Where is my HD radio? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Where is my HD radio?



Smokey
04-18-2008, 05:49 PM
Just found out that over half of my local stations have HD feed and was wondering to myself where are the all the HD radios to receivers the signal?

The only option we have as now to listen to HD feed is to buy an expensive HD tuner, a HD radio table top or in only couple of A/V receivers (such as Denon). I donít know why FCC donít make it mandatory for manufactures to include a HD tuners in their receivers. They did it for TVs.

What is the hold up? :rolleyes5:

(hdradio.com (http://www.hdradio.com))

blackraven
04-18-2008, 07:38 PM
Do a google on Sangean HD tuner. They have a new upgraded version with digital out and fixed a few bugs. It cost about $225.

elapsed
04-18-2008, 10:07 PM
Just a quick note.. HD Radio is *not* High Def. In fact its a proprietary technology, and stands for Hybrid Digital. The FM hybrid digital mode can carry approx 100, 112, 125, or 150 kbps of lossy data depending upon the Station Manager's power budget and/or desired range of signal.

Compare this to roughly 1400 kbps CD quality, and you can see there is much level to be desired

A number of issues are discussed here (scroll down to criticisms): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Radio

blackraven
04-19-2008, 01:54 PM
HD radio, however sounds much better than std FM and AM radio sounds almost like FM.
I've been very impressed with the sound.

Smokey
04-19-2008, 05:45 PM
Thanks everybody

Personally have not listen to HD so canít comment on sound (although 125, or 150 kbps do not sound too promising). Two draw back FM has it compressed dynamic range and his noise. Granted noise in eliminated in HD, improvement in dynamic rage would the next step to make superior to FM and worth upgrading.

And I hope the quality of HD tuner would not matter as much as quality of FM tuner does to get best sound.

Blackraven, does sound of HD sound compressed to you?

O'Shag
04-21-2008, 11:40 AM
Depends on the tuner and the reception in your vicinity. We come back to the classic digital vs. analogue shootout. Problem is most people have never heard how excellent the sound is from a high quality analogue tuner receiving a clear signal. I don't have a great tuner right now, but when I receive 89.9 KCRW (out of Santa Monica College) and they broadcast bands as they play in the studio live the sound is amazing. Indeed its better and more true-to-life than any digitized signal can manage. Problem is, most listeners have to deal with multi-path interference which destroys sound-quality, and the HD signal sounds much more listenable. I have Sirius Satellite radio with my Dish Network which is essentially the same thing. Good quality sound, but not as good as high-quality analogue. I would love to see the broadcasters works on a system that maintains the analogue transmission, but improves it, and eliminates multi-path interference.

Woochifer
04-21-2008, 12:09 PM
You're looking at the wrong markets Smoke ...

HDRadio is going to sink or swim based on the format's ability to get into OEM car audio installations. Currently, the car companies offering HDRadio include BMW, Ford, Mercury, Hyundai, Mercedes, Mini, Scion, and Volvo. And you can bet that the HDRadio promoters are negotiating with the other car companies to get the format onto more OEM audio systems. Car audio is where most people listen to FM radio to begin with -- home audio is a nonentity as far as HDRadio goes.

The broadcasters want HDRadio to succeed simply because it allows them to multicast their signals (thus boosting the value of their broadcast licenses), and better compete with satellite radio options. That's why they've been ahead of the curve in initiating HDRadio broadcasts and multicasts.

Also, don't buy into any of the talk about "CD quality" audio with HDRadio. Aside from the lossy data compression, the audio signal beaming out to an FM transmitter almost always undergoes often heavy dynamic range compression. And most FM stations nowadays play their music off of digital servers, rather than CDs (again, doubtful that this playback is lossless). If HDRadio simply simulcasts the analog feed going to the FM transmitter, it won't be anywhere near CD quality.

Smokey
04-21-2008, 02:32 PM
Depends on the tuner and the reception in your vicinity. We come back to the classic digital vs. analogue shootout. Problem is most people have never heard how excellent the sound is from a high quality analogue tuner receiving a clear signal. I don't have a great tuner right now, but when I receive 89.9 KCRW (out of Santa Monica College) and they broadcast bands as they play in the studio live the sound is amazing.

I agree with you there. I have Hitachi analog Tuner (FT-440) which looks like a tank and sound much sweater than integrated receiver tuner.

But on the same note it might worth mentioning that no matter how much they improve FM, it is still inherently a Mid-Fi medium. And that is mostly due to its limited bandwidth (200khz) which can not be changed. That bandwidth only allow bandwidth allows for broadcasting a 15 kHz bandwidth audio signal.


Also, don't buy into any of the talk about "CD quality" audio with HDRadio. Aside from the lossy data compression, the audio signal beaming out to an FM transmitter almost always undergoes often heavy dynamic range compression. And most FM stations nowadays play their music off of digital servers, rather than CDs (again, doubtful that this playback is lossless). If HDRadio simply simulcasts the analog feed going to the FM transmitter, it won't be anywhere near CD quality.

Until Elapsed mentioned it in his post, I thought HD stand for High Definition radio and was expecting a much higher quality sound than FM (like moving from NTSC TV to HDTV). But all this talk about low bit rate, compressed sound and lossy format for HD radio make it sound like it is going to be DOA (Drumstick On Arrival :D) even before it takes off.

May be I had my hopes too high :)

blackraven
04-21-2008, 03:24 PM
HD radio sounds much better than std FM and has the benefit of many sub stations with various formats from one radio station. I dont think that its going to die. Its free with greater programming options. Its certainly worth it if you enjoy listening to radio. Even AM sounds much better and sounds about like std FM. If your looking for CD sound then forget about it.

O'Shag
04-21-2008, 07:38 PM
I agree with you there. I have Hitachi analog Tuner (FT-440) which looks like a tank and sound much sweater than integrated receiver tuner.

But on the same note it might worth mentioning that no matter how much they improve FM, it is still inherently a Mid-Fi medium. And that is mostly due to its limited bandwidth (200khz) which can not be changed. That bandwidth only allow bandwidth allows for broadcasting a 15 kHz bandwidth audio signal.



Until Elapsed mentioned it in his post, I thought HD stand for High Definition radio and was expecting a much higher quality sound than FM (like moving from NTSC TV to HDTV). But all this talk about low bit rate, compressed sound and lossy format for HD radio make it sound like it is going to be DOA (Drumstick On Arrival :D) even before it takes off.

May be I had my hopes too high :)
Smokey,

thanks for the info regarding bandwidth. I didn't realize that. Clearly if there is such a limit in bandwidth (can that be changed?) then there is gong to be a limit to sound quality.

BlackRaven is of course correct, and for the most part and for most listeners, the interference problem does ruin it. I do enjoy listening to Sirius, but sometimes I hear the limit in soundquality. I must admit that HD Radio seems interesting, because its essentially the same given the digital broadcasting technology, and more importantly - ITS FREE!! The broadcasters win, because they get advertising dollars.

pixelthis
04-22-2008, 12:29 AM
CHECK OUT C.CRANE company, if its a radio they have it, especially SANGEAN.
I used to connect my FM tuner to an TV antenna, the sound was quite good.
To say that FM is limited because it "only" goes to 15 khz or so is silly, most can't hear
too much past 13khz.
The problem with FM is programming, most of it is crap, spaced between commercials.
But proper FM, with a proper outdoor antenna, can sound quite good. :1:

O'Shag
04-22-2008, 12:25 PM
Am listening to Sirius while I work. Sirius First Wave (Richard Blade, Swedish Eagle, Freddie Snakeskin etc) for 80's music. Also Area 33 (trance etc),and 72 Classic Jazz -sound is very good, although a little short of CD quality. I think the HD radio is a good idea because its free, ands there are some great stations here in So Cal.

O'Shag
04-22-2008, 12:34 PM
CHECK OUT C.CRANE company, if its a radio they have it, especially SANGEAN.
I used to connect my FM tuner to an TV antenna, the sound was quite good.
To say that FM is limited because it "only" goes to 15 khz or so is silly, most can't hear
too much past 13khz.
The problem with FM is programming, most of it is crap, spaced between commercials.
But proper FM, with a proper outdoor antenna, can sound quite good. :1:

Very good point Pix. As I noted previously, I've heard some excellent sound quality from analogue broadcasts. I guess its very dependent on the quality of the material and of course on the lack of interference. We have an excellent Jazz station and some superb classical stations here in so Cal on FM radio. I think that an outdoor antenna is the only way to go to maximize signal quality.

emaidel
04-22-2008, 01:59 PM
I know nothing about HD radio, other than what I've read in this thread. I had assumed the HD stood for "high definition," but just learned here that that's not so.

Like several other AR members, I've never considered FM a legitimate source for serious listening. It's not whether or not one is using a good outdoor antenna (or has one's tuner connected to cable), but the amount of signal processing an FM broadcast is subjected to. Almost all broadcasts are severely compressed, and often with what's known as "knife-edge" compression that's quite noticeable, and very annoying. dbx uses its patented "over-easy" compression, which is considerably less noticeable than that of the knife-edge variety, but it still a form of signal processing which, when used, degrades the original signal.

I can't speak from experience with live broadcasts, as I've never had the opportunity to listen to one here in South Carolina, or in the Denver area where I used to live. I can only hope that such broadcasts sound better than the stuff that's pumped out over the air most of the time. Still, whether live or not, tons of signal processing is used: the best FM can ever hope to be is as good as the source, which, other than a live broadcast is often a pretty ordinary CD player, or 16" turntable with an old Stanton 680EL cartridge. Most of the AR members who've posted on the site have considerably better equipment than that in their homes.

As it turns out my tuner (a Parsound T/DQ-1600) is a Stereophile Class-C recommendation. Big deal. I hardly ever listen to it, and nothing from it has ever sounded remotely close in fidelity to either my CD player or turntable. Now that I've replaced my older turntable with a Dual CS-5000, and equipped it with an Achromat platter mat, and replaced my CD player/converter with the Marantz SA-8001 SACD player, the disparity between them and my tuner is even more noticeable.

Just my two cents, again.

pixelthis
04-22-2008, 11:39 PM
FM was once considered every bit as much a HI-FI medium as anything else.
BEFORE denon started with HT and quit with serious audio I bought their top of the
line receiver, 598 bucks, 75 wpc, 1985 or 86.
It had a quite serious tuner, with a special circuit for spurious channel rejection, etc.
INSTEAD OF A "TUNER ON A CHIP it had its own sheilded box, and was made of discrete components.
This was my last piece of serious gear before I got into HT, and all of the compromises it entails, anyway the sound was quite amazing .
And I am used to living 50 miles from serious stations (except the local pbs) and when I travel I am amazed by how good FM can sound when the station is close.
Now if they just put some programming on...:1:

E-Stat
04-23-2008, 06:37 AM
FM was once considered every bit as much a HI-FI medium as anything else.
Indeed. There was a time that some big city classical stations would do live broadcasts of concerts over FM with little signal twiddling. That was in the day of the Marantz 10B and McIntosh MR-74s, etc. Alas, the commercialization of radio and the evils of compression reign today.

rw

Rich-n-Texas
04-23-2008, 07:16 AM
The Mercury Theater on the air presents: "The War of the Worlds".

Pix should remember the original broadcast.

markw
04-23-2008, 08:00 AM
Indeed. There was a time that some big city classical stations would do live broadcasts of concerts over FM with little signal twiddling. Check out WQXR in NYC. Some of the local college stations sometimes do intimate little live shows of local minstrels and sometimes better known guests as well.

blackraven
04-23-2008, 12:13 PM
I havent really thought about if digital radio sounds compressed because my expectations of radio are much lower than CD sound quality. Digital radio does sound very good and I enjoy listening to FM radio to hear old classic rock and roll and to see whats new in music. Also, with the availability of expanded sub stations on HD radio there is a whole world of new programming and formats becoming available.

Smokey
04-23-2008, 02:01 PM
To say that FM is limited because it "only" goes to 15 khz or so is silly, most can't hear too much past 13khz.

Donít forget about harmonics :)

Music are complex electronic waves that more likely have higher harmonics that go beyond 15 kHz or even 20 kHz, and FM limited bandwidth tend to filter out higher harmonics. That is why for high quality medium such as SACD, the noise filter (signal bandwidth) is set at 44 kHz instead of 22 kHz which is for CDs.

Limited bandwidth (15 khz) also mean limited Dynamic Range and S/N ratio.


I havent really thought about if digital radio sounds compressed because my expectations of radio are much lower than CD sound quality. Digital radio does sound very good and I enjoy listening to FM radio to hear old classic rock and roll and to see whats new in music.

Are you using a HD tuner (Sangean??) hooked up to your system or a tabletop radio?

O'Shag
04-23-2008, 02:18 PM
HD does stand for High Definition, which in this instance is digitization of the broadcast signal.

Emaidel, I don't quite agree with your point. I think you may be a bit too focused on the quality of the sound as opposed to the music itself. Granted analogue radio may be somewhat compromised in general, but I've heard it sound very engaging, which is more than I can say for some CDs I own. We have many excellent stations here in Los Angeles, including some of the finest classical stations such as KMozart and KUSC (Uni So Cal) and there are more. How about KJazz out of the Uni of Long Beach. I guarantee you they do not use a cheap CD player or TT, and furthermore, their broadcast equipment is likely better than most of our own gear. Did you know that Ed Meitner of EMM Labs supplies equipment to the better stations?

I can easily become captivated by a wonderful piece of music on analogue radio, and don't find myself analizing the sound quality, because its good enough to get involved in the music.

I would hate to see analogue radio disappear completely.
Btw, I don't believe The live broadcasts on KCRW are compressed, but broadcast directly from the studio as the artists play. The sound is first rate I assure you.

blackraven
04-23-2008, 05:08 PM
I dont have a sangean tuner but I've heard one at a local store and it sounds very good for a tuner. They hook up to your analog inputs of your receiver or if you have the HDT-1 version with the optical out it hooks into your digital input. Sangean also makes a table top stand alone HD radio, but most people opt for the tuner which hooks into your stereo.

I've also listened to alot of Sirius HD radio and it sounds about like the Sangean. I'm planning on buying a Sangean HDT-1 tuner sometime this summer. The price has come down to about $200. I was waiting to see if they would come out with a 3rd version of the original HD tuner.

pixelthis
04-24-2008, 12:34 AM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882720002&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Home+Audio-_-Sangean-_-82720002


For a lot of the "golden ears" on this board its easy to forget that sound doesnt have to
always be the best, sometimes casual listening and ease of use is nice.
A friend has sirius and, while lo-fi, it does have a wide choice and is good for riding down the road.
You can also go to crutchfield's site, they charge more for the radio but there is more info about HDRADIO :1:

pixelthis
04-24-2008, 12:39 AM
Just found out that over half of my local stations have HD feed and was wondering to myself where are the all the HD radios to receivers the signal?

The only option we have as now to listen to HD feed is to buy an expensive HD tuner, a HD radio table top or in only couple of A/V receivers (such as Denon). I donít know why FCC donít make it mandatory for manufactures to include a HD tuners in their receivers. They did it for TVs.

What is the hold up? :rolleyes5:

(hdradio.com (http://www.hdradio.com))


Go to crutchfields site, they have answers to your questions.
At newegg a sangean tuner is 179 bucks, hardly a bank breaker, but adding that
to every receiver would be prohibitive.
And this is a private project, the govt has nothing to do with it.
probably the way HDTV should have been done :1:

Woochifer
04-24-2008, 11:00 AM
But on the same note it might worth mentioning that no matter how much they improve FM, it is still inherently a Mid-Fi medium. And that is mostly due to its limited bandwidth (200khz) which can not be changed. That bandwidth only allow bandwidth allows for broadcasting a 15 kHz bandwidth audio signal.

Not to mention the fact that broadcasters don't care much anymore about beaming out a quality signal. It's now all about maximizing volume, which means dynamic range compression and lots of it. For a lot of stations, the content doesn't even originate locally anymore -- the chatter and music get piped in from elsewhere, again with not a lot of concern for sound quality.


Until Elapsed mentioned it in his post, I thought HD stand for High Definition radio and was expecting a much higher quality sound than FM (like moving from NTSC TV to HDTV). But all this talk about low bit rate, compressed sound and lossy format for HD radio make it sound like it is going to be DOA (Drumstick On Arrival :D) even before it takes off.

Like I said, the market for HD Radio and actually radio in general, is all about the mobile listeners. They are the present and future. HD Radio will sink or swim depending on its success at penetrating the car audio market, and the OEM installations in particular. Compared to the home audio market, the mobile market moves more quickly, and most people change cars a lot more frequently than they change audio systems. The uptake on HD Radio will occur very quickly once the format finds its way into OEM car audio systems. At that time, some demand for home units might pick up as well.

The home audio market for HD Radio is irrelevant in the big picture because people in general don't listen to as much radio at home as before. This is reflected in how audio equipment manufacturers treat tuners -- when was the last time you saw any receiver ad say anything about the AM/FM tuner, aside from mentioning that it's there? The quality of the FM tuner used to be a highly touted feature, but not anymore.

With so many other options now available for home listening, I doubt that HD Radio will spur a FM renaissance. HD Radio is all about increasing the resale value of radio stations by increasing the number of feeds that can fit into a given market's airwaves, and trying to give consumers reason not to defect over to satellite radio.

This is not really analogous to the digital TV transition, because HD Radio does not replace FM and there is no mandate in place for existing FM signals to switch off.

O'Shag
04-24-2008, 11:43 AM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882720002&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-Home+Audio-_-Sangean-_-82720002


For a lot of the "golden ears" on this board its easy to forget that sound doesnt have to
always be the best, sometimes casual listening and ease of use is nice.
A friend has sirius and, while lo-fi, it does have a wide choice and is good for riding down the road.
You can also go to crutchfield's site, they charge more for the radio but there is more info about HDRADIO :1:

Pix, I don't think I would classify Sirius Radio as lo-fi. It is really very good actually. I continue to be surprised by the sound quality. I get mine through Dish Network. Not as pure as CD obviously, but does a great job of conveying the energy of the music through a good system.

Wooch, your point regarding mobile users for sirius subscription makes a lot of sense.

Woochifer
04-24-2008, 11:44 AM
Go to crutchfields site, they have answers to your questions.
At newegg a sangean tuner is 179 bucks, hardly a bank breaker, but adding that
to every receiver would be prohibitive.

For a receiver, I doubt that the cost of adding HD Radio capability would be anywhere near $179. Since car audio head units with HD Radio tuners are already available for around $100 (http://www.buy.com/prod/dual-xhd6420-car-audio-player-cd-r-cd-rw-cd-da-mp3-wma-4-200w-fm-am/q/loc/111/206710449.html), the costs on that Sangean tuner would have more to do with how much of the upfront licensing fee (and other component costs) they choose to pass onto consumers than the chipset costs. For example, when Dual added a HD Radio tuner to one of its car audio head units, the revision only added $20 to the list price.


And this is a private project, the govt has nothing to do with it. probably the way HDTV should have been done :1:

The FCC still had to approve iBiquity's HD Radio proposal before it could move forward, and they retain a regulatory role. This is no different than the HDTV standard, which was developed by a consortium of broadcasters and private companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Alliance_%28HDTV%29), standardized by the ITU, and approved by the FCC. If you're referring to the mandatory DTV transition, that's a totally different subject than how the HDTV standard was developed in the first place.

pixelthis
04-25-2008, 12:54 AM
For a receiver, I doubt that the cost of adding HD Radio capability would be anywhere near $179. Since car audio head units with HD Radio tuners are already available for around $100 (http://www.buy.com/prod/dual-xhd6420-car-audio-player-cd-r-cd-rw-cd-da-mp3-wma-4-200w-fm-am/q/loc/111/206710449.html), the costs on that Sangean tuner would have more to do with how much of the upfront licensing fee (and other component costs) they choose to pass onto consumers than the chipset costs. For example, when Dual added a HD Radio tuner to one of its car audio head units, the revision only added $20 to the list price.

"Only twenty dollars".
THATS FUNNY.
When THE mts stereo standard was adopted it wasnt much, had poor channel seperation,
And the dbx name on it, but it was better than nothing.
RCA shaved off the name DBX name and changed things around, the savings were
about a dime a tv(or something like that) they didnt care about the worsened sound.
THE CHANGE netted them MILLIONS.
THAT "twenty dollars" is huge, and what I was talking about, sure it wont cost 179 bucks to add an HD tuner, it might be less than 20 bucks, but if its ten bucks the cost would be huge for manufacturers.
Ten bucks (let alone twenty) over a hundred thousand players is a MILLION bucks after all
:1:



The FCC still had to approve iBiquity's HD Radio proposal before it could move forward, and they retain a regulatory role. This is no different than the HDTV standard, which was developed by a consortium of broadcasters and private companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Alliance_%28HDTV%29), standardized by the ITU, and approved by the FCC. If you're referring to the mandatory DTV transition, that's a totally different subject than how the HDTV standard was developed in the first place.


how quickly they forget.
Before the crash at the end of the eighties Japan was a jugernaunt, literally an economic Godzilla.
You think their stuff now is nice, I had a Pioneer receiver with splitscreen, you could adjust the video and see an adusted and unadjusted version on your screen.
And Japan had the only viable HD tv system.
It was analog and took up one and a half channels, and was sat based, but there was real fear that they would be the owner of HD tech, and the thought was that we needed our
own HD SYSTEM. Economics and national pride was at stake.
Zenith and General instruments and a few others got the ball rolling, true, but the govt was behind the scenes, and has been HD friendly ever since.
Without their influence HD wouldnt be nearly as far along.
HD radio, on the other hand, most dont even know it exists
The adoption of HDTV and HDRADIO were completely different things
One was the Manhatten project, the other a fireworks stand :1:

pixelthis
04-27-2008, 11:14 PM
Pix, I don't think I would classify Sirius Radio as lo-fi. It is really very good actually. I continue to be surprised by the sound quality. I get mine through Dish Network. Not as pure as CD obviously, but does a great job of conveying the energy of the music through a good system.

Wooch, your point regarding mobile users for sirius subscription makes a lot of sense.


THROUGH A "GOOD" SYSTEM.
I too had the "dish" and sirius radio, and the sound through six thousand dollars
worth of gear, and the increased sat bandwidth rendered it quite nice.
But even through a high end sound system on my friends Kia the sound, while certainly not "bad" certainly wasnt even close to mid fi, just my opinion :1:

Woochifer
04-29-2008, 10:25 AM
"Only twenty dollars".
THATS FUNNY.
When THE mts stereo standard was adopted it wasnt much, had poor channel seperation,
And the dbx name on it, but it was better than nothing.
RCA shaved off the name DBX name and changed things around, the savings were
about a dime a tv(or something like that) they didnt care about the worsened sound.
THE CHANGE netted them MILLIONS.

Not true. The MTS standard has always had the dbx processing circuitry in it, whether the name was on the box or not. As more licensees came onto the market, manufacturers had more supplier choices and could obviously go with lower cost vendors if they chose to do so. But, anything conforming to the MTS standard had to license the dbx noise reduction in the process.

Zenith partnered with dbx to jointly develop their stereo TV format. When the competing stereo TV proposals were getting forwarded to the FCC, the Zenith/dbx proposal won out, because the dbx circuitry allowed for greater audio performance than the other proposals, including better S/N ratio and channel separation than FM radio. Both companies have been collecting the licensing revenue since then.


THAT "twenty dollars" is huge, and what I was talking about, sure it wont cost 179 bucks to add an HD tuner, it might be less than 20 bucks, but if its ten bucks the cost would be huge for manufacturers.
Ten bucks (let alone twenty) over a hundred thousand players is a MILLION bucks after all
:1:

That $20 is what the cost spread on the list price is right now, and what one company (Dual) chose to pass along to consumers at this juncture. That's not what the actual unit cost differential is -- it's what Dual presumes consumers will pay to get the HD Radio feature.

Recall that the first production stereo TVs all cost substantially more than previous monophonic models, a lot more than $20 even on the successors to those "stereo ready" console models that already used two speakers. As production volumes ramped up, the cost differential reduced over time until the stereo capability became nothing more than just another commodified feature.

Also remember that the first standalone MTS decoders cost $200 ($350 in today's dollars) when they came out in 1984. Not much different than what you see right now with that $179 standalone Sangean tuner.

Price points on midlevel receivers have been inching up over the last three years to begin with. Satellite radio tuners, networking features, and video processing have bumped up the price points on the midlevel models anywhere from $200 to $400. As more of them add HD Radio tuners, I doubt that the price points will get bumped up much further, since those other functions are now more commodified and trickling down into the entry level models.

Plus, it's easier to absorb that kind of cost on an item that sells for more than $1,000 versus something that lists for $170 (and sells for $100). If more and more manufacturers add HD Radio tuners to their receivers, the remaining manufacturers won't exclude the feature just to save a few bucks. Same thing happened when DTS, DD EX, and Pro Logic II came onto the market. The processors incorporating those formats added to the material and licensing costs, but receiver manufacturers absorbed those costs because those costs were nothing compared to the potential loss in market share as consumers went with receivers that did add those features.

pixelthis
04-29-2008, 11:42 PM
Not true. The MTS standard has always had the dbx processing circuitry in it, whether the name was on the box or not. As more licensees came onto the market, manufacturers had more supplier choices and could obviously go with lower cost vendors if they chose to do so. But, anything conforming to the MTS standard had to license the dbx noise reduction in the process.
Zenith partnered with dbx to jointly develop their stereo TV format. When the competing stereo TV proposals were getting forwarded to the FCC, the Zenith/dbx proposal won out, because the dbx circuitry allowed for greater audio performance than the other proposals, including better S/N ratio and channel separation than FM radio. Both companies have been collecting the licensing revenue since then.

Were you alive back then, or asleep?
RCA, (and all of its subsideraries) dropped DBX, and adopted a much cheaper alternative
that had even less channel seperation than the DBX version.
DVX and ZENITH had a liscense for "their" solution to mts decoding, but the govt couldnt force anyone to pay liscensing fees to anyone for something they had to have due to govt regulation.
I WAS THERE, SAW THE SETS IN THE FRIGGIN STORES, read the reviews in the magazines, RCA DIDNT use dbx, didnt put the dbx trademark on their sets.
EVER.
And saved a ton of money in the process



That $20 is what the cost spread on the list price is right now, and what one company (Dual) chose to pass along to consumers at this juncture. That's not what the actual unit cost differential is -- it's what Dual presumes consumers will pay to get the HD Radio feature.

And is probably more than the cost of putting HD radio into the sets, otherwise they wouldnt be doing it


Recall that the first production stereo TVs all cost substantially more than previous monophonic models, a lot more than $20 even on the successors to those "stereo ready" console models that already used two speakers. As production volumes ramped up, the cost differential reduced over time until the stereo capability became nothing more than just another commodified feature.

Its been awhile but I dont remember the cost being that much different, really



Also remember that the first standalone MTS decoders cost $200 ($350 in today's dollars) when they came out in 1984. Not much different than what you see right now with that $179 standalone Sangean tuner.

Heres the answer to your confusion, you're from another planet.
The dollar has lost AT LEAST three fourths of its value in the last twenty years,
and that is just the official, doctored stats from the govt.
Anything costing 200 bucks in 1984 bucks would be 800 in todays bucks, at least.
Electronics today are cheaper due to increased efficiencies and improved tech


Price points on midlevel receivers have been inching up over the last three years to begin with. Satellite radio tuners, networking features, and video processing have bumped up the price points on the midlevel models anywhere from $200 to $400. As more of them add HD Radio tuners, I doubt that the price points will get bumped up much further, since those other functions are now more commodified and trickling down into the entry level models.

Prices wont be "bumped" much further because in the future only stripped models will be sold, because thats all that will be able to be sold.
RETAILERS ARE HURTING BADLY NOW, MUCH MORE than has been let on,
with food and gas and other nessesaries soaring through the roof, a car stereo is going to be waaaay down on the list



Plus, it's easier to absorb that kind of cost on an item that sells for more than $1,000 versus something that lists for $170 (and sells for $100). If more and more manufacturers add HD Radio tuners to their receivers, the remaining manufacturers won't exclude the feature just to save a few bucks. Same thing happened when DTS, DD EX, and Pro Logic II came onto the market. The processors incorporating those formats added to the material and licensing costs, but receiver manufacturers absorbed those costs because those costs were nothing compared to the potential loss in market share as consumers went with receivers that did add those features.

This is econ 101, so whats your point?

You are saying that HD will be added to radios, and that others will add them just to keep up.
This presumes that HD will catch on, something that hasnt happened yet.
Thing is, you are limited by the number of stations with HD, with sat radio you have a lot more choices.
And for the home there is internet radio, cable, etc.
I get 40 channels over cable commercial free that beats the pants off of HD, and did I mention they are connercial free? :1:

Woochifer
04-30-2008, 11:02 AM
Were you alive back then, or asleep?
RCA, (and all of its subsideraries) dropped DBX, and adopted a much cheaper alternative
that had even less channel seperation than the DBX version.
DVX and ZENITH had a liscense for "their" solution to mts decoding, but the govt couldnt force anyone to pay liscensing fees to anyone for something they had to have due to govt regulation.
I WAS THERE, SAW THE SETS IN THE FRIGGIN STORES, read the reviews in the magazines, RCA DIDNT use dbx, didnt put the dbx trademark on their sets.
EVER.
And saved a ton of money in the process

Oh I was very much following the development of stereo TV back then. Some of the details seem to have been lost on you obviously, since your grasp of the facts seems to have ended with whatever you saw in the stores. You were there, right -- like you were in the RCA factories and board rooms when they were selecting their supplier vendors? :rolleyes:

Like I said, there were multiple suppliers for the decoding circuits that came into the market, but the basic encode/decode process was licensed by Zenith and dbx, whether that trademark was on the box or not. Even if RCA opted for a cheaper solution, the noise reduction built into the MTS standard was still a dbx process and required a royalty payment somewhere along the way, whether that was paid directly by RCA or by whatever supplier vendor they chose to procure the stereo decoding circuitry. The dbx patent was still in effect when the MTS standard was adopted, so every TV sold with MTS stereo required a royalty payment to dbx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multichannel_television_sound

The govt. didn't force anyone to pay the royalties, since manufacturers that didn't want to pay those royalties could simply opt not to make stereo TVs. The FCC approves standards with proprietary technologies all the time, just look at communications standards like HD Radio and even Wi-Fi -- all of them have some form of a patent pool that requires royalty payments. The FCC can choose to approve one standard like they did with stereo TV and HDTV, or they can choose to approve all of them like they did with the disastrous AM stereo formats (a tuner capable of playing all four AM stereo formats had to license the decoders from four different consortia, one of many reasons why AM stereo failed).


Its been awhile but I dont remember the cost being that much different, really

The prices were very different, because the first sets with MTS stereo were the higher end models. The Sony console TVs added about $100 when those models were updated to include the MTS decoder. There were no other changes to account for that cost increase since the previous year's models were "stereo ready" with multiple speakers and built-in audio inputs for outboard stereo TV decoders. The price differential was about that much for smaller TVs as well, partly because those TVs had to change from one speaker to multiple speakers.


Heres the answer to your confusion, you're from another planet.
The dollar has lost AT LEAST three fourths of its value in the last twenty years,
and that is just the official, doctored stats from the govt.
Anything costing 200 bucks in 1984 bucks would be 800 in todays bucks, at least.

I might be from a different planet than you, but my planet is Earth, not so sure about yours! The inflation numbers I'm quoting are from the UNITED STATES, which is a nation on PLANET EARTH. Your dollars obviously come from a different source than the ones that I spend! :dita:

http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm


Electronics today are cheaper due to increased efficiencies and improved tech

Sure, but the spending power of a dollar has little to do with productivity increases in one industry segment.


Prices wont be "bumped" much further because in the future only stripped models will be sold, because thats all that will be able to be sold.

There's no need to bump up the price points because they have already gone up. The price points in the HT receiver market had held steady for nearly a decade until manufacturers began adding satellite radio, networking, and video processing features over the last few years. Those features have bumped up the price points on the midlevel receivers by at least $200.

The midlevel market will always be there because the laundry list of features that some consumers are willing to pay for will continue to expand. Manufacturers can afford to add new features like HD Radio because the unit costs on other features like satellite radio will continue to decline as those functions get integrated into multifunction circuits. Basic DD and DTS decoding used to be done on separate chips from the DSP functions, now they are all combined onto one chip, which reduces the unit cost.


RETAILERS ARE HURTING BADLY NOW, MUCH MORE than has been let on,
with food and gas and other nessesaries soaring through the roof, a car stereo is going to be waaaay down on the list

Actually, the market for aftermarket car stereos ($2.4 billion in 2006) is more than double (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6319031.html) that for home audio components ($1.1 billion). This is why the mobile market matters more for HD Radio, since that sales tally doesn't even include factory-installed OEM systems.


You are saying that HD will be added to radios, and that others will add them just to keep up.
This presumes that HD will catch on, something that hasnt happened yet.

It's already catching on in the car audio market. Satellite radio didn't make its way into home audio components until XM and Sirius successfully penetrated the mobile market and became a factory-installed option on new cars, and HD Radio will likely follow a similar progression. They got Ford, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes, Mini, Scion, and Volvo already on board.


Thing is, you are limited by the number of stations with HD, with sat radio you have a lot more choices.

Already got over 1,200 stations broadcasting in HD Radio, and each of those stations can multicast up to five simultaneous feeds onto a single frequency.


And for the home there is internet radio, cable, etc.
I get 40 channels over cable commercial free that beats the pants off of HD, and did I mention they are connercial free? :1:

But, unlike cable or satellite radio, once you buy your tuner the content itself is free (and currently, most of the multicast channels are also running commercial free), and unlike satellite radio, you don't have to pay separate activation and monthly changes with each additional radio.

pixelthis
04-30-2008, 11:48 PM
Not getting into another long drawn out debate with a hardheaded type who refuses to pay attention.
No I wasnt on "RCA'S boards deciding things, but it was pretty much public knowledge ,
and in every review of an RCA product I read, they came up with a way to exclude DBX,
used a stereo solution that had even worse channel seperation than the DBX chip,
and saved them a ton of money,
THIS WAS PRETTY MUCH PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME.
You had to pay a liscense fee if you used dbx, but RCA didnt use DBX,
didnt put it on their sets, or IN them.
And as for the dollar, do some research, my estimate was fudged from the actual,
truth is, the dollar has probably lost more than 3/4 of its value in the last twenty
years.
WHEN GAS recently went up the papers reported that it was, after inflation, THE SAME AS 1980.
In 1980 it was a dollar or so, now its three plus.
:1:

Woochifer
05-01-2008, 07:18 AM
Not getting into another long drawn out debate with a hardheaded type who refuses to pay attention.
No I wasnt on "RCA'S boards deciding things, but it was pretty much public knowledge ,
and in every review of an RCA product I read, they came up with a way to exclude DBX,
used a stereo solution that had even worse channel seperation than the DBX chip,
and saved them a ton of money,
THIS WAS PRETTY MUCH PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME.

If it's public knowledge, then how come that Wikipedia citation makes no mention of this? It indicates that all analog stereo TVs included a royalty payment to dbx -- the exclusions would be those using digital solutions. This supports my recollection of the articles I read at that time indicating Zenith/dbx supplied their own processing circuits to other manufacturers, and other licensees sold their own lower cost MTS decoding boards to OEMs as well. Just because you don't see the Zenith/dbx trademark on the TV doesn't mean that Zenith/dbx weren't collecting a royalty payment at some juncture.


And as for the dollar, do some research, my estimate was fudged from the actual,
truth is, the dollar has probably lost more than 3/4 of its value in the last twenty
years.
WHEN GAS recently went up the papers reported that it was, after inflation, THE SAME AS 1980.
In 1980 it was a dollar or so, now its three plus.
:1:

"fudged" is the operative term here, because you seem to be pulling those numbers out of your back side! I'll admit that my inflation figure was off -- a 1984 dollar is now worth $2.09 rather than my rounded figure of $1.75, a variance of 19%. But, of course, you were claiming that a 1984 dollar was worth 4x what it's now worth , which means that you were only off by about 92%! :lol:

And BTW, a 1980 dollar is now worth $2.59, not more than triple; and a 1988 dollar (which actually comes from 20 years ago) is now worth $1.80. These numbers come straight out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator, so I've done my research. Should be amusing to see what angle you take to perpetuate your "dollar has lost 3/4 of its value in the last 20 years" myth! I'll gladly correct myself when I erroneously report something, but the waiting game is now on to see how you spin and fuzzymath and outright lie yourself out of this one -- this should be fun! :thumbsup:

Y'know you can still truthfully claim that your 4x inflation is correct by telling us which planet you're actually from! After all, my facts and figures seem to more grounded in Earth-bound reality, and you're the one claiming to be from a different planet than me. C'mon, are you from within this solar system, or another one within the Andromeda Galaxy? Or gosh, did you actually traverse multiple galaxies to grace this board with your unintentional comedy? We gots to know! :devil:

pixelthis
05-01-2008, 10:02 PM
If it's public knowledge, then how come that Wikipedia citation makes no mention of this? It indicates that all analog stereo TVs included a royalty payment to dbx -- the exclusions would be those using digital solutions. This supports my recollection of the articles I read at that time indicating Zenith/dbx supplied their own processing circuits to other manufacturers, and other licensees sold their own lower cost MTS decoding boards to OEMs as well. Just because you don't see the Zenith/dbx trademark on the TV doesn't mean that Zenith/dbx weren't collecting a royalty payment at some juncture.



"fudged" is the operative term here, because you seem to be pulling those numbers out of your back side! I'll admit that my inflation figure was off -- a 1984 dollar is now worth $2.09 rather than my rounded figure of $1.75, a variance of 19%. But, of course, you were claiming that a 1984 dollar was worth 4x what it's now worth , which means that you were only off by about 92%! :lol:

And BTW, a 1980 dollar is now worth $2.59, not more than triple; and a 1988 dollar (which actually comes from 20 years ago) is now worth $1.80. These numbers come straight out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator, so I've done my research. Should be amusing to see what angle you take to perpetuate your "dollar has lost 3/4 of its value in the last 20 years" myth! I'll gladly correct myself when I erroneously report something, but the waiting game is now on to see how you spin and fuzzymath and outright lie yourself out of this one -- this should be fun! :thumbsup:

Y'know you can still truthfully claim that your 4x inflation is correct by telling us which planet you're actually from! After all, my facts and figures seem to more grounded in Earth-bound reality, and you're the one claiming to be from a different planet than me. C'mon, are you from within this solar system, or another one within the Andromeda Galaxy? Or gosh, did you actually traverse multiple galaxies to grace this board with your unintentional comedy? We gots to know! :devil:

Beleive it or not "Wikipedia" is not the end all be all of knowledge.
Its whatever someone wants to put into it, and its quite limited..
Typical of this board, I WAS THERE.
I saw the TV 'S, you think I am making this up? Why would I?
NOW memory fades, but I remember this paticular incident because of the outrage I felt
at the time, another case of RCA going for the lowest common denominator.
We had a fight to get a stereo standard, broadcasters fought it tooth and nail,
and heres RCA coming out with something that just about negated having stereo sound,
so typical of RCA, the guys who came out with a videodisc system with a stylus

AND the other thing in my life besides HT and audio is economics and world events,
If you dont know about the massive inflation that we;ve been sufferring from for awhile now you need to read up, and not just "govt" sources.
You must be a liberal, they dont understand that the govt lies as a matter of policy.
Again I was THERE, trust me the dollar has lost at least 3/4 of its value since the 80's,
if you had lived in the eighties you'd understand that.
If you did live in the 80's and dont know that, you need to pay more attention:nono:

Woochifer
05-03-2008, 11:21 AM
Beleive it or not "Wikipedia" is not the end all be all of knowledge.
Its whatever someone wants to put into it, and its quite limited..
Typical of this board, I WAS THERE.
I saw the TV 'S, you think I am making this up? Why would I?

Sure, you passed through some TV stores -- yuh, you were there! :rolleyes: The only TVs that actually had the dbx trademark on the box came from Zenith (and maybe Mitsubishi). Sony never had a dbx trademark on the box, but their product manuals had dbx in the copyrights. Like I said, just because dbx wasn't on the box doesn't mean that it wasn't inside, and the Wiki article supports my recollection of the facts.


AND the other thing in my life besides HT and audio is economics and world events,
If you dont know about the massive inflation that we;ve been sufferring from for awhile now you need to read up, and not just "govt" sources.

Uh, weren't you the one that claimed that your "3/4 loss of value" came from the govt sources? I simply called your bluff and exposed your nonsense for the lies that they were -- I guess you knowledge of economics and world events is just as lacking as your grasp on HT and audio topics! :dita:


You must be a liberal, they dont understand that the govt lies as a matter of policy.

What does politics have to do me citing fact (and corrected my original calculation), and you making crap up? You claiming to be a libertarian has nothing to do with you being a liar. You're just a liar because you lie! You got caught in one YET AGAIN, so own up to it and move on. On second thought, just keep doing what you're doing -- poking holes in your balloons is riotous fun! :thumbsup:


Again I was THERE, trust me the dollar has lost at least 3/4 of its value since the 80's,

Right, we should trust YOU because you know better than the professionals who actually compile the data and work with this stuff for a living! Y'know, those professionals who publish the govt figures that you originally said supported your claim? :rolleyes:

Your persistence just illustrates your total ignorance of how the CPI is actually calculated -- it's based on the totality of how consumers spend money in all categories, not just on a single category like energy or consumer electronics. I work with the Consumer Expenditure Survey data used to compute the inflation rate all the time, so I know how laboriously documented and open the data is. A single CES cross-tabulation of the full dataset for all expenditure categories is more than 200 pages long. All of the error rates and deviations are stated up front, and any data not meeting their statistical significance thresholds is clearly indicated. How do I know this? Because I actually work with the data, dude.

The BLS statisticians in D.C. will happily answer any questions you might have if you think there's some conspiracy behind the numbers. I know because I've actually TALKED to them about questions I had about their data's confidence intervals, error rates, confidentiality thresholds, etc. Y'know, like I WAS THERE! :lol:

If you still think the dollar has lost 3/4 of its value in the last 20 years, you need to start spending U.S. currency.

pixelthis
05-03-2008, 08:31 PM
Sure, you passed through some TV stores -- yuh, you were there! :rolleyes: The only TVs that actually had the dbx trademark on the box came from Zenith (and maybe Mitsubishi). Sony never had a dbx trademark on the box, but their product manuals had dbx in the copyrights. Like I said, just because dbx wasn't on the box doesn't mean that it wasn't inside, and the Wiki article supports my recollection of the facts.



Uh, weren't you the one that claimed that your "3/4 loss of value" came from the govt sources? I simply called your bluff and exposed your nonsense for the lies that they were -- I guess you knowledge of economics and world events is just as lacking as your grasp on HT and audio topics! :dita:



What does politics have to do me citing fact (and corrected my original calculation), and you making crap up? You claiming to be a libertarian has nothing to do with you being a liar. You're just a liar because you lie! You got caught in one YET AGAIN, so own up to it and move on. On second thought, just keep doing what you're doing -- poking holes in your balloons is riotous fun! :thumbsup:



Right, we should trust YOU because you know better than the professionals who actually compile the data and work with this stuff for a living! Y'know, those professionals who publish the govt figures that you originally said supported your claim? :rolleyes:

Your persistence just illustrates your total ignorance of how the CPI is actually calculated -- it's based on the totality of how consumers spend money in all categories, not just on a single category like energy or consumer electronics. I work with the Consumer Expenditure Survey data used to compute the inflation rate all the time, so I know how laboriously documented and open the data is. A single CES cross-tabulation of the full dataset for all expenditure categories is more than 200 pages long. All of the error rates and deviations are stated up front, and any data not meeting their statistical significance thresholds is clearly indicated. How do I know this? Because I actually work with the data, dude.

The BLS statisticians in D.C. will happily answer any questions you might have if you think there's some conspiracy behind the numbers. I know because I've actually TALKED to them about questions I had about their data's confidence intervals, error rates, confidentiality thresholds, etc. Y'know, like I WAS THERE! :lol:

If you still think the dollar has lost 3/4 of its value in the last 20 years, you need to start spending U.S. currency.



I am spending more and more, because its lost three fourths of its value in the last 20 odd
years, and if you get off the beltway and do some real research you'll discover that
that is an optimistic estimate.
Even govt types have to admit that the dollar has lost NINETY PERCENT of its value
since 1945.
When I was a kid in the sixties you had to put a nickel and two pennies in a drink machine, drinks were seven cents, candy bars were a nickel.
Of course you will never admit to the greatest theft in history, since you are an acomplice after the fact, either that or grossly incompetent.
Tell people spending six bucks for a burger and fries that the dollar hasnt lost serious value,
or 3.60 for a gallon of gas.
I SUPPOSE YOU ALSO follow the party line that prices rise because of other factors besides printing worthless money.
THERE ARE FLUCTUATIONS in various commodties sure, but across the board inflation has always been caused by one thing, printing worthless paper money backed up by nothing.
Happened in Germany in the twenties, argentia a few back, and is happening NOW in this country.
AND YOU KNOW IT.
Several hundred billion to bail out this or that crooked bank or brokerage, its only ones and zeros in a computer, right?
THERE are 400 TRILLION in derivatives out there, it will NEVER be paid, nethier will the
300 BILLION due every year on social "security", or the 50 trillion plus the govt owes.
I dont need one of the policy wonks who helped lead us into this disaster and helped loot what was once the greatest country on earth by cooking the books for the crooks
in order to cover up their actions to preach to ME that I dont know what I am talking about
just because I am telling the truth.
Of course working in the beltway you probably forgot what the TRUTH was a long time
ago.
my only consolation is that you will be starving along with the rest of us when the last
lender closes his window and the dollar becomes worth its REAL value, which is what a small piece of paper is worth that is even too small to wipe your butt on :1:

Woochifer
05-04-2008, 10:42 AM
I am spending more and more, because its lost three fourths of its value in the last 20 odd
years, and if you get off the beltway and do some real research you'll discover that
that is an optimistic estimate.

Just won't let go of the lie, will you? How typical. :rolleyes:

You claimed that the GOVERNMENT numbers supported your assertion of the dollar losing 3/4 of its value. That was a lie, and you got caught. Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't change that, no matter how quickly you try to spin it and change the subject.

Besides, if you actually believe that everything now costs 4X more than 20 years ago, maybe you should try shopping at different stores. Aside from gas and concert tickets, there's nothing I buy right now -- food, clothing, car insurance, electronics, hardware, household items, etc. -- that costs 4X what I paid back in 1988.


Even govt types have to admit that the dollar has lost NINETY PERCENT of its value
since 1945.

Ah, but we're not talking about what happened since 1945. You're the one making crap up about what has happened over the past 20 years. Putting your fuzzy math to the test (i.e., 1945 dollar value is 10X greater and 1988 dollar value 4X greater than 2008 dollars), you are therefore claiming that the annual inflation rate between 1945 and 1988 averaged only 2.2%, but increased to 7.2% between 1988 and 2008, right? Somehow, I don't think that economists are scrambling to rewrite their textbooks in response to this laughable claim! :thumbsup:

So I guess, by your bizarro world standards, the inflation of the last 20 years eclipses anything that happened during the postwar years and the 1970s! Oh yeah, that's right we're all doomed! :rolleyes:


Of course you will never admit to the greatest theft in history, since you are an acomplice after the fact, either that or grossly incompetent.

Accomplice after the fact? You really need to change your prescription or try a different street vendor, because whatever meds you're on -- they ain't workin'! :p


Tell people spending six bucks for a burger and fries that the dollar hasnt lost serious value,

Let's see. I just paid $2.79 for a Big Mac. That same Big Mac certainly did not cost $.70 back in 1988 (actually closer to $1.50 back then). Of course the dollar has lost value over the past 20 years, just not the 3/4 loss that you keep repeating. Of course, you'll still desperately keep repeating this 3/4 loss nonsense because you're incapable of ever admitting that only the conspiratorial voices in your head support these numbers.


THERE ARE FLUCTUATIONS in various commodties sure, but across the board inflation has always been caused by one thing, printing worthless paper money backed up by nothing.
Happened in Germany in the twenties, argentia a few back, and is happening NOW in this country.
AND YOU KNOW IT.

Yet, the U.S. monetary policy over the past 20 years has been geared around curtailing inflation by raising interest rates, even at the expense of slowing down GDP growth.


Several hundred billion to bail out this or that crooked bank or brokerage, its only ones and zeros in a computer, right?
THERE are 400 TRILLION in derivatives out there, it will NEVER be paid, nethier will the
300 BILLION due every year on social "security", or the 50 trillion plus the govt owes.

So, what does this have to do with your lying about the inflation data? Nothing. Just more nonsensical rants to cover for the previous nonsense that got oh-so-easily debunked.

Oh, and BTW, the federal debt now totals $9.5 trillion, not the "50 trillion plus" you pulled out of your mathematically challenged backside. :Yawn:


I dont need one of the policy wonks who helped lead us into this disaster and helped loot what was once the greatest country on earth by cooking the books for the crooks
in order to cover up their actions to preach to ME that I dont know what I am talking about
just because I am telling the truth.

The statisticians in the BLS aren't the policy wonks -- they collect and report the data. What politicos choose to do with that data is another story altogether. Given how above board the documentation in the BLS reports is (which you wouldn't know, since you obviously don't read them before attacking them), I certainly trust the BLS statisticians a lot more than a paranoid liar like you with a questionable grasp of reality, and who'd rather just keep arguing that correct himself when caught in a lie.


Of course working in the beltway you probably forgot what the TRUTH was a long time
ago.

I don't work in the beltway, and you certainly don't remember anything about the truth, since your posts are continually bereft of it.


my only consolation is that you will be starving along with the rest of us when the last
lender closes his window and the dollar becomes worth its REAL value, which is what a small piece of paper is worth that is even too small to wipe your butt on :1:

Just a butt reference? How disappointing. I thought you'd at least try to weave yet another crack ho or wife or mother reference into your diversionary rants! You're losing it, even your doomsday whining is getting weak! :lol:

pixelthis
05-04-2008, 10:14 PM
The dollar on average has lost 4% value every year for decades, including the last twenty years.
Thats an eighty percent loss in twenty years.
LETS UNDERSTATE the case, say the average was three percent.
That is a sixty percent loss in twenty years.
Actually, the loss has probably been more than four percent a year, on average.
And since you live in DC I wont presume to know more about crack ho's than you,
especially the ones in congress.
I certainly know more about high school math, tho. :1:

bobsticks
05-05-2008, 02:30 AM
How much was the super computer that you used to communicate with twenty years ago? How big was it? What percentage of your rearly income did your automobile constitute? And, the fuel for it? How about food?

Using static dollars to compare relative worth of CPI items compared to inflation can be a bit deceiving Pix as it doesn't include for qualitative increases in utility. Whatever slackjawed, whiskey-jar-in-the-drawer journalist wrote the article that convinced you that the sky is falling couldn't interperate numbers very well.

And, to draw it all back, a few million dollars per line of receivers isn't anything for the big boys. They'll spend that on parking lot renovation at a single warehouse.

markw
05-05-2008, 05:48 AM
In many cases while the dollar may loose absolute value, what it actually buys can sometimes improve in value.

Back in Jr High school in the mid 60's I bought a mediocre 6 wpc Lafayette LA-224A stereo tube amp for $60.

Using 1965 as a reference, that $60 today would rough out to about $400 for a similar item. I can buy a LOT with $400 today. I can get a stereo receiver that's rated (loosely, I'm sure) at 100 wpc for about $100, but I'm pretty sure it will outperform that little amp, plus it has a tuner as well.

Fwiw, $60 today would translate to about $9.32 in 1965 dollars.

Woochifer
05-05-2008, 09:42 AM
The dollar on average has lost 4% value every year for decades, including the last twenty years.
Thats an eighty percent loss in twenty years.

Spoken like the math flunky that you are! :2:

In calculating a change amount over 20 years based on an annual growth/loss rate, you don't just take 4% and multiply it by 20 years! By your calculations, a dollar becomes worthless in 25 years and attains a negative value by year 26?! Can't get a basic financial calculation straight, and you expect us to believe that you know more about the inflation rate than the BLS statisticians? :lol:

In case you don't know (and it's obvious you don't), an annual loss reduces your principal every year, and you have to reapply the 4% based on the reduced value. If you use the actual formula for calculating an annually compounded growth rate, -4% multiplied by 20 years will give you a value of $0.44, not $0.20. In this case, the variance between the correct value and your cluelessness is 120% ... D'OH! And you were so close to being off by less than twofold!

I actually thought you were lying about the federal CPI numbers you were quoting. I guess I gave you too much credit! Turns out you were just too stupid to interpret them correctly! :D


LETS UNDERSTATE the case, say the average was three percent.
That is a sixty percent loss in twenty years.

Nope. A -3% annual loss will give you a dollar value of $0.54 at the end of 20 years.


Actually, the loss has probably been more than four percent a year, on average.

Strike three! Back to remedial math for you -- you obviously ain't ready for advanced concepts like decimals and exponents. :cool:

In order for the dollar to lose 80% of its value over 20 years, you'd need an inflation rate of more than 7.7% and the only people who seems to think that the CPI has been at that level over the past 20 years are mathematically-challenged chicken littles like you! :out:


And since you live in DC I wont presume to know more about crack ho's than you,
especially the ones in congress.

Well, you're the one that keeps bringing crack hos into the conversation, so I've always deferred to your expertise on that subject! And I see that your reading comprehension is as waning as ever ... where on my user profile does it say that I live in D.C.?


I certainly know more about high school math, tho. :1:

Not if your grasp of anything beyond basic arithmetic is as pathetic as you've demonstrated here! :crazy:

Groundbeef
05-05-2008, 10:16 AM
I've always been suspect of Pix's math ability since an earlier run-in about "Free" movies with a BR player.

Because the movies were "Free" Pix felt justified in subtracting the "value" of the "free" movies from the total paid for the player.

$500 player
-$150 FREE MOVIES
________

Hence he only "pays" $350 for the BR player.

Now that's funny math!

Woochifer
05-05-2008, 11:38 AM
How much was the super computer that you used to communicate with twenty years ago? How big was it? What percentage of your rearly income did your automobile constitute? And, the fuel for it? How about food?

Yup, that's why the CPI is a composite index based on all consumer spending categories. Some categories will increase at faster rates than others. If you're interested in seeing the actual consumer expenditure distribution, here's the summary file link.

http://stats.bls.gov/cex/csxann05.pdf

The more detailed 200+ page cross-tabulations that I mentioned earlier, you'll need to e-mail the BLS staff because at that level of detail some of the data doesn't meet their reporting standards. Lots of very interesting stuff, all the way down to the level of how much people annually spend on audio equipment versus video equipment.


Using static dollars to compare relative worth of CPI items compared to inflation can be a bit deceiving Pix as it doesn't include for qualitative increases in utility. Whatever slackjawed, whiskey-jar-in-the-drawer journalist wrote the article that convinced you that the sky is falling couldn't interperate numbers very well.

Well, I don't think there's any journalist at fault if you look at how Pix calculates the inflation rate without compounding it annually.


Using 1965 as a reference, that $60 today would rough out to about $400 for a similar item. I can buy a LOT with $400 today. I can get a stereo receiver that's rated (loosely, I'm sure) at 100 wpc for about $100, but I'm pretty sure it will outperform that little amp, plus it has a tuner as well.

Agree. Always interesting when audiophiles pining for the good ole days talk about how much better built their $600 receivers from the mid-70s were compared to the $600 receivers of today. Considering that inflation-adjusting $600 from the mid-70s now gives you over $2,200 worth of purchasing power, I'm sure someone can find a contemporary component that plays to their satisfaction for that budget.


Fwiw, $60 today would translate to about $9.32 in 1965 dollars.

Ah, but according to Pix you're not to be trusted and therefore part of some global criminal enterprise because you're using the federal CPI figures! :cool:


've always been suspect of Pix's math ability since an earlier run-in about "Free" movies with a BR player.

Because the movies were "Free" Pix felt justified in subtracting the "value" of the "free" movies from the total paid for the player.

$500 player
-$150 FREE MOVIES
________

Hence he only "pays" $350 for the BR player.

Now that's funny math!

I'm sure that was the explanation he used when his credit card went over the $500 limit. :ihih:

pixelthis
05-06-2008, 01:24 AM
What a lot forget about in figuring inflation is the increase in productivity.
Some things are cheaper, but thats the point, they ARE CHEAPER.
More cheaply made usually.
And market chicanery also plays a role.
THE PRICE OF OIL WAS PEGGED TO THE DOLLAR FOREVER, NOW THATS NO LONGER THE CASE, and we pay a more realistic price as a result.
THE real theft that goes unseen by printing funny money is the increase in productivity that is eaten up by this. that theft is not seen.
Electronics have gotten way cheaper, but thats about it.
I PAID 9 GRAND FOR A MUSTANG IN 1988, it would cost you over 20 grand today with the same options.
And I COULD GO ON AND ON.
WONKS like "wooch" admit that the inflation rate is aroung 3 to 4 % a year.
Then they turn around and DENY that 4% a year over 20 years is EIGHTY PERCENT,
which is simple math.
But you think that is something? We are rediculously deep in debt, and the printing of funny money to pay it has commenced, no amount of productivity will keep up with
that
In other words, GET READY FOR THE BIG ONE BABY :1:

Woochifer
05-06-2008, 01:14 PM
What a lot forget about in figuring inflation is the increase in productivity.
Some things are cheaper, but thats the point, they ARE CHEAPER.
More cheaply made usually.
And market chicanery also plays a role.
THE PRICE OF OIL WAS PEGGED TO THE DOLLAR FOREVER, NOW THATS NO LONGER THE CASE, and we pay a more realistic price as a result.

All this ranting, and you still can't come up with a source that supports your assertion that the dollar has lost 80% since 1988! Good luck trying to find them $2 candy bars, $15 gallons of milk, and $8 Big Macs! :lol:


I PAID 9 GRAND FOR A MUSTANG IN 1988, it would cost you over 20 grand today with the same options.

Let's see ...

20k/9k = 2.22

If the dollar lost 80% of its value since 1988 as you claim, then a Mustang should actually cost $45k. Maybe it would help you if you could actually come up with an example that supports YOUR conclusion rather than MINE! Or better yet, learn how to use a calculator before posting more nonsense like this... :cool:


WONKS like "wooch" admit that the inflation rate is aroung 3 to 4 % a year. Then they turn around and DENY that 4% a year over 20 years is EIGHTY PERCENT,

I see that you're now back to lying, now that your stupidity has been exposed yet again. :2: Must suck for you to be such an easy target for anyone with at least a junior high school diploma!

Where did I ever deny that the annual inflation rate was around 3 to 4%? That's a low inflation rate compared to the double digit rates from the late-70s. The difference between our numbers is that I know how to correctly compound a growth rate over 20 years, YOU DON'T! And like I said, a 4% inflation rate would give you a 1988 dollar equivalency of $0.44, which is losing just over half of its value, not 80%. Only if the inflation rate goes over 7.7% would the dollar lose 80% of its value in 20 years as you keep desperately claiming.

Of course I'll deny your laughably idiotic 4% x 20 years = 80% calculation because applied to a 20-year annualized change rate, your calculation is flatout WRONG! Anyone passing a high school exit test would know that an annual rate of change has to be compounded annually (i.e., the correct formula for an annual change rate is $1 x (1+(-4.0%))^20 years). Are you saying that a dollar attains a negative value starting in year 26? Just because you finally mastered a 4th grade multiplication table doesn't mean that you know squat about calculating change rates over time.



which is simple math.

Too bad simple math remains an oh so elusive concept for you!

Someone out there would love to be your creditor. With deficient math skills like these, you'd get fleeced to no end! :D


But you think that is something? We are rediculously deep in debt, and the printing of funny money to pay it has commenced, no amount of productivity will keep up with
that
In other words, GET READY FOR THE BIG ONE BABY :1:

Right, we're all doomed Mr. Sunshine! :cool:

bobsticks
05-06-2008, 03:30 PM
.
... and we pay a more realistic price as a result.

Realistic for who? In Iran gas is 29 cents a gallon.

If the dollar was introduced in 1785 does that mean it's been devalued 1092% ???

pixelthis
05-07-2008, 12:11 AM
Realistic for who? In Iran gas is 29 cents a gallon.

If the dollar was introduced in 1785 does that mean it's been devalued 1092% ???

the federal reserve ( a private institution) was introduced in 1913.
First thing they did was turn on the printing presses, hence the roaring twenties,
second, they turned them OFF, hence the great depression.
Then Roosevelt signed over EVERYTHING in this country to them, including birth certificates, and they have been printing funny money every since, to pay for wars, social programs.
When Nixon finally closed the gold window our money finally in formality became
what it had been for decades, funny money script, backed by NOTHING.
All money backed by nothing eventually becomes worthless, usually destroying the
country in an economic inflationary death sprial, which speeds up as it goes along.
Thats where we are now, and wonk wooch knows it
No country on earth has ever had the self discipline to regulate money backed by nothing, they all collapsed, every one
We are nothing special :1:

pixelthis
05-07-2008, 12:43 AM
Woochifer]All this ranting, and you still can't come up with a source that supports your assertion that the dollar has lost 80% since 1988! Good luck trying to find them $2 candy bars, $15 gallons of milk, and $8 Big Macs! :lol:

Milk is subsidized, candy bars are getting close to 2.00, and you cant get out of a fast food joint without paying at least seven bucks

Let's see ...

20k/9k = 2.22


If the dollar lost 80% of its value since 1988 as you claim, then a Mustang should actually cost $45k. Maybe it would help you if you could actually come up with an example that supports YOUR conclusion rather than MINE! Or better yet, learn how to use a calculator before posting more nonsense like this... :cool:

They gave away a mustang on the price is right the other day, 45,000$
A plain jane with decent options costs a minium of 23,000, although you can get a stripped down one for 20,000, an increase of 11,000
An increase of over 50%, you can put the other 25% on increased productivity.
I could still get a soft drink twenty years ago for 50 cents, my last one cost 1.50 at a store, they are 1.25 in the machines where I work.
And I remember when the dollar bought 400 yen, today it buys 100, so dont try your rediculing to obfusticate the situation, you know I am not only right but probably understating things



I see that you're now back to lying, now that your stupidity has been exposed yet again. :2: Must suck for you to be such an easy target for anyone with at least a junior high school diploma!

In other words when you are shown to be an incompetent, one of many who have led us to the point of destruction, you resort to name calling.
The sad thing is that this is your JOB , and you either are an idiot or lying to cover
for your idiot friends in govt



Where did I ever deny that the annual inflation rate was around 3 to 4%? That's a low inflation rate compared to the double digit rates from the late-70s. The difference between our numbers is that I know how to correctly compound a growth rate over 20 years, YOU DON'T! And like I said, a 4% inflation rate would give you a 1988 dollar equivalency of $0.44, which is losing just over half of its value, not 80%. Only if the inflation rate goes over 7.7% would the dollar lose 80% of its value in 20 years as you keep desperately claiming.

you see, crap like this is what makes me want to cry, you actually post what a highschooler can see is complete stupidity and with such arrogance that its more pathetic
than sad.
Even if you "compounded" a growth rate, this is a loss rate we're talking about, ace.
You lose 4% one year, you dont start over, you lose 4% the next year.
And so on and so on.
Over twenty years an inflation rate of 4% will give you AN EIGHTY PERCENT LOSS.
You're saying that since the govt stole 4% last year the most they can steal the next
is 4% of 96%
WHAT you fail to see is that that 96% is a 100% of the value of the dollar, thats 100%
of its worth.
Chicanery like this allows book cookers like yourself to use semantics to cover up one of the biggest crimes in history

BUT whats really sad is that if I agree your twisted view of reality is
correct, that is still a loss of 56%!!!
I am arguing that you burnt down the house, you shoot back that the yard is left.
Some argument slick



Of course I'll deny your laughably idiotic 4% x 20 years = 80% calculation because applied to a 20-year annualized change rate, your calculation is flatout WRONG! Anyone passing a high school exit test would know that an annual rate of change has to be compounded annually (i.e., the correct formula for an annual change rate is $1 x (1+(-4.0%))^20 years). Are you saying that a dollar attains a negative value starting in year 26? Just because you finally mastered a 4th grade multiplication table doesn't mean that you know squat about calculating change rates over time.

BANKERS USE COMPOUND INTEREST to help them fleece their customers, compounding has nothing to do with this.
And the penny has already acheived a "negative" value, costs more to make one than its worth, soon the same will apply to a dollar bill



Too bad simple math remains an oh so elusive concept for you!

Too bad simple math is such an xray maching for book cookers such as yourself


Someone out there would love to be your creditor. With deficient math skills like these, you'd get fleeced to no end! :D

Someone out there would love to have a doublespeaking con artist like you working for them, hiding behind your BS they could loot a country...
AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED :1:



Right, we're all doomed Mr. Sunshine! :cool:

the first right thing you've said all day.
And when the collapse comes they will roll all three countries (mexico, usa, and CANADA)
INTO ONE COUNTRY, burn the constitution, issue "national" ID based on RFID,
and that will pretty much be it , the corpse of what was once a free country will
be dissected and torched, which was the ultimate plan in the first place.
And I will have that one over you, I wont have to look at myself in the mirror and admit that I helped to destroy what was once the greatest country in the world, by covering up the crime while it was taking place, on the other hand you're so clueless you're probably
just a "usefull idiot" as Marx would have said:1:

Woochifer
05-07-2008, 10:56 AM
the federal reserve ( a private institution) was introduced in 1913.
First thing they did was turn on the printing presses, hence the roaring twenties,
second, they turned them OFF, hence the great depression.
Then Roosevelt signed over EVERYTHING in this country to them, including birth certificates, and they have been printing funny money every since, to pay for wars, social programs.
When Nixon finally closed the gold window our money finally in formality became
what it had been for decades, funny money script, backed by NOTHING.
All money backed by nothing eventually becomes worthless, usually destroying the
country in an economic inflationary death sprial, which speeds up as it goes along.
Thats where we are now, and wonk wooch knows it
No country on earth has ever had the self discipline to regulate money backed by nothing, they all collapsed, every one
We are nothing special :1:

Diverting the subject as usual. Of course, if my math skills stopped developing after the 4th grade, I'd try to change the subject too!

Your reply still doesn't answer how your noncompounded rate of change results in a negative valuation after 26 years. So tell us, how do we spend negatively valued dollars? Is there someone out there compensating us for not spending money? :idea:


Milk is subsidized, candy bars are getting close to 2.00, and you cant get out of a fast food joint without paying at least seven bucks

Let's see ... the price of milk hasn't quintupled since 1988, and neither has the cost of a candy bar (just bought one for $0.80) or the price of a burger (that $1.50 Big Mac from 1988 doesn't cost $7.50 right now, nor does that $3 value meal from 1988 now cost $15). None of your examples hold up, dude! You gotta stop providing examples that support my points, if you want to actually look lucid and half-way coherent! :dita:



They gave away a mustang on the price is right the other day, 45,000$

Yuh, right now only the limited production Shelby model (that had no equivalent version in 1988) costs anywhere near $45k, which a far cry from that entry level model you bought in 1988. Try looking up an actual price list, rather than relying on daytime television for your remedial math education! The current top of the line GT hardtops go for $29k, while an equivalent GT model from 1988 would have set you back $14k. The $9k secretary's special that you were driving back in 1988 now costs about $20k. Again, neither example supports your quintupling 80% loss theory.


An increase of over 50%, you can put the other 25% on increased productivity.

Productivity increases are already factored into the CPI since it's an index that tracks what consumers actually spend money on.


I could still get a soft drink twenty years ago for 50 cents, my last one cost 1.50 at a store, they are 1.25 in the machines where I work.

Maybe if you're comparing a 12 oz can with a 20 oz bottle that would be true, but of course that's yet another distorted comparison on your part. The 16 oz. glass bottles back in 1988 were going for about $0.85 (I should know, because I worked part-time at a grocery store that year). My local 7-11 now sells the 20 oz sodas for $1.35 ... not even a doubling of the price for a larger bottle.


And I remember when the dollar bought 400 yen, today it buys 100, so dont try your rediculing to obfusticate the situation, you know I am not only right but probably understating things

Currency flutuations aren't the subject at hand. Unless you're a currency trader, or everything you buy comes from Japan, a single currency comparison does not single-handedly dictate your purchasing power.


In other words when you are shown to be an incompetent, one of many who have led us to the point of destruction, you resort to name calling.
The sad thing is that this is your JOB , and you either are an idiot or lying to cover
for your idiot friends in govt

In other words, pix is saying "WAAAAHHHHH!!!!" :rolleyes:

The truth hurts, doesn't it? You've been exposed as a liar and an idiot. No need to also be a crybaby over it. And you having a problem with someone who name calls? That's funny! :cool:

Even some incompetent govt bureaucrat would have to pass a civil service exam. You can't even get that far! (BTW, I work in the private sector, so your presumptions about other posters as usual are flat out wrong)


you see, crap like this is what makes me want to cry, you actually post what a highschooler can see is complete stupidity and with such arrogance that its more pathetic
than sad.

Problem is that you haven't yet attained the math competency of a high schooler! :lol:

What you perceive as arrogance is simply me giving you the correct answer, Einstein. I guess that's why you never learned anything -- you don't want to, and lash out at anyone who actually knows what they're doing! This was probably a typical reaction whenever a teacher marked up one of your flunky exams.


Even if you "compounded" a growth rate, this is a loss rate we're talking about, ace.

Growth rate can be a negative value, but the term that I've been correctly using is "rate of change." The thing that cannot be a negative is the absolute value of a currency, which your sub-simple math presumes is possible.


You lose 4% one year, you dont start over, you lose 4% the next year.
And so on and so on.
Over twenty years an inflation rate of 4% will give you AN EIGHTY PERCENT LOSS.

And by your peabrain math, over 30 years an inflation rate of 4% will give you a 120 percent loss, and over 40 years an inflation rate of 4% will give you a 160% loss! :idea: So, tell us again how people are supposed to spend negative dollars? :thumbsup:


You're saying that since the govt stole 4% last year the most they can steal the next
is 4% of 96%

Aside from your lame conspiracy whining, the math itself is correct, presumably because it came from me! Using an annualized rate of growth, the principal amount gets readjusted every year.


WHAT you fail to see is that that 96% is a 100% of the value of the dollar, thats 100%
of its worth.

Not if you assume that your principal amount stays constant over that 20 year period. If you lock in the annual loss as an absolute value of $0.04 (4% of the original $1 principal) and average that out over 20 years, then your rate of change increases from -4% in year 1 to over -16% by year 20.

If you lock in the annual rate of change at -4%, then the rate of change remains constant, but the annual loss in absolute value decreases from $0.04 in year 1 to $0.018 in year 20.

If you insist on locking in the end value at $0.20 and using a constant rate of change, then you have to assume the rate of change at -7.7% in order to reach that target amount by year 20. And a 7.7 inflation rate is way above what you've been claiming.

This is simply for the record, since you got plenty of other grade levels you haven't cleared yet in order to understand any of this!


Chicanery like this allows book cookers like yourself to use semantics to cover up one of the biggest crimes in history

The only crime here is the lack of synaptic activity in that head of yours! If you regard basic math rules as "semantics" then you're even more of an idiot than I ever suspected.


BUT whats really sad is that if I agree your twisted view of reality is
correct, that is still a loss of 56%!!!

And that would be closer to the actual reality than your warped interpretation. The actual loss value based on the CPI from 1988 is 44%, which means that the actual inflation rate during this period actually averaged less than 4%.

The difference between the 80% loss that you claim and the 56% loss that I calculated is much greater than a simple difference of 34 percentage points. This comparison calculation illustrates the magnitude of your idiocy

1 (assumed 2008 dollar value)/0.44 (assumed 1988 dollar value @ -4% annual rate of change) = 2.27

1 (assumed 2008 dollar value)/0.2 (assumed 1988 dollar value using pix's 4th grade multiplication tables) = 5

This means that by applying your fuzzy math rather than the correct math, the dollar value you're calculating is actually 220% off from the correct value!


I am arguing that you burnt down the house, you shoot back that the yard is left.
Some argument slick

Looks like arguing's all you got left, since your math skills obviously aren't taking you anywhere! :Yawn:


BANKERS USE COMPOUND INTEREST to help them fleece their customers, compounding has nothing to do with this.

Compounding a rate of change is used for a lot more than just financials, not that you'd know. Any kind of measure that uses an annualized rate of change, whether you're talking money or jobs or population, will use a compounded rate.

Actually, you should be thankful that your bank is compounding the interest (that is if you even qualify for credit in the first place). A compounded rate of change equation is the only way to account for the fact that the principal in any time series growth trend calculation is not constant from year to year. Otherwise you can wind up with mathematical impossibilities like negative current dollars or negative jobs or negative population.

Using your calculations and not readjusting the principal as it gets paid down every year, your creditors would be fleecing you silly, if they aren't already. I'm sure the guys who handle your Flat Earth Society membership dues would love to put you on a credit line where your principal amount doesn't get readjusted with your payments until 20 years later!


And the penny has already acheived a "negative" value, costs more to make one than its worth, soon the same will apply to a dollar bill

cost of producing coinage has nothing to do with their value as legal tender. Again, how does someone spend negative currency, and how is that achieved within only a 26 year time frame?


the first right thing you've said all day.
And when the collapse comes they will roll all three countries (mexico, usa, and CANADA)
INTO ONE COUNTRY, burn the constitution, issue "national" ID based on RFID,
and that will pretty much be it , the corpse of what was once a free country will
be dissected and torched, which was the ultimate plan in the first place.

You really should be a poster child for local "stay in school" programs -- "Kids, see what happens when you don't study hard and learn basic math? You become a blathering paranoid moron who spends all day arguing about chicken little conspiracies!"


And I will have that one over you, I wont have to look at myself in the mirror and admit that I helped to destroy what was once the greatest country in the world, by covering up the crime while it was taking place, on the other hand you're so clueless you're probably
just a "usefull idiot" as Marx would have said

Do you walk and chew gum at the same time, or is this mental-capacity deficiency thing just an act? I guess it's just easier to blame others, so keep right on truckin' along in your little alternate reality! :cool:

Woochifer
05-07-2008, 11:17 AM
If the dollar was introduced in 1785 does that mean it's been devalued 1092% ???

Watch yourself! You're asking pix to interpret a four-figure number! :3:

pixelthis
05-08-2008, 11:54 PM
Watch yourself! You're asking pix to interpret a four-figure number! :3:


WHILE YOU CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT A FOOL YOU ARE
making of yourself by showing your ignorance.
I say that the dollar has lost 75% percent (at least in value) over the last twenty years.
What is your reply?
Its only lost 56 %!!!
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 56 AND 75 PERCENT?
NINETEEN PERCENT, over TWENTY YEARS.
You are arguing about a 1% difference a year, actually less than one percent.
Why is this important to you? Because stat wonks are the worst of liars and propagandists.
YOU know that 75% SOUNDS A LOT worse than 50%
So you take 56%,"round" it off to "50%" and hope people will think that aint half bad.
Lying, book cooking, propaganda, talking out of both sides of your mouth, a professional liar for the govt doesnt have to be good at math to be a good liar,
which is fortunant for you :1:

pixelthis
05-09-2008, 12:03 AM
But heres the biggest lie wooch and his cronies in the govt ever put out.

Mainly that the COST of things is what inflation is.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
What is "inflation"? SIMPLY WHAT IT SAYS.
INFLATING THE MONEY SUPPLY, printing worthless chit that isnt backed up by
anything


If you print 10% more money in a year than you have gold or something else to back it up, you have 10% inflation that year, simple as that.
you dont need to go over reams of data, comparing prices, thats all hokum, Inflation has
NOTHING to do with prices.
KEEP printing worthless money and eventually people will catch on, and raise the price of their goods and services.
But eventually people will catch on.
PEOPLE all over the planet have caught on that the dollar is basically worthless.
And the repercussions of that are gonna be more than even a profesional liar like wooch will be able to deal with :1:

Woochifer
05-09-2008, 11:14 AM
WHILE YOU CANT UNDERSTAND WHAT A FOOL YOU ARE
making of yourself by showing your ignorance.

You seem to be the only one on this board that believes anyone other than yourself is the fool! ;)


I say that the dollar has lost 75% percent (at least in value) over the last twenty years.

Actually, you said that it lost 80% ... 4% x 20 years even using pixel math doesn't equal 75%. :rolleyes:


What is your reply?
Its only lost 56 %!!!

Yup, that's because I'm applying the correct mathematical formula to an annualized rate of change, something that your 4th grade multiplication tables don't tell you.


WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 56 AND 75 PERCENT?
NINETEEN PERCENT, over TWENTY YEARS.

Nope, the variance is actually 34 PERCENT. Your value of 19 actually refers to the PERCENTAGE POINT difference, which says nothing about the actual magnitude of the PERCENT difference between the two figures, since a 19 PERCENTAGE POINT difference represents a very different magnitude of change if you're comparing 1% with 20% (1,900% variance), as opposed to comparing 1,092% with 1,111% (1.7% variance).

Of course, you'd have to evolve beyond grade school addition and subtraction to understand this. You obviously haven't, which explains why you make these kinds of stupid mistakes. Of course, a rational person would have stopped digging after the first mistake. The fact that you persist with lies and mathematical impossibilities says more about your particular state of being! :cool:


You are arguing about a 1% difference a year, actually less than one percent.

Nope, I'm pointing out that there's a huge difference between consumer prices increasing by 2.2X compared to the 5X argument that you keep forwarding. I'd tell you to do the math if you want, but you've already proven yourself incapable of that! :cool:


Why is this important to you? Because stat wonks are the worst of liars and propagandists.

I could care less if you flunked out of 6th grade math, and try to cover it by repeating yourself. I'm having a great time using logic and basic math to all the bullcrap you keep coming up with. You're now trying to tell everyone that 4 X 20 = 75 ... are you next going to try to claim that 1 + 1 = 3? :idea:


YOU know that 75% SOUNDS A LOT worse than 50%
So you take 56%,"round" it off to "50%" and hope people will think that aint half bad.
Lying, book cooking, propaganda, talking out of both sides of your mouth, a professional liar for the govt doesnt have to be good at math to be a good liar,
which is fortunant for you :1:

Clueless to the end. Is this how you responded to your elementary school teachers when they marked up your flunky math tests? Obviously, you never learned anything since then! :lol:


But heres the biggest lie wooch and his cronies in the govt ever put out.

Mainly that the COST of things is what inflation is.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
What is "inflation"? SIMPLY WHAT IT SAYS.
INFLATING THE MONEY SUPPLY, printing worthless chit that isnt backed up by
anything


If you print 10% more money in a year than you have gold or something else to back it up, you have 10% inflation that year, simple as that.
you dont need to go over reams of data, comparing prices, thats all hokum, Inflation has
NOTHING to do with prices.
KEEP printing worthless money and eventually people will catch on, and raise the price of their goods and services.
But eventually people will catch on.
PEOPLE all over the planet have caught on that the dollar is basically worthless.
And the repercussions of that are gonna be more than even a profesional liar like wooch will be able to deal with

Right, I'm the professional liar when your moronic math makes currency valuation negative after only 26 years! :out: Sorry, but your own inability to deal with numbers and cognitive challenges doesn't make a liar out of someone who does understand the numbers and has a lot more synapses available!

By your math, you're also claiming that cities can have negative population or companies can have a negative number of workers or that objects that lose a percentage of mass every year will keep on losing mass into negative territory! Is that what you're really saying? Or are you perpetuating this paranoid conspiracy bullcrap to keep avoiding the question? As usual, your blathering factually-challenged response should make for an absurd, if not entertaining, read! :19: