INFLATION--FED's cutting rates again...

[Chop]

But don't tell that to dogmatic extremists.

Not that we've ever seen any of those on Hornfans.com ...

 

[nashhorn]

All this while Biden throws a celebratory party. Can’t make this up - but do his and his party supporters care.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

With unemployment very low, there is much more wiggle room than usual.

Is it really very low? There are many different ways the government can report employment to try to make themselves look less incompetent than the plain truth implies.

 

[Monahorns]

Explain why every modern country has abandoned the gold standard.

Because they are thieves and fiat allows them to spend any amount of money they want on whatever they want.

 

[Monahorns]

I have a phd in engineering from UT. I have studied this since grad school. I too was predetermined to think an absolute system was better, but realized over the years the superiority of relative systems. Remember it’s not the absolute price that matters to a seller, but the margin over costs (which is relative). Same for the buyer: it’s not the absolute price that matters but the incremental utility relative to the price paid by the buyer (at the cost of money).

If you only look at it that way. But then you ignore many other things about the situation. First, devaluation steals from people. Second, what you say is correct IF THEY WOULD EVER STOP. But they will never stop, so the relative price is always changing and wage rates always lag and usually never compensate for the inflation. Third, it allows the government to do basically whatever they want. Why do you think we are having all these problems with the government these days? Because they have no accountability on spending. If anyone is a true conservative they will be for sound, stable money like the gold standard.

 

[mchammer]

Is it really very low? There are many different ways the government can report employment to try to make themselves look less incompetent than the plain truth implies.

They are paying dishwashers $17.50 an hour.

 

[mchammer]

Because they are thieves and fiat allows them to spend any amount of money they want on whatever they want.

That is catastrophism. Regardless the solution is better Fed governors, not gold standard.

 

[mchammer]

If you only look at it that way. But then you ignore many other things about the situation. First, devaluation steals from people. Second, what you say is correct IF THEY WOULD EVER STOP. But they will never stop, so the relative price is always changing and wage rates always lag and usually never compensate for the inflation. Third, it allows the government to do basically whatever they want. Why do you think we are having all these problems with the government these days? Because they have no accountability on spending. If anyone is a true conservative they will be for sound, stable money like the gold standard.

Simpler to nominate better governors.

 

[Monahorns]

That is catastrophism. Regardless the solution is better Fed governors, not gold standard.

OMG. We are living in a real catastrophe right now and have since we left the gold standard. "Better Fed governors", now that's funny. You should invest you money in a unicorn farm. I promise it will make you lots of money.

And to better answer your first question, Nixon ended the gold standard because he had so devalued the dollar and countries around the world were buying our gold reserves up. He did it to preserve some gold in US vaults. Others did the same as they devalued their currencies.

Gold standards were useful to retain currency value. If you look at value of $s it is clear what happened.

 

[Monahorns]

 

[AC]

 

[AC]

New currency backed by Gold, with Bitcoin for cross border settlements. Trump and all the BRICS nations are working on making this a reality. Don’t ask me any questions, I’m just reporting what I know. Now if you want to ask about buying and storing Bitcoin. I’ll answer you quickly!

 

[mchammer]

And what has happened to income? You are absolutely an absolutist.

 

[mchammer]

OMG. We are living in a real catastrophe right now and have since we left the gold standard. "Better Fed governors", now that's funny. You should invest you money in a unicorn farm. I promise it will make you lots of money.

You conveniently ignored that the Great Depression occurred under the gold standard.

 

[Monahorns]

And what has happened to income? You are absolutely an absolutist.

Hey! No name calling. I am radical for justice. Being a moderate for what is good is no virtue.

 

[Monahorns]

You conveniently ignored that the Great Depression occurred under the gold standard.

No I didn't. I just didn't mention it because it wasn't relevant to our immediate discussion. Non sequitur.

I do understand that the Great Depression did occur under the Federal Reserve. It did occur because of a money supply increase in the late 20s. It wouldn't even have been that bad if it wasn't for the New Deal and the socialism it unleashed on the US including continued central banking manipulation.

 

[mchammer]

Hey! No name calling. I am radical for justice. Being a moderate for what is good is no virtue.

Nice try. That point coincides with women entering the workforce. Twice the labor cost for the same productivity.

 

[mchammer]

Hey! No name calling. I am radical for justice. Being a moderate for what is good is no virtue.

This is also the point that services started to take over the economy and manufacturing started moving overseas - first to Japan and later to China. Did you really think productivity in the economy due to IT advances was really going to go to the average worker or even to software developers?

 

[mchammer]

Hey! No name calling. I am radical for justice. Being a moderate for what is good is no virtue.

You’re naive as well.

 

[mchammer]

Hey! No name calling. I am radical for justice. Being a moderate for what is good is no virtue.

This graph only shows monetary compensation and not the full cost of benefits. Healthcare has gotten a wee bit more expensive since 1972.

 

[Monahorns]

Nice try. That point coincides with women entering the workforce. Twice the labor cost for the same productivity.

Another non sequitur. Women's pay isn't that different from men's. Plus it dishonest to assume that women went into jobs that had the same productivity as men. For you to say what you did you either had to think women are being paid peanuts though being highly productive, which has bene proven untrue, or you believe that productivity was evenly distributed across all industries which is unreasonable.

Or you assume the productivity metric is per household when it is per individual worker which is a very obvious mistake.

Plus it was the devaluing of the money that necessitated wives and mothers to work in order to make ends meet.

 

[Monahorns]

You’re naive as well.

Dion!!

 

[Monahorns]

This graph only shows monetary compensation and not the full cost of benefits. Healthcare has gotten a wee bit more expensive since 1972.

Medical costs are another problem caused by the central planning of the government.

But your reading comprehension is very poor. Read the note at the bottom of the graph: wages AND benefits.

 

[mchammer]

Dion!!

Okay. Your opinions are naive and your positions absolutist.

 

[mchammer]

Another non sequitur. Women's pay isn't that different from men's. Plus it dishonest to assume that women went into jobs that had the same productivity as men. For you to say what you did you either had to think women are being paid peanuts though being highly productive, which has bene proven untrue, or you believe that productivity was evenly distributed across all industries which is unreasonable.

Or you assume the productivity metric is per household when it is per individual worker which is a very obvious mistake.

Plus it was the devaluing of the money that necessitated wives and mothers to work in order to make ends meet.

You are making this too complicated and assuming too many routes to the rabbit hole. Labor costs basically doubled with basically no increase in goods-related gdp. The increase in gdp is basically due to services that don’t really pay workers.

 

[mchammer]

Medical costs are another problem caused by the central planning of the government.

But your reading comprehension is very poor. Read the note at the bottom of the graph: wages AND benefits.

The title of the second graph says wages. I do note there is a growing gap in the compensation line between the top and bottom graphs that likely is the result of higher benefits being paid.

Regardless, the top graph comparing productivity vs wages is a non-sequitor in of itself. Why do you assume that a worker of services had anything to do with productivity gains? Clearly workers are simply following IT systems developed and implemented from afar. SAP is German. Why should US workers benefit from productivity gains if it was the result of a German company?

 

[mchammer]

Another non sequitur. Women's pay isn't that different from men's. Plus it dishonest to assume that women went into jobs that had the same productivity as men. For you to say what you did you either had to think women are being paid peanuts though being highly productive, which has bene proven untrue, or you believe that productivity was evenly distributed across all industries which is unreasonable.

Or you assume the productivity metric is per household when it is per individual worker which is a very obvious mistake.

Plus it was the devaluing of the money that necessitated wives and mothers to work in order to make ends meet.

Uh, how can these graphs show women’s income to substantially increase, and men’s income to be flat, but the other graphs show median wages to be flat for everyone?

 

[mb227]

Uh, how can these graphs show women’s income to substantially increase, and men’s income to be flat, but the other graphs show median wages to be flat for everyone?

Add in CEO pay in the DEI environment and then remember mean, median, and mode lessons...it makes more sense that way.

 

[Monahorns]

You are making this too complicated and assuming too many routes to the rabbit hole. Labor costs basically doubled with basically no increase in goods-related gdp. The increase in gdp is basically due to services that don’t really pay workers.

Labor costs didn't double on a per unit basis. The graph shows productivity per worker. Productivity isn't just for goods. It includes services.

 

[Monahorns]

The title of the second graph says wages. I do note there is a growing gap in the compensation line between the top and bottom graphs that likely is the result of higher benefits being paid.

Yeah. Read the note that clarifies. It includes benefits.

Regardless, the top graph comparing productivity vs wages is a non-sequitor in of itself. Why do you assume that a worker of services had anything to do with productivity gains? Clearly workers are simply following IT systems developed and implemented from afar. SAP is German. Why should US workers benefit from productivity gains if it was the result of a German company?

Workers benefit from productivity gains because they are able to produce more good or service for the company. That is basic economics. I don't assume anything productivity isn't just for physical goods. It is a measure of how much value a worker brings to a company regardless of what the product is.