Harrekin
Well-Known Member
He's a special one, that tokenperv, he knows a hell of alot about nothing.
22 Facts That Prove That The Bottom 90 Percent Of America Is Systematically Getting P
- Thread starter squarepush3r
- Start date
He is good with school book retorts. I don't think he is actually very old, 20's maybe. No much life experince yet dealing with the many aspects of finance in the real world.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
My financial plan is pretty simple:
1.Buy silver
2.Hide silver
3.Sell silver when everyone else is poor cos their shitty pension is shitty.
Gold too, but I like silver more, the gold is just large denomination silver to me
Once again, your goal in this thread was to contradict the idea that Walmart saves consumers tens of billions of dollars by saying that because the quality of the stuff sucks, people don't actually save anything--it just breaks and they have to replace their cheap crap with more cheap crap. Correct me if I'm misconstruing what you said.
Why does it matter that the RCA TV was top of the line in 1969? The point is that someone paid the equivalent of $6,000 for it. People don't spend $6,000 on TVs at Walmart. Accordingly, there should be no expectation that a TV costing 1/40th as much will last for 40 years. That it costs 1/40th as much is how consumers save money regardless.
If you want to pick a more expensive TV for comparison purposes, so be it. But picking a top of the line TV makes no sense--there would be a quality expectation. Walmart doesn't sell the TV you're talking about, nor those even more expensive TVs, so I fail to see what any of them have to do with whether or not Walmart saves consumers money.
The one who truly knows "a hell of alot [sic] about nothing" is he who can never substantively attack anything.
You cannot deny facts or reality. I'm sure people enjoy watching you flail.
Of course, your fellow little believers are never able to offer you much support, since yours is already weak enough and they've got nothing better. But so be it.
Wal mart never sold an RCA TV either, so I guess your whole rant there was for nothing.
People did not spend the equivalent of $6000 to buy a 23" RCA either, they spent $700. Like I said you CANNOT compare anything from now to a time previous to Aug 4 1971. They aren't the same dollars.
The USA defaulted on her debts in 1971, since that time the dollar is a completely different thing. What you are trying to do is confuse the situation more by comparing them as if they were equal dollars.
To make it more clear to you, just pretend that dollars prior to 1971 were called Rubles and the ones created after 1971 were called dollars.
Rubles and dollars aren't the same thing so they cannot be compared.
It's irrelevant that they don't sell the RCA TV. For your claim about the quality of products people buy at Walmart, though, whether or not Walmart sells the product actually is relevant. Otherwise you've got no complaint about quality to make.
My price list says $950 in 1969, not $700. The median household income in 1969 was $8,500. If you spent $950 on a TV, you spent $950 / $8,500 = 11.2% of your income. The same share of the median income now is approximately $6,000. So yes, people did spend "the equivalent of $6,000" today to buy that TV in 1969.
Obviously you can compare the prices in the time periods because I just did. Find some flaws and we can talk.
You can't consider inflation without also considering wage growth. Indeed, people actually have more purchasing power today than they did in 1969--substantially more--even with all that pesky inflation you're complaining about. So much for that.