Should the US return to the Gold Standard?

[Dapper]

That just means the drop in cost outpaced inflation.

What drop in cost? The drop in technological cost? You mean, the anti inflation property of technology?

Nope, I haven't noticed that at all. They seem like the same old bananas. Rarely non-organic fruits and vegetables taste like they were freshly-picked.

Regular cheap hot dog buns used to be a little more than $1 a few years ago. Now they are close to $3. Has the quality improved? I doubt it.

Have you read what I have been typing?? Every industry affects every other industry. A rise in bread can be mitigated by other prices that have fallen. Foodland, the local WV/OH grocery store with 6 stores, sells 5 different brands of bread.

True story- My wife's new phone and service cost less than her old phone and service, the phone is way better and the service is the same. She saves ~$1000/year and gets to use a better phone.

I think the only measure of inflation is looking at quality of life (the purchasing power) and the effort (the currency) to live that way.

Does anyone argue this?

 

[Danoff]

Does anyone argue this?

No, because it's a moot point. It has nothing to do with this conversation. Inflation is bad, end of story. Whether we're better off today than we were 10 years ago has nothing to do with that. Inflation is still a drag, even if we're moving forward.

 

[Dapper]

Inflation is still a drag, even if we're moving forward.

Do you mind explaining further? Because the two clauses seem directly contradictory.

I see no aspect of life which has regressed in a major way... ever. And our moving forward is only speeding up.
Just the enormous growth in life expectancy alone should be enough to convince one life is getting better.

This shows how much less we work.

 

[Danoff]

Do you mind explaining further? Because the two clauses seem directly contradictory.

I see no aspect of life which has regressed in a major way... ever. And our moving forward is only speeding up.
Just the enormous growth in life expectancy alone should be enough to convince one life is getting better.

If I put a 100 lb backpack on you and ask you to walk a mile, you could probably do it. I'd say "did you move forward?" you'd say "yes, but I could have done it easier and faster without this backpack". I'd say "that seems contradictory, you walked forward, so the backpack must not have changed anything".

See the problem? Inflation is necessarily (economically... mathematically) a drag on the economy. It hasn't gotten bad enough to stop economic progress, but it necessarily retards it.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

more power means getting to work faster which means more gets done too... Need I say more, or do I need to connect the medical dots to the economic dots?

Can you connect the dots for me on this one?

 

[Dapper]

If I put a 100 lb backpack on you and ask you to walk a mile, you could probably do it. I'd say "did you move forward?" you'd say "yes, but I could have done it easier and faster without this backpack". I'd say "that seems contradictory, you walked forward, so the backpack must not have changed anything".

See the problem? Inflation is necessarily (economically... mathematically) a drag on the economy. It hasn't gotten bad enough to stop economic progress, but it necessarily retards it.

I totally agree. But as life expectancy is longer, work required to live that long is less. That is not inflation. Inflation is currency/work buying less. Since we work less and live more, we get a better return on our work... because of technology! You see it every day. Tractors, maniplation of gold... technology.

Can you connect the dots for me on this one?

A safer car will require less insurance, and when an accident does happen it will cost less, gets fixed faster, less injuries mean less medical bills and faster recovery time, etc. More money and time to spend on other things that are in the economy are now available because technology made things safer, cheaper, easier to replace, etc.

oh. Context. You completely decimated my sentence and post.

 

[Danoff]

I totally agree. But as life expectancy is longer, work required to live that long is less. That is not inflation. Inflation is currency/work buying less.

No. Inflation is currency buying less work. It is not work buying less work.

 

[Azuremen]

A safer car will require less insurance, and when an accident does happen it will cost less, gets fixed faster, less injuries mean less medical bills and faster recovery time, etc. More money and time to spend on other things that are in the economy are now available because technology made things safer, cheaper, easier to replace, etc.

oh. Context. You completely decimated my sentence and post.

You realize you are arguing insurance and medical costs will go down, but then you've posted how they've increased 74% up above.

At least stay consistent for more than 5 posts in your argument, using your own information.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

oh. Context. You completely decimated my sentence and post.

I'm trying to see what your reason for posting something like that is.

 

[Dapper]

No. Inflation is currency buying less work. It is not work buying less work.

I must say, Danoff, you are great at zooming in on a subject. But it leaves me feeling like you don't see the entire picture.

Currency is just a representation of work. Work gets more now than in the past.
For clarity, we are getting lazier and being rewarded.
That is a direct result of technology which is just evolution.

You realize you are arguing insurance and medical costs will go down, but then you've posted how they've increased 74% up above.

At least stay consistent for more than 5 posts in your argument, using your own information.

You forget the capitalist variable. And added medical cost... to an example.
And the dollar today buys more car than 30 years ago.

I'm trying to see what your reason for posting something like that is.

I didn't post something that.


Technology causes deflation tens of thousands of years ago

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Currency is just a representation of work. Work gets more now than in the past.

And as the government prints more money that currency is worth less, hence less purchasing power.

For clarity, we are getting lazier and being rewarded.
That is a direct result of technology which is just evolution.

We aren't getting lazier at least not due to that. The number of service jobs is increasing while the amount of manufacturing jobs is dropping. We are becoming more efficient.

I didn't post something that.

Past a certain amount of power, which isn't that high, getting to work faster becomes basically trivial. Traffic and stop lights limit your time of travel to work.

 

[Tornado]

And even the most terrible of 80's cars can still go the speed limits.

 

[Dapper]

And as the government prints more money that currency is worth less, hence less purchasing power.

I give specific examples (my wife's cell phone cost less and works better, cars are safer and cost the same, etc), then I give abstract examples (if life is longer and we do less work, we are getting more for the work we did), and neither case, which both can be fact checked, is acknowledged on .

We aren't getting lazier at least not due to that. The number of service jobs is increasing while the amount of manufacturing jobs is dropping. We are becoming more efficient.

OK. But. People spend less energy per day and live more days filled with awesome amenities than in the recent past(deflation). You are coming around, though. You admit efficiency... efficiency comes from collective learning which is manifested in technology... which causes prices to fall, giving you a chance to buy a cool new iPad along with your bread.

I'd like to see some data on service jobs vs manufacturing jobs vs mental job growth throughout this century.
http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2009/06/service-vs-manufacturing.html

Past a certain amount of power, which isn't that high, getting to work faster becomes basically trivial. Traffic and stop lights limit your time of travel to work.

Since you edited out the specific mode of transportation, the question is now applicable to travel instead of cars.

Well, soon any mental job will be done in virtual reality. That'll save travel time. It is worth noting that we, as a species in a society, need a lot of physical work done to get through the day. Those things are continually being replaced with some sort of technology, but the person whose job is now done by a robot still has a job, just not a physical one.

 

[Danoff]

I must say, Danoff, you are great at zooming in on a subject. But it leaves me feeling like you don't see the entire picture.

Currency is just a representation of work. Work gets more now than in the past.
For clarity, we are getting lazier and being rewarded.
That is a direct result of technology which is just evolution.

Currency is a representation of past work. Inflation causes currency (past work) to purchase less current work. Current work still buys current work. Now back to your original statement:

I totally agree. But as life expectancy is longer, work required to live that long is less. That is not inflation. Inflation is currency/work buying less.

I interpret this statement to mean that inflation is not occurring because of technological progress - which is wrong in several ways I have illustrated. It's easiest to see from the point of view of a retiree, who is living off of work done decades ago. Inflation causes the currency that they exchanged that work for to buy less and less over time. To exaggerate the point a bit, in the 1940s someone who made $125 per month might be considered middle class. Today that currency doesn't cover the price of gas to get to work for that month.

Inflation is the destruction of value created in the past. Once again, our standard of living today based on salaries today has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I give specific examples (my wife's cell phone cost less and works better, cars are safer and cost the same, etc), then I give abstract examples (if life is longer and we do less work, we are getting more for the work we did), and neither case, which both can be fact checked, is acknowledged on .

And if there was less inflation you would spend less money. And the money in your savings account would have more value.

I'd like to see some data on service jobs vs manufacturing jobs vs mental job growth throughout this century.

Recently
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46949623

Over time
http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2009/06/service-vs-manufacturing.html

Since you edited out the specific mode of transportation, the question is now applicable to travel instead of cars.

Since you didn't mention the mode of transportation type in that post, it's applicable to CTA buses. In which case the CTA buses I have been on have no seatbelts nor airbags, at least not for the passengers.

 

[Dapper]

Currency is a representation of past work. Inflation causes currency (past work) to purchase less current work. Current work still buys current work. Now back to your original statement:



I interpret this statement to mean that inflation is not occurring because of technological progress - which is wrong in several ways I have illustrated. It's easiest to see from the point of view of a retiree, who is living off of work done decades ago. Inflation causes the currency that they exchanged that work for to buy less and less over time. To exaggerate the point a bit, in the 1940s someone who made $125 per month might be considered middle class. Today that currency doesn't cover the price of gas to get to work for that month.

Inflation is the destruction of value created in the past. Once again, our standard of living today based on salaries today has nothing to do with this discussion.

Some major hiccups. Life now compared to 1940 is not comparable. Inflation does not account for quality or any other number of variables. You say quality of life doesn't matter, but it is all that matters.

The govt inflates the value of a dollar, current workers do not notice because of the technological deflation of goods and services, and past workers get Social Security and a number of other safety nets the govt tries to implement. I'll take it for an iPad.

And if there was less inflation you would spend less money. And the money in your savings account would have more value.

Everything could be better.👍

Over time
http://econompicdata.blogspot.com/2009/06/service-vs-manufacturing.html

I found it too. Basically the production jobs are stagnant by design to keep the tail of the bell curve employed. Service jobs is pretty broad I think, but more profound experts and artist will come of this age that is human's doing less physical work and more play.

Since you didn't mention the mode of transportation type in that post, it's applicable to CTA buses. In which case the CTA buses I have been on have no seatbelts nor airbags, at least not for the passengers.

Vienna/Parkersburg buses run on natural gas. That is a good step.

 

[arora]

The govt inflates the value of a dollar, current workers do not notice, and past workers get Social Security.

And now for those who don't see the purpose of Dapper's no gold theory, you don't need any savings, be a good little boy and uncle sam will take care of you.

 

[Dapper]

And now for those who don't see the purpose of Dapper's no gold theory, you don't need any savings, be a good little boy and uncle sam will take care of you.

Right! Except I think you are missing the reason why gold is not an option.
People invest in the US for cool stuff, not gold.

One still needs responsibility and some investments, though.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Everything could be better.👍

👍

Vienna/Parkersburg buses run on natural gas. That is a good step.

What does this have to do with seat belts and airbags?

 

[Dapper]

What does this have to do with seat belts and airbags?

Gas prices are going up do to speculation (although the finding and refining of gas has dropped dramatically due to technology).
One way to combat rising gas cost is to lower consumption. The government using alternative fuels in public transportation means the people may see a smaller increase in gas prices. Over time, buses in every city not burning middle east oil can only be positive.

 

[arora]

Right! Except I think you are missing the reason why gold is not an option.

I'm not missing anything, you value technology and the usery of people over commodities. You don't actually believe in personal investments do you? Common now.

 

[Dapper]

I'm not missing anything, you value technology and the usery of people over commodities. You don't actually believe in personal investments do you? Common now.

The world economy does not, despite my deepest wishes, revolve around my opinion.
I've been saying reality, not my opinion.

 

[arora]

The world economy does not, despite my deepest wishes, revolve around my opinion.

Thank God. BTW What is the current price of gold?

 

[Danoff]

Some major hiccups. Life now compared to 1940 is not comparable. Inflation does not account for quality or any other number of variables. You say quality of life doesn't matter, but it is all that matters.

Not in this discussion it doesn't.

The govt inflates the value of a dollar, current workers do not notice because of the technological deflation of goods and services, and past workers get Social Security and a number of other safety nets the govt tries to implement. I'll take it for an iPad.

It doesn't give you an iPad. Technology continues in SPITE of the 100 lb backpack of inflation. Current workers might not notice if their paycheck goes up in accordance with inflation, but their savings take a hit. Inflation is basically the government taking money out of your savings account. You say it doesn't matter because things get cheaper, and while some things do get cheaper (more slowly than they would without inflation), it matters a great deal that some of the value you created is taken from you.

 

[roamer2629]

If I put a 100 lb backpack on you and ask you to walk a mile, you could probably do it. I'd say "did you move forward?" you'd say "yes, but I could have done it easier and faster without this backpack". I'd say "that seems contradictory, you walked forward, so the backpack must not have changed anything".

See the problem? Inflation is necessarily (economically... mathematically) a drag on the economy. It hasn't gotten bad enough to stop economic progress, but it necessarily retards it.

Agreed. But higher interest rates, the orthodox method for inflation control, also hinders growth, doesn't it?
A bit of inflation as a result of higher demand in a buoyant economy might be expected, and not much of a problem if the monetary authorities keep control over the monetary base: It's the rampant printing of whichever currency what bring about crippling inflation, not growth.

 

[Dapper]

Not in this discussion it doesn't.

Why not?

You say it doesn't matter because things get cheaper, and while some things do get cheaper (more slowly than they would without inflation), it matters a great deal that some of the value you created is taken from you.

The value was created, then got taken away by the same entity. Except there is an overall growth, just look around.

Thank God.

You for got the l in gold.

Agreed. But higher interest rates, the orthodox method for inflation control, also hinders growth, doesn't it?
A bit of inflation as a result of higher demand in a buoyant economy might be expected, and not much of a problem if the monetary authorities keep control over the monetary base: It's the rampant printing of whichever currency what bring about crippling inflation, not growth.

Well put. 👍 But if the rampant printing of money funds new economies, the overall outcome will show a positive net growth, right?

I can't think of any inflationary experiment that truly hindered our species. This style of living and governing is producing more beautiful things than any god could have imagined. Too bad we aren't capable of seeing what we've accomplished, and what is to come.

Eating use to take effort. 1/2 of this country is now obese.
iPads and fat= pros and cons

 

[Danoff]

Why not?

Explained at least half a dozen times in this thread. Economic inefficiency/malinvestment.

The value was created, then got taken away by the same entity. Except there is an overall growth, just look around.

Nope different entity. Doesn't matter that there is overall growth, inflation is a drag on that growth.

 

[arora]

You should host an air america program, seriously, your stuff is golden intertainment. :d

And ''You for got the l in gold.''

 

[roamer2629]

Why not?


The value was created, then got taken away by the same entity. Except there is an overall growth, just look around.


You for got the l in gold.

Well put. 👍 But if the rampant printing of money funds new economies, the overall outcome will show a positive net growth, right?

I can't think of any inflationary experiment that truly hindered our species. This style of living and governing is producing more beautiful things than any god could have imagined. Too bad we aren't capable of seeing what we've accomplished, and what is to come.

Eating use to take effort. 1/2 of this country is now obese.
iPads and fat= pros and cons

No, I'm sorry but it won't show a positive net growth. I'ts very likely going to generate wild and unrealistic spending by governments, and melt salaries like butter as prices rise much more easily than wages recover, hitting the poorer sooner. Nevermind positive growth or not.
That said, if your point is that spending by governments in times of economic slumps might be a way out of them, I agree. Austerity might not always be the solution for economic woes, and the New Deal had some of that logic in it.

 

[Danoff]

That said, if your point is that spending by governments in times of economic slumps might be a way out of them, I agree. Austerity might not always be the solution for economic woes, and the New Deal had some of that logic in it.

You're describing Keynesian economics, which has been fairly thoroughly debunked. Government spending is a good way to prolong recessions, just as has happened with our current recession. The New Deal was one of the worst events in US history.