Opinions on cashing out some silver

On Feb 16, 11:19*am, "PC" wrote:
"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.

Oh no, this debacle does have a great deal to do with the Bush
administration.

But my objections are almost all in regards to what the Treasury and
Fed did during the last four months of 2008. Their actions (or
reactions) since the Lehman Brothers failure are simply
uncomprehensible.

Your objections are because you have a problem with white conservative
men in a position of authority.

Butt there's never a good reason to vote for a Franken or an Obama.

oly

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:46:39 -0800 (PST), oly wrote:

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

Thanks.

Of course, he will probably come back with some spew about how he
wasn't talking about the value of the dollar, which has OF COURSE been
losing value, but the value of MONEY in general, which still spends
just as well regardless of inflation, as long as you earn it and spend
it before the value of the DOLLAR falls further. This MONEY, as a
facilitator of commerce, does work fine, but isn't worth squat as a
store of value.

On Feb 16, 12:07*pm, Johnny Doe wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:46:39 -0800 (PST), oly wrote:
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

Thanks.

Of course, he will probably come back with some spew about how he
wasn't talking about the value of the dollar, which has OF COURSE been
losing value, but the value of MONEY in general, which still spends
just as well regardless of inflation, as long as you earn it and spend
it before the value of the DOLLAR falls further. *This MONEY, as a
facilitator of commerce, does work fine, but isn't worth squat as a
store of value.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed on both (1) the spew and (2) failure to store of value
observations.

oly

"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.

You accuse others of speaking in generalities, oly, but you also speak
only in generalities.

For example, what exactly are you predicting in the impending storm?
All I can tell about your expectations is that people like Bruce will
be on the street selling apples, but it won't quite be the end of
civilization as we know it. In between, there's a lot of territory to
debate over and the degree of the economic meltdown is of critical
importance to all of us because the degree of the impending events
determines what actions a prudent person should take. Given that plus
your trenchant treatment of those whom you ironically accuse of being
"inflexible," you're going to have to be a lot more specific than
merely laying out such an immensely broad range of results and
proclaiming "Ta-da!":

So perhaps you would like to show off your economic expertise for us
dunces by answering a few helpful specific technical questions. These
are speculative so you do get a little slack in your estimated answers
and you don't even have to answer every last one of them (except #4 &
#5). But do try to be specific and answer as many as possible because
otherwise all your dire declarations boil down to "There be some bad
mojo coming" and we already know that.

1. Within +/- 0.5%, what will be the U.S. inflation rates for 2009,
2010, and 2011?

2. Within +/- $100, what will be the high and low prices for gold in
each of 2009, 2010, and 2011?

3. Within +/- 10%, what will be the highest and lowest valuation
point of the dollar against Chinese, Japanese, British and any three
other major currencies of your choosing for the entire period
2009-2011? (Just the high- and low-water mark for each currency
anywhere within the 3-year window will do.)

4. Starting with 2008 (or the latest year available) as the baseline,
what will be the dollar purchasing power of the average U.S. family in
constant dollars in each of 2009, 2010 and 2011?

5. What are the major metrics by which we can measure the collapse of
the "phony money" you postulate, what are their current values, and
what are their "trip wire" values that signal a massive and
irreversible collapse?

There, that's it. The list could have been much longer but this is
rcc, not an economics forum, and this should be sufficient to show
that you're basing your predictions on something more than your
readings of history and some twinges in your bones that may be nothing
more than gout. If you have any other metrics where you start with a
current baseline and project into the next three years, please add
them.

Just don't try to answer these or any other questions by reciting
history or philosophy. History tells us what has happened and
probably will happen again. We already understand and accept that.
We also understand that past performance is not a guarantee of future
results. Nor do we need quotes from experts supporting your views.
Just as in a court trial, both sides can summon experts with totally
opposing views.

You are going beyond historic generalizations and predicting the time
and place of an economic collapse - but you haven't even defined
"collapse" as you are using the term. So how can anyone judge the
merit and accuracy of your views? Furthermore, you accuse your
opponents of not having the erudition and understanding that you do.
So it would be nice if you would give your critics something specific
to respond to instead of your vague generalities. Speak now or forever
hold your peace.

"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.

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

Some agency - probably Commerce or Labor - publishes a "purchasing
power" index for U.S. households. Just as the COLA index uses an
"average" market basket of goods (they literally send shoppers to
supermarkets with a standard list to purchase) the purchasing power
indices (sometimes thought of or even referred to as "standard of
living" indices) use an "average" household of all occupations and
incomes. You have to know exactly what is being measured in order to
use them and know their limits, but as long as the methods and
definitions don't change, such indices are good for broadly measuring
changes over time.

On Feb 16, 12:26*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"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.

You accuse others of speaking in generalities, oly, but you also speak
only in generalities.

For example, what exactly are you predicting in the impending storm?
All I can tell about your expectations is that people like Bruce will
be on the street selling apples, but it won't quite be the end of
civilization as we know it. *In between, there's a lot of territory to
debate over and the degree of the economic meltdown is of critical
importance to all of us because the degree of the impending events
determines what actions a prudent person should take. *Given that plus
your trenchant treatment of those whom you ironically accuse of being
"inflexible," you're going to have to be a lot more specific than
merely laying out such an immensely broad range of results and
proclaiming "Ta-da!":

So perhaps you would like to show off your economic expertise for us
dunces by answering a few helpful specific technical questions. *These
are speculative so you do get a little slack in your estimated answers
and you don't even have to answer every last one of them (except #4 &
#5). *But do try to be specific and answer as many as possible because
otherwise all your dire declarations boil down to "There be some bad
mojo coming" and we already know that.

1. *Within +/- 0.5%, what will be the U.S. inflation rates for 2009,
2010, and 2011?

2. *Within +/- $100, what will be the high and low prices for gold in
each of 2009, 2010, and 2011?

3. *Within +/- 10%, what will be the highest and lowest valuation
point of the dollar against Chinese, Japanese, British and any three
other major currencies of your choosing for the entire period
2009-2011? *(Just the high- and low-water mark for each currency
anywhere within the 3-year window will do.)

4. *Starting with 2008 (or the latest year available) as the baseline,
what will be the dollar purchasing power of the average U.S. family in
constant dollars in each of 2009, 2010 and 2011?

5. *What are the major metrics by which we can measure the collapse of
the "phony money" you postulate, what are their current values, and
what are their "trip wire" values that signal a massive and
irreversible collapse?

There, that's it. *The list could have been much longer but this is
rcc, not an economics forum, and this should be sufficient to show
that you're basing your predictions on something more than your
readings of history and some twinges in your bones that may be nothing
more than gout. *If you have any other metrics where you start with a
current baseline and project into the next three years, please add
them.

Just don't try to answer these or any other questions by reciting
history or philosophy. *History tells us what has happened and
probably will happen again. *We already understand and accept that.
We also understand that past performance is not a guarantee of future
results. *Nor do we need quotes from experts supporting your views.
Just as in a court trial, both sides can summon experts with totally
opposing views.

You are going beyond historic generalizations and predicting the time
and place of an economic collapse - but you haven't even defined
"collapse" as you are using the term. *So how can anyone judge the
merit and accuracy of your views? *Furthermore, you accuse your
opponents of not having the erudition and understanding that you do.
So it would be nice if you would give your critics something specific
to respond to instead of your vague generalities. Speak now or forever
hold your peace.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Because of the nature of my personal employment, I think that it is
best to post in generalities. Nor do I know all the nominal % and
nominal specific dollar information that you desire. Nobody does,
nobody anywhere. Mr. Jim Sinclair has been better than most. Also
Messrs. Harry Schultz, Richard Russell, Prieur du Plessiss.

Mr. John Williams of Shadow Statistics defines a hyperinflation as an
inflation where the highest value banknote that was in circulation
prior to the terminal period becomes totally worthless. In other
words, where a USD 100 note will become worthless. That is MOL what I
think will happen. This inflationary period will have periods of both
acceleration and deceleration.

As Yogi Berra says, "Never make predictions, especially about the
future." My spin is "Make a prediction, or predict a time, but never
do both or you will be wrong". But I believe "soon".

The financial system is collapsing, imploding, at the very top of the
system. Both in this country, in the European Union, and in Japan.
There are only two allowable political responses. Either the PTB can
allow the resulting depression, or they can print large quanities of
money and hope for the best. I bet the latter.

oly

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...


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.

I suspect that the reality is much more complex in that some things have
risen dramatically such as for a professional athlete, musician, model, and
specialized medical and legal practices. What was a computer programmer (my
first job out of college) paid in the 1960s vs the 1990s vs 2009? How about
CEOs? Secretaries? Surely some professions have lost ground and some have
disappeared entirely.

Compare that to the rice in prices of goods and services and I am sure you
will find the same thing. Some things are more expensive relatively and
some things are not.

There is no simple answer.

"Johnny Doe" wrote in message
...

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?


But if you also earn 90% more money then it is a wash. So which is more -
the loss of money or the increase in wages? Answer that then you may have a
point.

"oly" wrote in message
...

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.


All I see is Bruce asking for some subtance behind the rehtoric you spew and
you repeatedly failing to produce.

On Feb 16, 1:13*pm, "PC" wrote:
"Johnny Doe" wrote in message

...

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?

But if you also earn 90% more money then it is a wash. *So which is more -
the loss of money or the increase in wages? *Answer that then you may have a
point.

It is not a wash for people who have saved in terms of paper money.
Old people, retired people on fixed incomes who rely on their savings
are systematically cheated through continual debasement. Not everbody
is working throughout the 50 year period. People age and can't work
any longer. Not everybody has a pension plan, let alone a good
pension plan with a COLA. Even people who are still working shouldn't
be cheated on the money that they saved ten and twenty years back.
Money that does not have a reasonable ability to store value over time
isn't "real" money.

oly