Who are you replying to? Are you using “reply” and “quote”?[8-)]
i had a previous post on the forums somewhere but the search isnt working properly.
if i recall, i found info that said the average hourly wage was 13.50 in 1999 and is now around 18.00+
i guess thats a thirty some percent increase.
a cpi calculator showed a good purchased in 1999 for 13.50 would cost ~17.45 in late 2009.
if those sources are correct it would seem that once the prices are adjusted wage prices have outpaced goods prices.
I’m not sure, but I think you’re asking whether there would have been similar living standards had a central bank not been established in the U.S.? (You’re choosing to use incomplete sentences, and it makes it more difficult to understand your questions, but I’ll give it a go.)
Between the signing of the Constitution (1787) and the year prior to the Federal Reserve Act (1912), there were two central banks (both abolished), a war between the states (issuance of “greenbacks”), and various forms of fractional reserve banking. However, gold and silver were real money during this time as you noted (i.e., gold and silver had not yet been abolished by government action). What happened to living standards in the U.S. from 1787 to 1912? Did they decline? Mass starvation? How about the advance of technology in those 125 years? Did the U.S. lag the rest of the world (which had central banks) in technology or go backwards toward subsistence living?
i havent seen the federal reserve given credit for discovering the polio vaccine.
i am not aware of a false dichotomy - maybe thats your own.
but if the data i posted above is near to correct why have so many at mises and lrc spoken of monetary inflation as a disease or an ill without at least speaking of wages that have increased over thirty percent since 1999 and cpi prices to a lesser degree?
i dont think a false claim or deliberate lie is necessarily false dichotomy - like lies about babies pulled form incubators by iraqi commandos.
is there info that would show that "a commodity money (tending toward fully backed reserves), such as existed earlier would provide similar living standards as today along with greater capital savings that now exist."
that is the only advantage of commodity money that i can think of - along with some degree of greater money freedom.
“the highest ever recorded of $2.17 trillion a month ago. This is just the beginning: Bernanke at Co. have committed to monetizing $1.75 trillion of securities this year,…”
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/look-at-federal-reserves-balance-sheet.html
as far as the federal reserve being a parasite the balance sheet prior to the recent anomlay as i have seen it described…near 50 billion? seemspretty small change over a 13 trillion or so economy.
Did the U.S. lag the rest of the world (which had central banks) in technology or go backwards toward subsistence living?
ok…that makes some sense.
but the us hasnt lagged now has it - at least with a central bank and frb paradigm?
if the wage and cpi data that i posted above is true why do so many here advocate for nearly never-existent 100 percent reserves when dropping dollar value has been offset by rising dollar incomes?
An annual 3% “CPI” increase over 40 years means you’re savings have been wiped out to the tune of 70%+ . This is a tax over the course of your working lifetime. This is over and above the income tax, social security tax, Medicare tax and new healthcare care, etc. If wages rise by the same 3%, how does this help your savings over the course of you life? Seems like you’re just keeping even with the cost of living, but the purchasing power of what you have saved gets hammered. You go to retire, and what do you have? Social security. You work and save all your life and you still depend on a taxpayer pay out. (Snowflake, I know I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, I’m just making a point about whether CPI “inflation” is harmful if wages rise by the same amount, which I believe is the OP’s question.)
i ask these question because of my hatred for republicans after the babies pulled from incubators lies and some deception with my dads state pension, so i dont trust the govt.
i cant understand the federal reserve documents.
i am not an economist or a staistician.
i am pretty certain that many at this site deliberately post info they know to not be true or leave out various counter-information to what they post for reasons i dont understand.
personally, i like falling prices adjusted for inflation.
i would prefer money out of govt control if the same thing would happen
I don’t mean to hijack this thread, however its subject matter is similar to the following.
I wonder if the people here at Mises would take a look at the following video and give their feedback regarding its content.
But what about the affect of fractional reserve banking prior to the “anomaly”?
now i have seen several writings at mises and lrc call inflation an ill, a disease and numerous other negative terms. i didnt get the impression they lauded free-market inflation either.
my only previous counter-info was some brief readings by julian simon (years ago) about declining commodity prices over the years but i never even knew what inflation sort-of was until a few years ago.
so to see as much wailing about inflation when once prices are adjusted for it, many prices for vital goods (those that make up large portions of incomes) according to govt (which i have seen some here say are false) statisitcs have fallen , to me seems disingenuous and likely as much the liars as the senior bush and his incubator crap.
I have had to restrain similar feelings, and instead appeal to reason and logic the best I can.
You and 100 million voters every four years. You’re not alone. Mises.org is a good resource for you. Keep working on it. [:)]
Then don’t read what you believe is deliberately false. [:)]
Frankly, it’s not going to happen. The Fed will never be abolished. All we can do is seek to understand the actual effect of government intervention in the economy. At least we will know the truth.
this effect?
if i recall, i found info that said the average hourly wage was 13.50 in 1999 and is now around 18.00+
i guess thats a thirty some percent increase.
a cpi calculator showed a good purchased in 1999 for 13.50 would cost ~17.45 in late 2009.
if those sources are correct it would seem that once the prices are adjusted wage prices have outpaced goods prices.
“now i have seen several writings at mises and lrc call inflation an ill, a disease and numerous other negative terms. i didnt get the impression they lauded free-market inflation either.”
why does someone named lew rockwell, who claims to be a former employee of ron paul never bring up wage increases outpacing price increases? since 1999 for instance?
Then don’t read what you believe is deliberately false.
i thought this was an area where people sought information to enrich themselves…true stuff in other words. was i wrong?
do you believe the pages at mises.org place deilberate false information..or info known to be untrue?
Are you replying to someone? [:^)]
but if the dollar value has fallen 95% and you have 95% more dollars per unit of labor or what have you…why go on saying the 95% drop in value is a problem (as i have seen on mises sites and lrc) if you have 95% more dollars?
If this is what you have seen on “mises sites and lrc”, then I would say it is complete nonsense and it should be disregarded. I, for one, have never read anything like this and I have been studying the subject on Mises.org for over a year.
i know. its 95 percent inflation is a disease and an ill…1 percent wages have increased and 4 percent you must follow shadow stats becasue govt stats are wrong
But what about the affect…??? effect???
this effect?
if i recall, i found info that said the average hourly wage was 13.50 in 1999 and is now around 18.00+
i guess thats a thirty some percent increase.
a cpi calculator showed a good purchased in 1999 for 13.50 would cost ~17.45 in late 2009.
if those sources are correct it would seem that once the prices are adjusted wage prices have outpaced goods prices.
This forum and website are exactly that, a place to seek information, a place to find the truth. You are not wrong.
Users on the forum are learning about economics, so we may make mistakes. But no, I don’t believe anyone here is deliberately misleading anyone else.
Well, the reason that this has catastrophically not hurt Americans is because over the same course of years productivity and massive increases in the supplies of goods have skyrocketed. Those two forces are always counter acting against inflationary forces. Take the 90s and 20s for example: the rise in prices during that time was mild, even though the money supply increased substantially during those times. The reason for the slight increase in prices was that we had breakthroughs in inventions and ingenuity (mass electricity/automobiles, the internet, etc). So as demand for goods increases (inflationary forces), they were offset by massive increases in supply (growth deflation forces) Some prices even fell. But now imagine that if during the course of those periods the Fed never inflated and how much wealthier everyone would be. Now imagine if the Fed never confiscated 95% of the dollars wealth during the century where globalization, mass food production, internet, etc occurred.