Ron Paul likes price gouging, and the way he explains it, ..

jpete wrote:

Northern Maine wrote:

jpete wrote:Of course not. Nixon put the last nail in that coffin.

But you said it yourself, if we were still on the gold standard a gold dollar coin would still be worth a dollar. Sounds like a pretty stable value if you ask me.

It's amazing that you guys don't even listen and think about what YOU say. I understand you think I'm wrong, but when we agree, what does that make you? Wrong?

Self righteous: convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic!

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

--Thomas Paine

TOUCHE'! Self-aggrandizement: The act or practice of enhancing or exaggerating one's own importance, power, or reputation.

lsayre wrote:

samhill wrote:Ah Jpete, a dollar would be worth a dollar no matter what it's made of if the value was more or less that is what it would be worth, of a peep or cup of wheat whatever is used. What was used before there was money.

A 50 dollar gold coin ($50 is the denomination that the USA and Canada print upon their one Troy ounce gold coins) would buy the merchandise equivalent of roughly 1,700 FRN's. To suggest otherwise would not be correct.

Looking at this another way, the current FRN has been debased (devalued) to 50/1700's, or only 3% of what it was worth when the Federal Reserve took charge of things in 1913.

If you don't believe this from me, believe it from the Federal Government itself. Just plug in the current value of a 1913 Dollar in this US Government CPI calculator to see what a 1913 dollar is worth today. This requires setting the bottom scale to 1913 and the top scale to 2012 and putting 1 dollar into the calculator.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl? ... year2=1913

When I do it I get 4 cents. But lately the government has been understating inflation, so 3 cents (3 percent of 100 cents) is probably just about dead on for the current paper dollar.

There you go back to 1913 again & keeping what you like & bringing it forward, the same as you do with the Constitution, cherry pick what you want & leave the rest. You can never go back, there is only the here & now for life offers no guarantees.

samhill wrote:There you go back to 1913 again & keeping what you like & bringing it forward, the same as you do with the Constitution, cherry pick what you want & leave the rest. You can never go back, there is only the here & now for life offers no guarantees.

There is a reason why the governments CPI calculator begins with 1913. Why did they do that Sam?

It's rather easy to see that everything costs about 33 times more now than it did back in 1913. Divide the $1700 one ounce gold coin by 33 and you get back to $50.

samhill wrote:There you go back to 1913 again & keeping what you like & bringing it forward, the same as you do with the Constitution, cherry pick what you want & leave the rest. You can never go back, there is only the here & now for life offers no guarantees.

So we are doomed to become Greece?

Nothing can ever get better?

We HAVE to keep inflating the money supply and devaluing the currency?

If you're right and I'm wrong, we're screwed.

Northern Maine wrote:
TOUCHE'! Self-aggrandizement: The act or practice of enhancing or exaggerating one's own importance, power, or reputation.

Is the such a thing is "right" or "correct"? Are there any "facts"? I don't care what anyone thinks of me much less anybody I'll never meet on the internet. I'm not here to puff myself up.

But some things have to be demonstrably "true".

If you say 2+2=5 and I say it isn't, I'm not doing it because I want people to think I'm smart.

jpete wrote:

Northern Maine wrote:
TOUCHE'! Self-aggrandizement: The act or practice of enhancing or exaggerating one's own importance, power, or reputation.

Is the such a thing is "right" or "correct"? Are there any "facts"? I don't care what anyone thinks of me much less anybody I'll never meet on the internet. I'm not here to puff myself up.

But some things have to be demonstrably "true".

If you say 2+2=5 and I say it isn't, I'm not doing it because I want people to think I'm smart.

Your care that people think you are smart, but don't care what others think of you? That's definitely an oxymoron sir! How many players do you have in your sandbox?

Northern Maine wrote:
Your care that people think you are smart, but don't care what others think of you? That's definitely an oxymoron sir! How many players do you have in your sandbox?

I don't care if you think I'm smart or not. It's not a matter of being smart. If you can read and speak, you can do what I did.

I'm sure you have a profession and a hobby or two. I don't know what they are, but I'm sure you know more about them that I do.

My hobby happens to be economic theory and natural law. I read Rothbard, Mises, Bastiat, Paine and several others. it's pretty much all I do outside of join forums online where I can argue about economic theory and natural law. It's my debate class.

I've certainly been forced to go back and reread and rethink some stuff. It's what makes me confident in my position.

jpete wrote:

Northern Maine wrote:
Your care that people think you are smart, but don't care what others think of you? That's definitely an oxymoron sir! How many players do you have in your sandbox?

I don't care if you think I'm smart or not. It's not a matter of being smart. If you can read and speak, you can do what I did.

I'm sure you have a profession and a hobby or two. I don't know what they are, but I'm sure you know more about them that I do.

My hobby happens to be economic theory and natural law. I read Rothbard, Mises, Bastiat, Paine and several others. it's pretty much all I do outside of join forums online where I can argue about economic theory and natural law. It's my debate class.

I've certainly been forced to go back and reread and rethink some stuff. It's what makes me confident in my position.

Whether I think your smart or not is of absolutely no consequence as you stated. However, your presentation is "pompous" to say the least in most every post you have! That's the "crux" of my point with you!

I give what I get. People want to sling mud, I can sling mud.

If you want to have a discussion, I can do that too.

jpete wrote:I give what I get. People want to sling mud, I can sling mud.

If you want to have a discussion, I can do that too.

Not mudslinging...just presenting an observation...it may not be acceptable to your ear, but it is factual in my "tiny" little mind!

My understanding of things and jpete's understanding of things are generally quite close to one and the same. I find his wit and knowledge of the issues to be quite intriguing and I look forward to every one of his posts. I see him quite differently than some of you apparently.

Isayre, how long did you have to work to earn that 1913 dollar in 1913 & what would it buy then(not now), don't remember what the year was but my Grandfather told me about the long strike they went on & finally won, what they struck for was a dollar a day for just a short 10 hour day of work.

Northern Maine wrote:

jpete wrote:I give what I get. People want to sling mud, I can sling mud.

If you want to have a discussion, I can do that too.

Not mudslinging...just presenting an observation...it may not be acceptable to your ear, but it is factual in my "tiny" little mind!

I don't disagree that I'm giving you a hard time. But IMO, that's what I got from you first. I certainly will admit that I may have taken something the wrong way. If I did, I apologize. My ego isn't bigger than the message I'm trying to convey.

Sam and Fred and I have a history. Kind of like the Hatfields and McCoys.

samhill wrote:Isayre, how long did you have to work to earn that 1913 dollar in 1913 & what would it buy then(not now), don't remember what the year was but my Grandfather told me about the long strike they went on & finally won, what they struck for was a dollar a day for just a short 10 hour day of work.

Sam, since you insist on looking at only 2012, lets look at this entire issue another way. Back in 1913 they still had real $20 US issue gold coins, so lets do a simple Rip Van Winkle and Sleeping Beauty thought experiment:

Rip Van Winkle fell asleep in 1913 with 30 x $20 gold coins in his pocket, and woke up in 2012. Sleeping Beauty simultaneously fell asleep in 1913 with $600 in 1913 FRN's (paper dollar bills) in her purse, and woke up in 2013. Both had what you clearly see as the very same $600 in 1913. Both are shocked to see that everything now costs on average roughly 33 times more than when they fell asleep. Which one retained all of their 1913 wealth in terms of what they can accomplish with their money today?