-wit like Sarge realizes the dollar has less buying power
than it once had.
For shame!

My point had nothing to do with the plight of the those unemployed or
on
fixed incomes. I simply said that prices don't rise over the years
while
everything else stays put. And today's loaf of bread DOES cost about
the
same % of the average hourly wage as it did 50 years ago. No shame.
Nothing inane. No big deal. Unless you should choose to take it
further.

I think Oly is spot on about you.
You are willfully ignorant.

He can't seem to find the stuff to show me where or how. How about you.
What have I said that is wrong? Your insult shows me nothing. If you
have a different opinion why not share it. Otherwise you simply sound
like
one more blindered politician who is convinced that all his constituents
are
ignorant and only he knows what's best for them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, you're way smarter than Aristotle, Brucie.

You've drank the hemlock but you're (marginally) still alive. The
hemlock just affected your brain.

And if I were a politician, I'd be a populist like Wright Patman, not
an elitist follower of Edmund Burke.

oly- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry to Socrates. Wrong Greek. Still, both Socrates and Aristotle
had it over Bruce. So did Wright Patman. So did Edmund Burke.

Y'know, who would I be to argue against any of those people. I'd like to
think though that I could kick any of their asses in many things more
important to me today.

I think I would have preferred to have been Charles James Fox. Got to
stir a lot of ****, drank boatloads with the Prince of Wales. Simply
died too young.

I'd have to Google up Mr. Fox. Maybe some other time.

"RWF" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...
As for the dollar, a loaf of bread costs about the same percentage of
an average hourly wage today as it did fifty years ago. So I don't see
that our currency losing its buying power as long as increasing wages
follow the rising cost of essential goods. Is the dollar losing its
value or are things becoming more expensive? Or has the wage-price
relationship remained much the same over the past fifty years?

That's a very inane comment.
Those on fixed incomes are finding it harder to make ends meet.
Even a half-wit like Sarge realizes the dollar has less buying power
than it once had.
For shame!

My point had nothing to do with the plight of the those unemployed or on
fixed incomes. I simply said that prices don't rise over the years while
everything else stays put.

That is NOT what you said. You said "So I don't see that our currency
losing its buying power..." then conflated that with "as long as
increasing wages follow the rising cost of essential goods"
Even a jackass would (or should) know that a dollar today doesn't buy what
it did 20 years ago.

We're apparently not talking the same language here. Yes, I did say our
curency has not lost its buying power. But I don't see how the buying power
of our currency can be judged without putting it in context. Sure, the
candy bar that cost five cents fifty years ago may cost 49 cents today. But
if you say that the dollar is worth say 500% less today, you'd have to add
that the average wage may have increased 500% as well. They offset each
other, IMO. The number of dollars needed to make purchases has certainly
risen over twenty or fifty years, but so has the number of dollars received
in paychecks. I would agree with you if I found that I now needed thirty
percent of my pay to buy groceries, where I used to only need 15 percent.
If you or Oly can convince me otherwise, I'd be welcome to be enlightened.
I don't want to keep arguing, but I won't accept being labeled as a fool
unless someone can prove it.

On Feb 15, 11:10*pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...
On Feb 15, 9:55 pm, oly wrote:





On Feb 15, 9:41 pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote:

"RWF" wrote in message

...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...
As for the dollar, a loaf of bread costs about the same percentage
of
an average hourly wage today as it did fifty years ago. So I don't
see
that our currency losing its buying power as long as increasing
wages
follow the rising cost of essential goods. Is the dollar losing its
value or are things becoming more expensive? Or has the wage-price
relationship remained much the same over the past fifty years?

That's a very inane comment.
Those on fixed incomes are finding it harder to make ends meet.
Even a half-wit like Sarge realizes the dollar has less buying power
than it once had.
For shame!

My point had nothing to do with the plight of the those unemployed or
on
fixed incomes. I simply said that prices don't rise over the years
while
everything else stays put. And today's loaf of bread DOES cost about
the
same % of the average hourly wage as it did 50 years ago. No shame..
Nothing inane. No big deal. Unless you should choose to take it
further.

I think Oly is spot on about you.
You are willfully ignorant.

He can't seem to find the stuff to show me where or how. How about you.
What have I said that is wrong? Your insult shows me nothing. If you
have a different opinion why not share it. Otherwise you simply sound
like
one more blindered politician who is convinced that all his constituents
are
ignorant and only he knows what's best for them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, you're way smarter than Aristotle, Brucie.

You've drank the hemlock but you're (marginally) still alive. The
hemlock just affected your brain.

And if I were a politician, I'd be a populist like Wright Patman, not
an elitist follower of Edmund Burke.

oly- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Sorry to Socrates. *Wrong Greek. *Still, both Socrates and Aristotle
had it over Bruce. *So did Wright Patman. *So did Edmund Burke.

Y'know, who would I be to argue against any of those people. *I'd like to
think though that I could kick any of their asses in many things more
important to me today.

I think I would have preferred to have been Charles James Fox. *Got to
stir a lot of ****, drank boatloads with the Prince of Wales. *Simply
died too young.

I'd have to Google up Mr. Fox. *Maybe some other time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another example of why you are an American who thinks he is educated,
but isn't (very common in our country). You were a technician, not an
educated man.

oly

On Feb 15, 11:22*pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"RWF" wrote in message

...







"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...
As for the dollar, a loaf of bread costs about the same percentage of
an average hourly wage today as it did fifty years ago. *So I don't see
that our currency losing its buying power as long as increasing wages
follow the rising cost of essential goods. *Is the dollar losing its
value or are things becoming more expensive? *Or has the wage-price
relationship remained much the same over the past fifty years?

That's a very inane comment.
Those on fixed incomes are finding it harder to make ends meet.
Even a half-wit like Sarge realizes the dollar has less buying power
than it once had.
For shame!

My point had nothing to do with the plight of the those unemployed or on
fixed incomes. *I simply said that prices don't rise over the years while
everything else stays put.

That is NOT what you said. You said "So I don't see that our currency
losing its buying power..." then conflated that with "as long as
increasing wages follow the rising cost of essential goods"
Even a jackass would (or should) know that a dollar today doesn't buy what
it did 20 years ago.

We're apparently not talking the same language here. *Yes, I did say our
curency has not lost its buying power. *But I don't see how the buying power
of our currency can be judged without putting it in context. *Sure, the
candy bar that cost five cents fifty years ago may cost 49 cents today. *But
if you say that the dollar is worth say 500% less today, you'd have to add
that the average wage may have increased 500% as well. *They offset each
other, IMO. *The number of dollars needed to make purchases has certainly
risen over twenty or fifty years, but so has the number of dollars received
in paychecks. *I would agree with you if I found that I now needed thirty
percent of my pay to buy groceries, where I used to only need 15 percent.
If you or Oly can convince me otherwise, I'd be welcome to be enlightened..
I don't want to keep arguing, but I won't accept being labeled as a fool
unless someone can prove it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My this google thing works poorly... third time I've had to retype
this... at least my response gets softened up every time...

Bruce's reply is just another example of violating Ockham's razor. He
can't think it through, so he drags in everything including the dead
cat...

Aristotle said that money must work as a form of stored value
(deferred payments) to be real money. If a form of money failed in
any of the three requirements, it was not money.

Millions of Americans have attempted to rely of savings in the form of
"money" to fund a comfortable future. These people have been lied to,
cheated, swindled and raped of a majority of their purchasing power by
the Federal and State Governments and the Federal Reserve for the last
45+ years (and one of the major groups of beneficiaries of this theft
have been federal retirees - the only way that they can get more than
they paid into the system is if somebody else gets less than what they
paid in).

Bruce confuses money with credit... and also fails to realize that the
credit system of the Western world is collapsing.

The spectre of the collapse of the USSR from 1989 to 1993 (or 1995)
looms large in the U.S.A. today. It is in large part because what we
use as "money" isn't. Our "money" violates two of the three things
that Aristotle posited (and is poised to fail in the third), and
accordingly, our money is doomed.

Sauve qui peut. Bruce will be out on the street corner with the old
Babushkas. Maybe we can drop him a Mercury dime or two.

oly

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...
As for the dollar, a loaf of bread costs about the same percentage
of an average hourly wage today as it did fifty years ago. So I
don't see that our currency losing its buying power as long as
increasing wages follow the rising cost of essential goods. Is
the dollar losing its value or are things becoming more expensive?
Or has the wage-price relationship remained much the same over the
past fifty years?

That's a very inane comment.
Those on fixed incomes are finding it harder to make ends meet.
Even a half-wit like Sarge realizes the dollar has less buying
power than it once had.
For shame!

My point had nothing to do with the plight of the those unemployed
or on fixed incomes. I simply said that prices don't rise over the
years while everything else stays put. And today's loaf of bread
DOES cost about the same % of the average hourly wage as it did 50
years ago. No shame. Nothing inane. No big deal. Unless you should
choose to take it further.

I think Oly is spot on about you.
You are willfully ignorant.

He can't seem to find the stuff to show me where or how. How about
you. What have I said that is wrong? Your insult shows me nothing.
If you have a different opinion why not share it. Otherwise you
simply sound like one more blindered politician who is convinced that
all his constituents are ignorant and only he knows what's best for
them.

You claim that the value of our currency is unchanged because a loaf of
bread is still a certain % of income.
You are confusing our standard of living with the value of a dollar.
You are clearly wrong yet refuse to admit it.

"oly" wrote in message
...


And if I were a politician, I'd be a populist like Wright Patman, not
an elitist follower of Edmund Burke.


More like Chicken Little...

On Feb 16, 9:26*am, "PC" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...

And if I were a politician, I'd be a populist like Wright Patman, not
an elitist follower of Edmund Burke.



More like Chicken Little...

Have you thoroughly licked your picture of Obama this morning???

oly

"oly" wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 11:10 pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...
On Feb 15, 9:55 pm, oly wrote:





On Feb 15, 9:41 pm, "Bruce Remick" wrote:

"RWF" wrote in message

...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...
As for the dollar, a loaf of bread costs about the same
percentage
of
an average hourly wage today as it did fifty years ago. So I
don't
see
that our currency losing its buying power as long as increasing
wages
follow the rising cost of essential goods. Is the dollar losing
its
value or are things becoming more expensive? Or has the
wage-price
relationship remained much the same over the past fifty years?

That's a very inane comment.
Those on fixed incomes are finding it harder to make ends meet.
Even a half-wit like Sarge realizes the dollar has less buying
power
than it once had.
For shame!

My point had nothing to do with the plight of the those unemployed
or
on
fixed incomes. I simply said that prices don't rise over the years
while
everything else stays put. And today's loaf of bread DOES cost
about
the
same % of the average hourly wage as it did 50 years ago. No shame.
Nothing inane. No big deal. Unless you should choose to take it
further.

I think Oly is spot on about you.
You are willfully ignorant.

He can't seem to find the stuff to show me where or how. How about
you.
What have I said that is wrong? Your insult shows me nothing. If you
have a different opinion why not share it. Otherwise you simply sound
like
one more blindered politician who is convinced that all his
constituents
are
ignorant and only he knows what's best for them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, you're way smarter than Aristotle, Brucie.

You've drank the hemlock but you're (marginally) still alive. The
hemlock just affected your brain.

And if I were a politician, I'd be a populist like Wright Patman, not
an elitist follower of Edmund Burke.

oly- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Sorry to Socrates. Wrong Greek. Still, both Socrates and Aristotle
had it over Bruce. So did Wright Patman. So did Edmund Burke.

Y'know, who would I be to argue against any of those people. I'd like to
think though that I could kick any of their asses in many things more
important to me today.

I think I would have preferred to have been Charles James Fox. Got to
stir a lot of ****, drank boatloads with the Prince of Wales. Simply
died too young.

I'd have to Google up Mr. Fox. Maybe some other time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another example of why you are an American who thinks he is educated,
but isn't (very common in our country). You were a technician, not an
educated man.
__________

You have a warped idea of what an education entails. I fear you may have
dissed a number of us poor souls in rcc, if recalling the name and historic
significance of Charles James Fox is a requirement for being educated. You
love that ****, don't you. You sure are lucky to be one of the educated.
And you don't have a clue as to what I was, so stop looking so stupid (to
me, at least) with your assumptions. Not what I'd expect from an educated
man. Makes me wonder more about how you arrive at all your other
conclusions.

"RWF" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...
As for the dollar, a loaf of bread costs about the same percentage of
an average hourly wage today as it did fifty years ago. So I don't
see that our currency losing its buying power as long as increasing
wages follow the rising cost of essential goods. Is the dollar
losing its value or are things becoming more expensive? Or has the
wage-price relationship remained much the same over the past fifty
years?

That's a very inane comment.
Those on fixed incomes are finding it harder to make ends meet.
Even a half-wit like Sarge realizes the dollar has less buying power
than it once had.
For shame!

My point had nothing to do with the plight of the those unemployed or
on fixed incomes. I simply said that prices don't rise over the years
while everything else stays put. And today's loaf of bread DOES cost
about the same % of the average hourly wage as it did 50 years ago. No
shame. Nothing inane. No big deal. Unless you should choose to take
it further.

I think Oly is spot on about you.
You are willfully ignorant.

He can't seem to find the stuff to show me where or how. How about you.
What have I said that is wrong? Your insult shows me nothing. If you
have a different opinion why not share it. Otherwise you simply sound
like one more blindered politician who is convinced that all his
constituents are ignorant and only he knows what's best for them.

You claim that the value of our currency is unchanged because a loaf of
bread is still a certain % of income.
You are confusing our standard of living with the value of a dollar.
You are clearly wrong yet refuse to admit it.


I see my standard of living as tied to what my dollar will buy. The value
of the loaf of bread as a percentage of the average hourly wage seems more
relevant to me than some of the textbook rhetoric I'm seeing If I'm
wrong, I'll gladly accept it and will appreciate learning something, but all
I've seen so far are Aristotle quotes and rants about how I just don't get
it. Can you offer anything besides calling someone wrong if he doesn't
have the same opinion you do. If not, who needs your input?

On Feb 16, 9:55*am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"RWF" wrote in message

...







"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"RWF" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...
As for the dollar, a loaf of bread costs about the same percentage of
an average hourly wage today as it did fifty years ago. *So I don't
see that our currency losing its buying power as long as increasing
wages follow the rising cost of essential goods. *Is the dollar
losing its value or are things becoming more expensive? Or has the
wage-price relationship remained much the same over the past fifty
years?

That's a very inane comment.
Those on fixed incomes are finding it harder to make ends meet.
Even a half-wit like Sarge realizes the dollar has less buying power
than it once had.
For shame!

My point had nothing to do with the plight of the those unemployed or
on fixed incomes. *I simply said that prices don't rise over the years
while everything else stays put. *And today's loaf of bread DOES cost
about the same % of the average hourly wage as it did 50 years ago. No
shame. Nothing inane. *No big deal. *Unless you should choose to take
it further.

I think Oly is spot on about you.
You are willfully ignorant.

He can't seem to find the stuff to show me where or how. * How about you.
What have I said that is wrong? * *Your insult shows me nothing. If you
have a different opinion why not share it. *Otherwise you simply sound
like one more blindered politician who is convinced that all his
constituents are ignorant and only he knows what's best for them.

You claim that the value of our currency is unchanged because a loaf of
bread is still a certain % of income.
You are confusing our standard of living with the value of a dollar.
You are clearly wrong yet refuse to admit it.

I see my standard of living as tied to what my dollar will buy. *The value
of the loaf of bread as a percentage of the average hourly wage seems more
relevant to me than some of the textbook rhetoric I'm seeing * * *If I'm
wrong, I'll gladly accept it and will appreciate learning something, but all
I've seen so far are Aristotle quotes and rants about how I just don't get
it. * Can you offer anything besides calling someone wrong if he doesn't
have the same opinion you do. *If not, who needs your input?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You do. RF knows enough to ask the questions (actually, he knows a lot
more than just that first step). You can't even ask the questions
because you can't formulate them. Too fat, too comfortable. But none
of us will be for much longer.

oly