PDA

View Full Version : Would we be 25 times richer?




idirtify
12-06-2010, 05:43 PM
I’m not sure any of us realize the full consequences of the devaluation of the dollar since 1913. If it has dropped 96% in purchasing power, how does that translate in terms of our standard of living? I was just wondering today how much better our quality of life would be if the purchasing power of the dollar had not dropped to 4 percent of its original. Would we be 25 times happier? Besides our happiness level, how much different would other things be? Would technology be 25 times more advanced? Would government be 25 times smaller? Would there be 25 times less war? Would we be 25 times richer (not in terms of numbers of dollars, but in terms of real wealth like possessions)? Would people be 25 times friendlier to each other? I’m no economist or mathematician, so I have no idea whether it’s a straight calculation like that; but I doubt even the experts know for sure how much less of the bad things, like depression and poverty, there would be. Can anybody really know to any degree of specificity what this country would be like had it not decided to take that fateful path 97 years ago? Would we even recognize it? Would we even recognize ourselves?

OK, so maybe 25 times is too much; but now factor in the drug war. Now many of you might be getting bored and thinking, “yes we agree with you already”; but I submit that any victim still living within the forest of abuse can barely conceive the appearance of a meadow, let alone it’s beauty.

dannno
12-06-2010, 05:56 PM
Well the government has the ability to funnel wealth into certain tech areas and create bubbles, so they can speed up technology in certain areas while degrading the overall quality of life for most people. These people will eventually benefit from the technology the government created via the investment, but not to the tune of the price they paid in lack of purchasing power.

In a free market, these individuals would have saved and then invested in what is most profitable (aka what is in the highest demand and there is not enough producers). So the specific technology that the government gets to use as "proof" that they are effective may come about later, but in the mean time the technology that is most demanded gets produced instead, and overall quality of life is optimal.

Zippyjuan
12-06-2010, 06:01 PM
Given a choice between living in 1913 and living today, I choose today. Standards of living are considerably higher than they were back then.

If everybody is 25 times richer then everything willl cost 25 times more. A better measure (in my opinion) is time. How many hours do you have to work to aquire the same things you could in the past? Is that more or less?

Elwar
12-06-2010, 06:04 PM
You would have to be satisfied with only getting a raise once in a while based on performance and seniority.

The theory is that the 2% inflation per year is because people wouldn't work for the same salary each year and need at least a slight raise.

dannno
12-06-2010, 06:06 PM
You would have to be satisfied with only getting a raise once in a while based on performance and seniority.

The theory is that the 2% inflation per year is because people wouldn't work for the same salary each year and need at least a slight raise.

If you increase production and you are a low cost producer then your salary goes up as you take over market share from your less efficient competition. Your competition then re-structures into another business and produces something else that people desire. Now your business is producing what it used to along with what some of your competitors produced, and they are producing something else now and that adds to total production.

As production increases, prices go down, people's wages would fluctuate based on production. As you learn more about your industry, you might not be able to physically produce more stuff one by one, but you might be able to utilize your knowledge to manage the system in a way that overall production increases due to your direction.

oyarde
12-06-2010, 06:08 PM
Given a choice between living in 1913 and living today, I choose today. Standards of living are considerably higher than they were back then.

If everybody is 25 times richer then everything willl cost 25 times more. A better measure (in my opinion) is time. How many hours do you have to work to aquire the same things you could in the past? Is that more or less?

I would take 1913 and start a business .

dannno
12-06-2010, 06:12 PM
Given a choice between living in 1913 and living today, I choose today. Standards of living are considerably higher than they were back then.

If everybody is 25 times richer then everything willl cost 25 times more. A better measure (in my opinion) is time. How many hours do you have to work to aquire the same things you could in the past? Is that more or less?

I think the OP agrees today is better, however I have heard the theory floated recently in an interview with Peter Schiff that standard of living changed more between 1865 - 1913 than from 1913 - Present. We all know what happened in 1913. (FYI, they used the year 1865 to show what was accomplished without slavery)

With all the technology we have, our buying power would be increased immensely if we had stuck to an honest monetary system and something closer to a free market approach.

MN Patriot
12-06-2010, 06:35 PM
This is what I imagine life would be like in a free market economy: If there were no income tax and we still used honest money, we would have a much shorter work week to produce the same amount of wealth. 24 hour work week instead of 40+. Higher employment, since there wouldn't be so many government restrictions on businesses. There would be little or no national debt if we still had honest money, therefore no need for an income tax to pay the interest.

Instead of being chained to a job because it offers health insurance, workers could shop around for the best employment, and have/not have insurance, depending on their circumstances. (this is one reason why they passed the Obama care nightmare, in my opinion, keep the sheeple tax slave dependent on their current jobs, make it harder to go somewhere else). Kind of like car insurance, lose your job, you don't lose your car insurance.

On the flip side, what would people do with all that free time? Idle hands are the devil's workshop. This may be one reason why the political Establishment wants the American subjects to be their tax slaves. More time working trying to get by means less time to revolt. Win/win for them, lose/lose for us.

Elwar
12-06-2010, 06:49 PM
This is what I imagine life would be like in a free market economy: If there were no income tax and we still used honest money, we would have a much shorter work week to produce the same amount of wealth. 24 hour work week instead of 40+. Higher employment, since there wouldn't be so many government restrictions on businesses. There would be little or no national debt if we still had honest money, therefore no need for an income tax to pay the interest.

Short work weeks are the work of the labor party.

If you were making more you might be more willing to work longer hours.

I worked for 3 times my base pay in Iraq and worked 12-16 hour days, 7 days a week 364 days.

Rancher
12-06-2010, 06:52 PM
This is what I imagine life would be like in a free market economy: If there were no income tax and we still used honest money, we would have a much shorter work week to produce the same amount of wealth. 24 hour work week instead of 40+. Higher employment, since there wouldn't be so many government restrictions on businesses. There would be little or no national debt if we still had honest money, therefore no need for an income tax to pay the interest.

Instead of being chained to a job because it offers health insurance, workers could shop around for the best employment, and have/not have insurance, depending on their circumstances. (this is one reason why they passed the Obama care nightmare, in my opinion, keep the sheeple tax slave dependent on their current jobs, make it harder to go somewhere else). Kind of like car insurance, lose your job, you don't lose your car insurance.

On the flip side, what would people do with all that free time? Idle hands are the devil's workshop. This may be one reason why the political Establishment wants the American subjects to be their tax slaves. More time working trying to get by means less time to revolt. Win/win for them, lose/lose for us.
This for sure! ^^^^

Ron Paul even talks about commodity money and full employment. Here is a great debate Congressman Ron Paul vs. Federal Reserve Governor Charles Partee - Fiat Standard vs. Gold Standard (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=271631)

specsaregood
12-06-2010, 06:56 PM
Standards of living are considerably higher than they were back then.

By some measure. But there sure were a lot more single income families too weren't there. can you put a value on having a parent in the home raising a child?

Zippyjuan
12-06-2010, 06:58 PM
Ah yes. We can have robots make everything for us so we don't even have to work. Problem is that if we don't work, we don't have any money to buy stuff with and then the robots have nothing to do. Technology was supposed to free us to have more time for other things. Just didn't work out that way. The trade-off can also be higher unemployment when fewer workers are needed to produce the same amount of goods. There are plusses and minuses on both sides.

I think it was France which suggested job sharing to reduce their unemployment since fewer workers were needed there. Employers do not always share the gains of higher production with the workers in either the form of higher wages or lower prices. They may decide to keep them for themselves. Note how much more quickly the pay of CEOs has increased compared to worker's salaries.

ababba
12-06-2010, 07:01 PM
This is called money illusion or inflation illusion. In real terms people consume over 6 times more in per capita terms than they did in 1913.

Zippyjuan
12-06-2010, 07:03 PM
By some measure. But there sure were a lot more single income families too weren't there. can you put a value on having a parent in the home raising a child?

How much of the second income in a house goes to paying for that person to get to and from work (another car) and childcare costs for the children- some basically work to pay for the ability to work that second job? People work more because they want more stuff. In 1913 the majority of people did not have cars or TVs. Not everybody even had a telephone in their homes. If people had only all the same stuff they did in 1913 then yes, they would have more money and free time today. But the demand for more stuff rose with more money. On the other hand, making all that stuff created jobs for everybody. If people only bought what they did in 1913 we would need a lot fewer workers today. More unemployment.

Travlyr
12-06-2010, 07:04 PM
This is called money illusion or inflation illusion. In real terms people consume over 6 times more in per capita terms than they did in 1913.
6 times more of what?

Travlyr
12-06-2010, 07:07 PM
How much of the second income in a house goes to paying for that person to get to and from work (another car) and childcare costs for the children- some basically work to pay for the ability to work that second job? People work more because they want more stuff. In 1913 the majority of people did not have cars or TVs. Not everybody even had a telephone in their homes. If people had only all the same stuff they did in 1913 then yes, they would have more money and free time today. But the demand for more stuff rose with more money. On the other hand, making all that stuff created jobs for everybody. If people only bought what they did in 1913 we would need a lot fewer workers today. More unemployment.
Or microwave ovens.

nate895
12-06-2010, 07:10 PM
Ah yes. We can have robots make everything for us so we don't even have to work. Problem is that if we don't work, we don't have any money to buy stuff with and then the robots have nothing to do. Technology was supposed to free us to have more time for other things. Just didn't work out that way. The trade-off can also be higher unemployment when fewer workers are needed to produce the same amount of goods. There are plusses and minuses on both sides.

I think it was France which suggested job sharing to reduce their unemployment since fewer workers were needed there. Employers do not always share the gains of higher production with the workers in either the form of higher wages or lower prices. They may decide to keep them for themselves. Note how much more quickly the pay of CEOs has increased compared to worker's salaries.

You don't understand the study of economics, then. If we ever got to a point where robots made everything for us, we wouldn't need money to purchase anything. The reason why we use money and have a market in the first place is because most goods are scarce. You can see this in the one thing we don't have market in (except in special circumstances): air. You and I are both breathing it, and no one is charging us, and no one could charge you. There is just so much of it and so little demand that the price is 0. If robots made everything at our whim, we would have eliminated the problem of scarcity, and then there is no more economic system whatsoever.

Of course, I doubt we will ever get to that point. However, in the meantime, what happens when machines replace workers is a process of reemployment in other industries where labor is needed. This frees up labor to work on new inventions. That is the only to advance technologically, by destroying jobs in older industries. With your type of thinking, we would have never left the horse-drawn carriage because carriage makers would lose their jobs to the cars' assembly line.

Zippyjuan
12-06-2010, 07:18 PM
You don't understand the study of economics, then. If we ever got to a point where robots made everything for us, we wouldn't need money to purchase anything.
How does the robot maker get his money for making the robots? How does the company who uses the robots and other inputs make anything if there is no money? Distribution costs? Why would they even be in business? It is not possible to get the cost of producing anything down to zero.

Yes, I did take my argument to the extreme. Reality won't go that far. Robots are in use today. It takes fewer people for example to produce an automobile than it did 20 years or 30 ago (Ford probably used few workers per car since his cars were a lot less complicated but he also recognized that you had to share the gains of production with the workers via higher salaries so he can sell even more cars- today businesses are focused on keeping all costs- particularly labor which is the biggest cost- as low as they can). Cities like Dearborn and Detroit are struggling with that problem- fewer workers needed. This should lead to new prosperity, right? They are now freed to persue other things.

ababba
12-06-2010, 07:23 PM
6 times more of what?

Goods, in real terms.

Travlyr
12-06-2010, 07:25 PM
Goods, in real terms.
Saying it doesn't make it true. Link?

tremendoustie
12-06-2010, 07:25 PM
How does the robot maker get his money for making the robots? How does the company who uses the robots and other inputs make anything if there is no money? Distribution costs? Why would they even be in business? It is not possible to get the cost of producing anything down to zero.

Yes, I did take my argument to the extreme. Reality won't go that far. Robots are in use today. It takes fewer people for example to produce an automobile than it did 20 years ago (Ford probably used few workers per car since his cars were a lot less complicated but he also recognized that you had to share the gains of production with the workers via higher salaries so he can sell even more cars- today businesses are focused on keeping all costs- particularly labor which is the biggest cost- as low as they can). Cities like Dearborn and Detroit are struggling with that problem- fewer workers needed.


That's incorrect economics. Scarcity is fundamental -- people will always want more goods and services, and supply meets demand at price -- and implies full, or nearly full employment. The value of an hour of a person's time will never be zero -- if they are more productive in an hour, due to robotics, that makes them more valuable, and us all more wealthy, not less.

1. The only reason for persistant unemployment is economic distortions/overhead, the overwhelming majority of which are caused by governments.

2. The total wealth of a society is the amount it produces. If we produce more because we have robots, we are more wealthy, not less. Perhaps the value of menial labor will go down in nominal terms -- but what a worker can buy with that money goes up. Just think about it! They must have found work that's more valuable per hour than continuing to do what the robots are now doing, otherwise they'd never have switched. They can buy the goods they'd have produced at the old job, plus some, with an hour's wages.

oyarde
12-06-2010, 07:27 PM
Saying it doesn't make it true. Link?

I would expect that consumption would be higher , much of that may be do to the large percentage of people at that time involved directly with some agriculture , less food bought , more raised .

Travlyr
12-06-2010, 07:32 PM
I would expect that consumption would be higher , much of that may be do to the large percentage of people at that time involved directly with some agriculture , less food bought , more raised .
Okay, I can believe that. Does that translate into more wealth, or just different? I'm pretty sure that wealth disparity was not nearly as dramatic in America then as now, right?

Dr.3D
12-06-2010, 07:36 PM
If there had not been the inflation caused by the Federal Reserve and money had remained as valuable is it was back in 1913, we wouldn't be getting paid 25 times as much as back then.

The real positive would be that people who had saved all of their lives for retirement wouldn't have been ripped off by inflation and be living on cat food and programs like social security wouldn't have been so easy to start.

oyarde
12-06-2010, 07:37 PM
Okay, I can believe that. Does that translate into more wealth, or just different? I'm pretty sure that wealth disparity was not nearly as dramatic in America then as now, right?

I would have to look into it . Probably not , except the top percentage , that disparity would probably have been similar then.

oyarde
12-06-2010, 07:38 PM
If you wanted to do a little something at home or on the side to generate some extra income then , there would have been about zero restrictions .

Travlyr
12-06-2010, 07:43 PM
Taxes were a lot lower then, and landowners held much bigger acreages.

Zippyjuan
12-06-2010, 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travlyr
6 times more of what?

Goods, in real terms.



Difficult to measure. Probably the best way to look at is per capita GDP adjusted for price inflation. This doen't cover all consumption since it ignores net imports but gives a decent idea of what has happened over time. This chart only shows selected years and ends in 1998 (uses constant 1998 dollars):
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us


Table 1: GDP per Capita in the United States

Year
GDP per capitaa
Annual growth rate from previous period

1820
1,257


1870
2,445
1.34

1913
5,301
1.82

1950
9,561
1.61

1973
16,689
2.45

1990
23,214
1.94

1998
27,331
2.04



Chart doesn't show in a good format. Basically the per capita GDP in 1913 was $5,301 in 1998 dollars and by 1998 it was $27,331- an increase of five fold. By today, it certainly could be up to six times (meaning each person produces and possibly buys six times as much as they did in 1913).

Xenophage
12-06-2010, 07:44 PM
A stronger dollar would equate to cheaper imported goods and increased domestic investment, which would lead to greater domestic production and higher employment.

It is a significant boost to a society to have a highly valued currency. It encourages saving and investment, which leads to even greater long term wealth creation. Higher inflation, by contrast, encourages spending, but not investment.

One of the often overlooked negative effects of high inflation is that money tends to accumulate in the hands of very rich, and it wipes out the middle class.

In addition, taxation and public spending mis-allocate resources and no single agency is smart enough to predict public wants and needs, as Mises showed. This creates bubbles, boom/bust cycles, and leaves us off less wealthy.

Ultimately it is impossible to tell how much more prosperous we might have been if we had no income tax and no federal reserve, but we can say with certainty that we would be *much* more prosperous. The entire world would likely look very different today. Technologies would be different, high growth industries would look different.

Nobody wants to live in 1913, and comparisons between standards of living are completely useless. Yes, our standard of living is vastly improved today, but that's in *spite* of the government and due entirely to science and technology. I'd rather be making $11/hour today than $11/hour in 1913, even though $11/hour in 1913 was worth more in real terms. The fact is that *almost* everything is cheaper in real terms today by huuuuuge margins because of technology - and besides, life is more fun with Playstation 3 and an HDTV. And I'd have to invent rock 'n roll in 1913, but I don't think anybody would have liked it, and that would make me a sad panda :(

oyarde
12-06-2010, 07:46 PM
What was gold , about $ 20 an ounce ?

ababba
12-06-2010, 07:51 PM
Saying it doesn't make it true. Link?

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htm

long term stock, bond, interest rate and consumption data, down at the bottom of the page. Real consumption per capita is one of the series.

Zippyjuan
12-06-2010, 07:55 PM
I would have to look into it . Probably not , except the top percentage , that disparity would probably have been similar then.

This does not go back before 1922 but shows that in that year the top one percent had 36.7% of the total wealth. Dropped a bit until 1949 when it was 27.1% and then increased again to 1965- 34.4%. Lowest was in 1976 when the top one percent had 19.9% of the wealth. Now it is back up to around 37%. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

oyarde
12-06-2010, 07:59 PM
This does not go back before 1922 but shows that in that year the top one percent had 36.7% of the total wealth. Dropped a bit until 1949 when it was 27.1% and then increased again to 1965- 34.4%. Lowest was in 1976 when the top one percent had 19.9% of the wealth. Now it is back up to around 37%. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

So , top 1 % 1922 ,37 % , currently 37 % . Sounds about right .

Zippyjuan
12-06-2010, 07:59 PM
A stronger dollar would equate to cheaper imported goods and increased domestic investment, which would lead to greater domestic production and higher employment.

It is a significant boost to a society to have a highly valued currency. It encourages saving and investment, which leads to even greater long term wealth creation. Higher inflation, by contrast, encourages spending, but not investment.

:(

A stronger dollar does make imports cheaper- and our exports to other countries more expensive. This encourages investments to go overseas more than for domestic production. A weaker dollar would encourage more domestic production.

Zippyjuan
12-06-2010, 08:05 PM
What was gold , about $ 20 an ounce ?

About- but bear in mind that the price of gold was fixed back then.

Dr.3D
12-06-2010, 08:06 PM
About- but bear in mind that the price of gold was fixed back then.

Well, the value of the dollar was fixed to be 20 per ounce of gold.

oyarde
12-06-2010, 08:20 PM
About- but bear in mind that the price of gold was fixed back then.

Yes , If I remember it stayed between about $ 20 to $70 up to Nixon.

Fox McCloud
12-06-2010, 08:30 PM
Given a choice between living in 1913 and living today, I choose today. Standards of living are considerably higher than they were back then.

If everybody is 25 times richer then everything willl cost 25 times more.

only if they're 25 times more rich because of monetary inflation...if it's just because of efficiency in the market-place, this isn't necessarily correct, at all.


A stronger dollar does make imports cheaper- and our exports to other countries more expensive. This encourages investments to go overseas more than for domestic production. A weaker dollar would encourage more domestic production.

only short term; long term, currency traders end up causing it to align to where it would be without the government attempting to manipulate its currency.

Zippyjuan
12-06-2010, 08:41 PM
At that point the dollar would not be "strong" anymore. Absolutely correct if the currency is allowed to float. When it is pegged or manipulated such as between us and China it can go on for a long time.

Fox McCloud
12-06-2010, 08:48 PM
At that point the dollar would not be "strong" anymore. Absolutely correct if the currency is allowed to float. When it is pegged or manipulated such as between us and China it can go on for a long time.

even then, if there's a market-operation or even black-market operation for currency trading, a peg will eventually blow apart anyway, which, at least according to Sudha Shenoy is happening in China (look at it from a market perspective; even if there is a peg, but you know it's not being properly maintained, you'll "under" or "over" value it to compenstate for the false peg).

idirtify
12-06-2010, 09:20 PM
Regarding some previous posts that criticize modern technology and too much free time, and other peripheral things:

I’m not trying to compare now versus then, or high technology versus low technology. Of course the living standard is better now than in 1913, and of course it’s because of high technology (those who disagree with my premise and post self-defeating arguments against high technology* should start a new thread).

My intent is to compare two parallel worlds of the present time: this one here, and the parallel one that did not take the road labeled “federal reserve act” (or “drug war”). Of course the comparison is not possible, but just try to imagine how different the two parallel worlds would be. For example: even though technology has progressed in a slowing economy, it has obviously not progressed as fast. My challenge is just try to imagine how fast would it have progressed in an economy that wasn’t 96% handicapped, and just how much better would your lives be because of it. And that’s only technology. In a good economy, virtually everything is improved, including mental health.

*And let me propose that many of the complaints posted here against high technology and its effects are actually (unknowingly) complaints against the effects of our wounded economy (that we have lived with so long, and been brainwashed, we cannot correctly see).

idirtify
12-06-2010, 09:21 PM
A stronger dollar would equate to cheaper imported goods and increased domestic investment, which would lead to greater domestic production and higher employment.

It is a significant boost to a society to have a highly valued currency. It encourages saving and investment, which leads to even greater long term wealth creation. Higher inflation, by contrast, encourages spending, but not investment.

One of the often overlooked negative effects of high inflation is that money tends to accumulate in the hands of very rich, and it wipes out the middle class.

In addition, taxation and public spending mis-allocate resources and no single agency is smart enough to predict public wants and needs, as Mises showed. This creates bubbles, boom/bust cycles, and leaves us off less wealthy.

Ultimately it is impossible to tell how much more prosperous we might have been if we had no income tax and no federal reserve, but we can say with certainty that we would be *much* more prosperous. The entire world would likely look very different today. Technologies would be different, high growth industries would look different.

Nobody wants to live in 1913, and comparisons between standards of living are completely useless. Yes, our standard of living is vastly improved today, but that's in *spite* of the government and due entirely to science and technology. I'd rather be making $11/hour today than $11/hour in 1913, even though $11/hour in 1913 was worth more in real terms. The fact is that *almost* everything is cheaper in real terms today by huuuuuge margins because of technology - and besides, life is more fun with Playstation 3 and an HDTV. And I'd have to invent rock 'n roll in 1913, but I don't think anybody would have liked it, and that would make me a sad panda :(

Now that’s more like the thread posts I had in mind, esp your last two paragraphs. I agree wholeheartedly. Although it is definitely impossible to know how much more prosperous we would be without such things as the income tax or federal reserve (or drug war), it is educational to surmise the meaning of “MUCH more prosperous”. I feel that many do not begin to comprehend what that would encompass for the individual and society. It’s kind of like asking folks who grew up in an abusive household at poverty-level what it would be like to have been raised in a wealthy functional environment. But it’s even worse than that, since no one can even LOOK at the appearance of 97-years worth of a functional economy and a small government. Suffice it to say, the “landscape” (social and mental and literal) would be virtually unrecognizable (better). One doesn’t have to know a whole lot about the transforming effects of technology and wealth, and the deleterious effects of tyranny and poverty, in order to credibly make that statement.

oyarde
12-06-2010, 09:23 PM
Regarding some previous posts that criticize modern technology and too much free time, and other peripheral things:

I’m not trying to compare now versus then, or high technology versus low technology. Of course the living standard is better now than in 1913, and of course it’s because of high technology (those who disagree with my premise and post self-defeating arguments against high technology* should start a new thread).

My intent is to compare two parallel worlds of the present time: this one here, and the parallel one that did not take the road labeled “federal reserve act” (or “drug war”). Of course the comparison is not possible, but just try to imagine how different the two parallel worlds would be. For example: even though technology has progressed in a slowing economy, it has obviously not progressed as fast. My challenge is just try to imagine how fast would it have progressed in an economy that wasn’t 96% handicapped, and just how much better would your lives be because of it. And that’s only technology. In a good economy, virtually everything is improved, including mental health.

*And let me propose that many of the complaints posted here against high technology and its effects are actually (unknowingly) complaints against the effects of our wounded economy (that we have lived with so long, and been brainwashed, we cannot correctly see).

Well if there was greater wealth , that improves health ( diet , ability to pay for services etc. ) , yes , improved mental health .

tremendoustie
12-06-2010, 09:26 PM
I guestimate that if we'd had an unimpeded free market for the last 50 years, we'd be roughly 3-4 times wealthier than we are now, and the income gap would be smaller, by percentage, as well.

I think someone did a paper on this topic.

idirtify
12-06-2010, 09:26 PM
Technology was supposed to free us to have more time for other things. Just didn't work out that way.

Most of our time is ate with work up because of the economy, not technology.

tremendoustie
12-06-2010, 09:28 PM
Most of our time is ate with work up because of the economy, not technology.

Yes, the government is wasting our increased productivity as fast as we create it.

If you want to know where your free time went, videotape a government bureacrat at their job. Then take a look at all the people in the defense industry, creating less than zero wealth.

The people who actually create wealth have to work harder, because they're lifting the weight of everyone else. It doesn't help to double productivity per worker if you halve the number of people with productive employment.

idirtify
12-07-2010, 10:06 AM
I guestimate that if we'd had an unimpeded free market for the last 50 years, we'd be roughly 3-4 times wealthier than we are now, and the income gap would be smaller, by percentage, as well.

I think someone did a paper on this topic.

Although four times richer is a lot, who’s to say it would not be more? If the dollars we have now would not have lost value due to government abuses, we would literally be 25 times richer. Of course that’s probably an oversimplification, but when you factor in other government antics that only serve to reduce our wealth and enslave us (reduce quality of life), it may not be an exaggeration. Most cannot imagine being four times richer, let alone 25 times richer. And then there is the production performance of the market to fathom. We would not only be many times richer, but the things/services produced & offered for sale would surely boggle the mind. It is my firm opinion that no science-fiction writer can possibly imagine what our world would look like had these few government abuses not been strangling our civilization for the past century.

OTOH, it would be nice to see some kind of creative effort in that regard (with that plot), like a book or movie.

mczerone
12-07-2010, 11:54 AM
You would have to be satisfied with only getting a raise once in a while based on performance and seniority.

The theory is that the 2% inflation per year is because people wouldn't work for the same salary each year and need at least a slight raise.

Real people only expect raises because they are accustomed to CPI increases. And even then, there are many industries/companies that haven't given out raises in many years - their employees are very quick to understand that if they want even the same pay as last year, they have to be highly productive, or else they are slated for demotion, pay cuts, or layoffs.

People would be satisfied with raises tied to promotions and productivity increases - but only if there was no inflation. So any inflation target theory that presupposes wage inflation is obviously going to have to advocate monetary inflation. Very circular reasoning.

mczerone
12-07-2010, 12:04 PM
Although four times richer is a lot, who’s to say it would not be more? If the dollars we have now would not have lost value due to government abuses, we would literally be 25 times richer. Of course that’s probably an oversimplification, but when you factor in other government antics that only serve to reduce our wealth and enslave us (reduce quality of life), it may not be an exaggeration. Most cannot imagine being four times richer, let alone 25 times richer. And then there is the production performance of the market to fathom. We would not only be many times richer, but the things/services produced & offered for sale would surely boggle the mind. It is my firm opinion that no science-fiction writer can possibly imagine what our world would look like had these few government abuses not been strangling our civilization for the past century.

OTOH, it would be nice to see some kind of creative effort in that regard (with that plot), like a book or movie.

The quantity of money does not matter. The only real effects from the Fed debasement is the effect of the first spender being a deviation from the free-economy.

We've had more wars funded, we've had more monuments built, we've had more federal agencies created, we've had more federal employment, more federal welfare, and we've had more federal spending that there would have been without this debasement. Accordingly there's been less local development, less resources devoted to personal savings, less private regulatory action, less ability to support private defense militia, less private sector jobs, and less overall charity because the private actor in the economy is working with non-counterfeit money.

Don't look to any type of "multiplier" of quantity of how much better things could have been but for the Fed. Look to the quality and nature of things that the new money was spent on, and what opportunities were foregone by private investors who couldn't outbid the Federal Counterfeiters for scarce resources.

Would the Hoover Dam have been built without the Fed? Who knows? Was it a good thing that it was built or a bad thing? Again, who knows? Because it was built with non-profit-and-loss incentivized funny money, all we can say is that it created a boom in the middle of the desert whose bust may still be coming.

idirtify
12-07-2010, 09:53 PM
The quantity of money does not matter. The only real effects from the Fed debasement is the effect of the first spender being a deviation from the free-economy.

We've had more wars funded, we've had more monuments built, we've had more federal agencies created, we've had more federal employment, more federal welfare, and we've had more federal spending that there would have been without this debasement. Accordingly there's been less local development, less resources devoted to personal savings, less private regulatory action, less ability to support private defense militia, less private sector jobs, and less overall charity because the private actor in the economy is working with non-counterfeit money.

Don't look to any type of "multiplier" of quantity of how much better things could have been but for the Fed. Look to the quality and nature of things that the new money was spent on, and what opportunities were foregone by private investors who couldn't outbid the Federal Counterfeiters for scarce resources.

Would the Hoover Dam have been built without the Fed? Who knows? Was it a good thing that it was built or a bad thing? Again, who knows? Because it was built with non-profit-and-loss incentivized funny money, all we can say is that it created a boom in the middle of the desert whose bust may still be coming.

Yes, I understand that the number of dollars owned does not matter (as I previously stated). But as you essentially explain, real wealth DOES matter. And without the fed, most people and businesses would have had multitudes more of it (this past century). And the beneficial ramifications of that (parallel world) are beyond our wildest dreams. Or stated inversely: It is actually impossible to fathom the immensity of damage caused by the Fed (and it’s related policies). But thinking and talking about it helps to get an idea.

oyarde
12-07-2010, 09:56 PM
I cannot figure it out . Say 1920 , I could by a pistol and a new , fitted suit for an ounce of gold . Would be not quite that today , but probably what an ounce was a year ago .

idirtify
12-08-2010, 09:33 AM
I cannot figure it out . Say 1920 , I could by a pistol and a new , fitted suit for an ounce of gold . Would be not quite that today , but probably what an ounce was a year ago .

As things continue to be produced, they become produce more efficiently and cheaply. So as inflation (dollar devaluation) goes up and production costs go down, it gives the false impression that there is no inflation. But when you look into it, you realize that a good pistol and suit should probably now only cost several bucks (literally) – or about 1/100 of an ounce of gold.

lester1/2jr
12-08-2010, 09:35 AM
25 x 0 = :(

Travlyr
12-08-2010, 09:58 AM
silver dollars only.

oyarde
12-08-2010, 05:00 PM
As things continue to be produced, they become produce more efficiently and cheaply. So as inflation (dollar devaluation) goes up and production costs go down, it gives the false impression that there is no inflation. But when you look into it, you realize that a good pistol and suit should probably now only cost several bucks (literally) – or about 1/100 of an ounce of gold.

Interesting . The things that would show the inflation the most would likely be food , oil , gas , property price , I think .