Where is my HD radio?

[Woochifer]

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.

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!

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!

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'!

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.

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

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!

[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.
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.

[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?

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]

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]

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!

'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.

[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.
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

[Woochifer]

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!

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...

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. 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!

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

Right, we're all doomed Mr. Sunshine!

[pixelthis]

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!

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...

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. 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!

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

Right, we're all doomed Mr. Sunshine!

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

[bobsticks]

.
... 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]

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

[Woochifer]

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!

[Woochifer]

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!

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?

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!

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.

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!

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.

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

[Groundbeef]

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!