-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
-
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!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbeef
'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:
-
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:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
.
... 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% ???
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
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:
-
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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 $15). None of your examples hold up, dude! You gotta stop providing examples that support my points, if you want to actually look lucid and half-way coherent! :dita:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
They gave away a mustang on the price is right the other day, 45,000$
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
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:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
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:
-
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:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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! ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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:
|