Opinions on cashing out some silver

"oly" wrote in message
...
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.
________________________

Out on the street? If so, I'll most likely be watching you pace by with
your doomsday sign lighting cigarettes for people with those useless dollar
bills and wearing a hardhat for protection from all those impending
collapses. And hey, thanks for that 5% raise you gave me this year. My
wife thanks you, too, for her 5% SS raise. The only Mercuries I'll need may
be slabbed. And please come up with some different jargon. You keep
repeating your cute little sayings like those Rush Limbaugh-types. You
must have more textbooks around with some different 18th century pundits to
quote.

I was one of those people who relied on savings in the form of "money" to
fund a comfortable future. And believe it or not, it's working great, in
spite of the crap I'm hearing here! I must have missed the part where I
was lied to, cheated, swindled, and raped of my purchasing power. The more
you rail about federal employees, the more I think I am enjoying having been
one-- if only to **** you off and to reap the benefits each month from your
taxes. Your jealousy is obvious.

"oly" wrote in message
...
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.
________________

If I need help and input, why not offer it? Sure, I don't speak economics
jargon and may not be able to formulate an opinion using the proper
ecospeak. Work with me here. It seems like I have asked the same questions
several times but all I get from you two is oblique, political comebacks
that never address my questions. I guess that's why they never let an
engineer try teach things to a non-engineer.

And the sky's starting to fall now, is it? I figured that was coming.

On Feb 16, 10:19*am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...
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.
________________

If I need help and input, why not offer it? *Sure, I don't speak economics
jargon and may not be able to formulate an opinion using the proper
ecospeak. *Work with me here. *It seems like I have asked the same questions
several times but all I get from you two is oblique, political comebacks
that never address my questions. *I guess that's why they never let an
engineer try teach things to a non-engineer.

And the sky's starting to fall now, is it? *I figured that was coming.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're the perfect foil Brucie. Maybe you will miss the boat, but
since you have to have the last word, this thread can be run ad
infinitum, hopefully alerting those with a little more mental
flexibility.

oly

Bruce Remick wrote:


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.


Bruce this is an interesting subject. I have wondered if there is a way
to actually compare the living standards of today as compared to 50
years ago.

I would assume that you would have to have the average wages of several
fields. For instance a carpenter, auto mechanic, grade school teacher,
accountant, cab driver, printer, bank teller, etc. For this exercise I
do not know if you would include doctors, lawyers and other professionals.

Than compare that set of figures as an average to the cost of several
things. A loaf of bread, gallon of milk, gallon of gas, new medium price
sedan, one months electric bill, trip to a doctor, etc.

Than to be fair I would have to ask how you would include a TV set that
is almost a need today and was not even common in the 50's.

To start of a bottle of soda was 5 cents plus deposit, today it is close
to 25 cents no deposit.

IIRC a hair cut was 75 cents and today it is $10.00 or more.

I think minimum wage was 75 cents an hour and today it is $6.55 soon to
go to $7.25

The value of a silver dime in 1964 was 10 cents today that same 1964
dime is worth a little over a dollar. Just to keep this on topic.

George D

"oly" wrote in message
...
On Feb 16, 10:19 am, "Bruce Remick" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...
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.
________________

If I need help and input, why not offer it? Sure, I don't speak economics
jargon and may not be able to formulate an opinion using the proper
ecospeak. Work with me here. It seems like I have asked the same questions
several times but all I get from you two is oblique, political comebacks
that never address my questions. I guess that's why they never let an
engineer try teach things to a non-engineer.

And the sky's starting to fall now, is it? I figured that was coming.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're the perfect foil Brucie. Maybe you will miss the boat, but
since you have to have the last word, this thread can be run ad
infinitum, hopefully alerting those with a little more mental
flexibility.
______________

From that elusive response, It's apparent you still have nothing to offer
except your pseudo-intellectual doom speak. So I'll take you up on the
offer to have the last word and pledge to stay out of any more discussions
of this type. You're obviously unable to use what's in those dusty
textbooks you've read to explain today's realities, unless of course it fits
your preconceived notion of the end of the world.

"George D" wrote in message
...
Bruce Remick wrote:


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.


Bruce this is an interesting subject. I have wondered if there is a
way to actually compare the living standards of today as compared to
50 years ago.

Problem is that Bruce stated that US currency has retained its value,
not that our standard of living is unchanged (which I also dispute).
Trouble is he is too obstinate to admit that he was wrong and keeps
making irrelevant arguments about the price of a loaf of bread.
Fact is that one dollar today won't buy what it did 10 years ago and no
amount of his sophistry can change that.

"oly" wrote in message
...

More like Chicken Little...

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


This speaks volumes about you.

You still can't bring yourself to admit that this economic fiasco has a lot
to do with the Bush Administration. It is mildly amusing watching you
squirm in order to avoid admitting it.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:22:55 -0500, "Bruce Remick"
wrote:


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.


Bruce, you are confusing the value of LABOR with the value of MONEY.
Your example shows that LABOR has maintained its value over the years,
in that you can trade an hour of today's LABOR for the same goods that
you could trade an hour of LABOR for in the past. The value of MONEY,
on the other hand has DECREASED by 90% in your scenario, in that, if
you put away 5 cents fifty years ago, instead of buying a candy bar,
today it only buys 1/10 of a candy bar. Don't you see that the money
has lost 90% of its value if you can only receive 10% of the products
that you could have purchased with it 50 years ago?

If you put $20,000 away in a non-interest-bearing account 50 years
ago, instead of buying that nice house in the suburbs, what type of
house will that money buy you today? THAT is the loss of value that
inflation causes.

On Feb 16, 11:08*am, George D wrote:
Bruce Remick wrote:

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.

Bruce this is an interesting subject. I have wondered if there is a way
to actually compare the living standards of today as compared to 50
years ago.

I would assume that you would have to have the average wages of several
fields. For instance a carpenter, auto mechanic, grade school teacher,
accountant, cab driver, printer, bank teller, etc. For this exercise I
do not know if you would include doctors, lawyers and other professionals..

Than compare that set of figures as an average to the cost of several
things. A loaf of bread, gallon of milk, gallon of gas, new medium price
sedan, one months electric bill, trip to a doctor, etc.

Than to be fair I would have to ask how you would include a TV set that
is almost a need today and was not even common in the 50's.

To start of a bottle of soda was 5 cents plus deposit, today it is close
to 25 cents no deposit.

IIRC a hair cut was 75 cents and today it is $10.00 or more.

I think minimum wage was 75 cents an hour and today it is $6.55 soon to
go to $7.25

The value of a silver dime in 1964 was 10 cents today that same 1964
dime is worth a little over a dollar. Just to keep this on topic.

George D

George, You must be drinking store brand soda or buying name brands in
cases. It isn't uncommon for a 20 oz Diet Pepsi to go for $1.49 at
retail nowadays. My haircuts cost $13.00 plus a small tip (and as the
mon vieux Professor will attest, I am follically challenged).

I remember buying Mercury dimes for 35 cents in 1973 and bought a
couple for $1.05 yesterday (the guy at the flea market had them
slightly underpriced IMHO). I am pretty certain that I could have got
more for 35 cents in 1973 than $1.05 today.

oly

On Feb 16, 11:23*am, Johnny Doe wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:22:55 -0500, "Bruce Remick"
wrote:





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.

Bruce, you are confusing the value of LABOR with the value of MONEY.
Your example shows that LABOR has maintained its value over the years,
in that you can trade an hour of today's LABOR for the same goods that
you could trade an hour of LABOR for in the past. *The value of MONEY,
on the other hand has DECREASED by 90% in your scenario, in that, if
you put away 5 cents fifty years ago, instead of buying a candy bar,
today it only buys 1/10 of a candy bar. *Don't you see that the money
has lost 90% of its value if you can only receive 10% of the products
that you could have purchased with it 50 years ago?

If you put $20,000 away in a non-interest-bearing account 50 years
ago, instead of buying that nice house in the suburbs, what type of
house will that money buy you today? *THAT is the loss of value that
inflation causes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good post.

oly