i did not lose on any math, you created a fantasylqand where the dollar is the measure for value, aand as such the dollar is incapable of losing value, much in the way the sun moves across the sky and disappears at night only to mysterious rea[ppear in the east to begin it's journey again.
I've never said any such thing. Individual dollars have lost value; individual purchasing power has not lost value--it's increased substantially since the Federal Reserve was created.
Why are you so obsessed with the value of an individual dollar if that value doesn't meaningfully reflect the purchasing power people have?
the foollish claims that the earth is circling the sun are clearly retarded, cuz we cant feel the earth move!
no! dont you dare interrupt!! why cant we feel the earth moving smart guy! intellectual checkmate! you lost on the math! youre just repeating a foolish claim, and we STILL cant feel the earth moving, even after all these years!
cuz everybody has to be wrong, and the new base model honda accord now costs nearly 3 x as much as it did ten years ago, for the same accord dx with no options. but the dollar is ROCK SOLID.
You're going to have to explain the Honda thing to me. I visited several car web sites and couldn't find a price for a DX model in 2013; I'm going to use a
2.4 LX 4dr Sedan because it's the next lowest priced car common to 2003 and 2013. The MSRP of that car in 2003 was $19,200; the MSRP of that car in 2013 was $21,680. I get $21,680 - $19,200 = $2,480 more expensive in 2013. How did you get a 300% increase?
Indeed, we can go a step further. $19,200, adjusting for all that pesky inflation, is equivalent to $24,264.10 in 2013. So in real terms, your Honda car seems to have gotten less expensive, not more. If it had increased at the inflation rate, it would cost $24,264.10 today.
http://extension.missouri.edu/p/G404
the graph displaying the cost of arable land in the us, with a focus on missouri shows that in fact the same resource which previously cost $54/acre in 1913, now costs $2900/acre (and thats is a VERY low estimate)
but yeah i totally lost on the math.
As I've already suggested, land prices don't meaningfully reflect inflation. We can build more houses and more cars, but we can't build more land. There were only 98 million people in 1913; there are 310 million today living on exactly the same amount of land. If the population in a place increases by 216%, isn't there going to be increased demand that drives land prices up regardless of whether inflation exists?
Indeed, $54 in 1913 was equivalent to $1,268.35 in 2013. $1,268.35 x 216% = $2,739.64. I would posit that land costs reflect 100 years of population growth on exactly the same amount of land, not the effect of inflation (although there would be a small decline in real purchasing power for land specifically, as I just demonstrated, but it's only $160).
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.32106020105661;view=1up;seq=100
jump to page 98 for the fun stuff.
in 1913 sirloin steak cost 23 cents a pound, and thats without refigeration, high speed railway transport, air freight, etc. thats what it cost from Floyd The Butcher, in his little shop started by his grandfather, and Floyd cuts that shit to order. now beef sirloin cost $6/pound at the super walmart and it comes frozen in a bag (mind the bone chips)
it's cheaper to produce, cheaper to transport, and easy to store for long periods of time, but the price is more than 24x higher. yep, no inflation there.
You already know how I feel about these individual food prices, but this one isn't a winner for you. 23 cents in 1913 was equivalent to $5.40 in 2013. The average retail price of a pound of sirloin steak in April 2013 was $5.53. 13 cents of inflation. Indeed, a tiny amount of inflation there.
http://www.bls.gov/ro3/apmw.htm.
YOU lost on the math, but are in denial, you want to create elaborate mathematical fictions based on the bullshit stats provided for the media, designed to reassure everybody that everything is going to plan, and Obama's hand is firmly on the tiller.
NOBODY's hand has been on the tiller for several decades, not even the invisible hand of the market, our ship of state is being steered by the limp pallid fingers of the bureaucracy, and the blind faith of the economics weenies who think keynes and krugman speak with the voice of the gods.
By all means, refute the math.
Purchasing power isn't a fiction. If the average American only earned $750 in 1913, that 23 cents for sirloin was 0.03% of his income. If the average American earns $27,000 in 2013, that $5.53 a pound for sirloin is 0.02% of his income. Even though sirloin is 13 cents more expensive in real terms, the 2013 American paid less of his income for exactly the same amount of meat in 2013. You cannot possibly rant about price increases without also considering income.
