Where is my HD radio?

[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]

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

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?

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!

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!!!!"

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!

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!

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! So, tell us again how people are supposed to spend negative dollars?

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!

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!

[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!

[pixelthis]

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

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

[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

[Woochifer]

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%.

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!

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!

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?

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

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!

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! 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!