Inflation
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
ANC
Well-Known Member
I wonder who is going to do Trumpie's hair in jail.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
So the legal definition of a Dollar is piezas de a ocho. A Spanish silver Dollar. The definition is contained in Contentinental Congress and value was set at 371.25 grains of silver later after the Constitution was ratified. So a Troy ounce.
The computer credits and physical bills are the same as each other. They are bills of credit. Dollar bills or bills for Dollars.
So if you look at the spot price of an ounce of silver, you can see how many bills it takes to buy a Dollar. But it's really way worse than that considering commodity is shorted 100:1.
If we remember gamestop stocks a couple years ago with Robin hood and the FTC stepping in that short was only 30:1. For example of scope.
So what is it you think banks use as currency between themselves, have you ever owned a home and had your mortgage sold?
The computer credits and physical bills are the same as each other. They are bills of credit. Dollar bills or bills for Dollars.
So if you look at the spot price of an ounce of silver, you can see how many bills it takes to buy a Dollar. But it's really way worse than that considering commodity is shorted 100:1.
If we remember gamestop stocks a couple years ago with Robin hood and the FTC stepping in that short was only 30:1. For example of scope.
This seems genuine but I would appreciate it if you would tone all the rude boy stuff down a bit.
So what is it you think banks use as currency between themselves, have you ever owned a home and had your mortgage sold?
Last edited:
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that is somehow relevant to discussion of American dollars or our banking system? There is a whole lot of outdated and irrelevant definitions in the 1700's. Like the whole 3/5ths thing.
Or is this just some random information?
Lucky Luke
Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
I'm citing current law on what is a Dollar and how it relates to inflation. Pretty sure that's on topic.
Your need to steer this towards the 3/5 clause is, frankly, odd and suspect.
So the definition is pretty relevant if you really believe in a Living Wage. For example: what would the American minimum wage be if it were paid in Dollars and not bank notes that are bills for Dollars?
So trying to take this to conspiracy land or the 3/5 clause or area 51 tells me that you really love our status quo overall trajectory for the poor and middle class here and then projecting that on the world is just great.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
What does the definition of a dollar in the 1700s have to do with current law? I guess I am confused then.
I think maybe you might be making some weird leap to inflation with the Treasury printing more currency?
Would it somehow be better to have outside nations having the ability to manipulate the value of our currency when they mine (or stop mining) more silver?
I personally like the distrust of bad actors that is built into our monetary system that has been built on the push pull between people, businesses and the government that all have checks and balances on one another. It is not perfect, but the fact that there are far fewer and less severe recession post ww2 thanks to the modernization of it than there was when hard currency was used as reserves is very beneficial.
Last edited:
HGCC
Well-Known Member
I tried, not much though. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of how the banking industry has worked for the past 50 years. The info is there for people to read if they want to actually understand it, but you aren't going to convince them.
I got my own conspiracy, the previous two presidents conspired with the fed to keep interest rates low because it is politically advantageous since it can prop up the stock market but it was fiscally irresponsible longer term. They had at least 8 years to softly take rates back to the 3-5% range, but didn't.
I got my own conspiracy, the previous two presidents conspired with the fed to keep interest rates low because it is politically advantageous since it can prop up the stock market but it was fiscally irresponsible longer term. They had at least 8 years to softly take rates back to the 3-5% range, but didn't.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Agreed. It is hard to not just brush it off with a sarcastic nod. Because the people who are paid to muddy the waters have a lot more incentive to shit post, and the ones that just want to complain about what conspiracy nonsense they 'heard' don't really give a shit outside of their feels.
I would look at the Republican obstruction of Obama's agenda after their Tea Party trolling won them control of congress than any conspiracy. So there was not a lot of overheating in the economy to raise rates much (I do agree they could have started to increase back around 2013-14ish though slightly because the housing market was finally stabilizing, but I could also argue that it wasn't until really 2015/16 that prices were about what they were in 2007).
And Trump was trolling the Fed in public about it, so not really a conspiracy as much as him strong-arming them (I still can't believe there was not more outrage about him firing Yellen because she was too short). So not really thinking that was a conspiracy either as much as it was bending a knee.
Next chart is index of all cities housing prices change by year.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/20-years-of-home-price-changes-in-every-u-s-city/
HGCC
Well-Known Member
So my take on inflation is that it's a word that can mean a bunch of stuff, we use it broadly to reference the price of stuff going up, but as there are a bunch of reasons prices move I don't think it's that helpful.
I view individual countries and their currency as a closed system (the EU is weird). Within a currency system, prices and wages move around due to supply/demand or whatever reason...but it is all still there in that particular system. It's just who has what that changes. Some guy decides to raise the price of chickens because he thinks people will pay it, that's basic economic functions. Some dude is making a bunch more money, you are poorer because you had to give them more for their goods.
For me, inflation is really only a thing in terms of trading between international groups. You have to obtain each other's currency to complete the deals. That is where money enters and leaves a financial system and what causes real inflation, otherwise it's just some dude opting to charge more.
There isn't any real tangible value to currency beyond what the paper is worth, the exchange isn't "goods and services" like everything else, it's just the measure of what work produced here is worth vs there. Inflation is the absolute loss/gain within your financial system of your currencies purchasing power.
If you think of like...bananas and imagine we could grow them Florida or buy them from Mexico, what happens when the price goes up a dollar for consumers. If you grow them in Florida it all happens in dollars, the farmer sells his stuff for a price and pays the workers. If the price goes up, the farmer is getting more money...and in theory that leads to higher wages. Or the farmer keeps it and tells you to fuck off, they are keeping the extra profit. That's actually what I think is currently occurring. However, if you have to engage in international trade to get those bananas, that's where you get screwed. Your dollars buy fewer bananas, prices go up....but the economic benefit has left our economy and whoever you traded with now gets that benefit. They are doing the same work, but getting more back in the exchange.
I view individual countries and their currency as a closed system (the EU is weird). Within a currency system, prices and wages move around due to supply/demand or whatever reason...but it is all still there in that particular system. It's just who has what that changes. Some guy decides to raise the price of chickens because he thinks people will pay it, that's basic economic functions. Some dude is making a bunch more money, you are poorer because you had to give them more for their goods.
For me, inflation is really only a thing in terms of trading between international groups. You have to obtain each other's currency to complete the deals. That is where money enters and leaves a financial system and what causes real inflation, otherwise it's just some dude opting to charge more.
There isn't any real tangible value to currency beyond what the paper is worth, the exchange isn't "goods and services" like everything else, it's just the measure of what work produced here is worth vs there. Inflation is the absolute loss/gain within your financial system of your currencies purchasing power.
If you think of like...bananas and imagine we could grow them Florida or buy them from Mexico, what happens when the price goes up a dollar for consumers. If you grow them in Florida it all happens in dollars, the farmer sells his stuff for a price and pays the workers. If the price goes up, the farmer is getting more money...and in theory that leads to higher wages. Or the farmer keeps it and tells you to fuck off, they are keeping the extra profit. That's actually what I think is currently occurring. However, if you have to engage in international trade to get those bananas, that's where you get screwed. Your dollars buy fewer bananas, prices go up....but the economic benefit has left our economy and whoever you traded with now gets that benefit. They are doing the same work, but getting more back in the exchange.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Exactly. South Africa is a good place because no import taxes and the exchange rate is good. Jim Green boots for example are a good deal and couldn't be made here for under $200.
HGCC
Well-Known Member
Conspiracy was my fun word man, its politics all around.
I do think you give Obama too much credit there regarding motivations/reasons, but it isnt something that can really be known. The market popping is attractive, the centrist type democrats really like to see that 401k go up.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Well I'm not sure how to draw the line any more directly, sorry. What else that's current Law from the 1700's do you feel we should disregard? The right to Life and Liberty perhaps?
Edit: so, the very word "dollar" came from the 1700's and you're sure using it a lot so I'm not sure what you're searching for here.
Last edited:
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Good call on the having fun with the word, I get it.
Im not sure what you mean about giving Obama too much credit though. Post Tea Party it was nothing but trolling and obstruction of anything he tried to pass. He really didn't have a chance to overheat the economy after him and the Democrats were forced to clean up the housing market crash at the end of Bush's term.
And everyone likes to see their 401k's increase man, that is why we put money into them.
It's ok, I am sure it really wasn't relevant to post-ww2 economy much anyways.
Slavery being legal would be at top of that list IMO.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Slavery is not current law. I'm really having a hard time following you at this point. That's the second time you've referenced Slavery (3/5 clause) and I'm not sure why that seems to be your focus. Honestly it's kinda creeping me out.Good call on the having fun with the word, I get it.
Im not sure what you mean about giving Obama too much credit though. Post Tea Party it was nothing but trolling and obstruction of anything he tried to pass. He really didn't have a chance to overheat the economy after him and the Democrats were forced to clean up the housing market crash at the end of Bush's term.
And everyone likes to see their 401k's increase man, that is why we put money into them.
It's ok, I am sure it really wasn't relevant to post-ww2 economy much anyways.
Slavery being legal would be at top of that list IMO.
Edit: so, the very word "dollar" came from the 1700's and you're sure using it a lot so I'm not sure what you're searching for here.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Your definition of 'dollar' is from the 1700s. It is outdated and irrelevant today.
Just saw your edit. Are you under the assumption that money should be physically transferred at all times when there is a transaction now? That would be grossly inefficient.
Mostly transactions like this are able to be done in banks are able to be conducted at the Fed central bank by moving that portion of banks reserves (which were paid for by actual money printed by the Treasury and not some make belief money) to the books of the other bank that the transaction is done at. It is not some conspiracy, it is just efficient.
Sure beats the bad old days when banks had to move gold and a stage coach robber (at times tipped off by the mega wealthy dick heads who would force the banks into a position to have to move the physical capital) could attack and steal it all, pushing that bank into bankruptcy, and if large enough economically collapse entire regions so that those same rich folks could buy up all those distressed properties that relied on their local banks.
HGCC
Well-Known Member
Since we are on outdated financial issues, man I just want to grab the gold Standard people people and shake them while screaming "IF WE ARE AT THE POINT CURRENCY COLLAPSES AND WE HAVE LOST FAITH IN THE GOVERNMENTS ABILITY TO HONOR ITS CURRENCY GOLD IS FUCKING WORTHLESS AND MIGHT AS WELL BE TIN. GOLD DOESNT HAVE VALUE OUTSIDE FUNCTIONING SOCIETIES THAT DONT NEED IT. CANS OF SPAGHETTI-Os ARE A BETTER INVESTMENT."
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Well the Fed is the final clearinghouse for all checks, electronic or physical for whatever country is using the system.
It's not "my" definition it is everyone's definition that is using the system, including yours. And it's all current. Alexander Hamilton later added that the Dollar will be "money of account" for the country, hence the reason you are still using the term now for your accounting.
Like when you account for the money supply you can now correctly add deposit balance accounts to circulation for your total as opposed to what you were erroneously doing earlier which was vault+circulation.
I mean like what you think is or is not current law has no bearing on the reality of it. It still just is.
ActionianJacksonian
Well-Known Member
Super true. If I'm hungry I would gladly trade gold for spaghetti o's. Did you know gold is made in the supernova of a star?
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
lol you really are trying hard to troll me, but it really is not working. I never tried to define 'money supply' to be wrong like you are pretending like I did.
Unlike when you were flat out wrong about banks somehow creating currency.