You don't really need wage growth if you have deflation. Purchasing power is more important than the actual number.Or maybe the Urban cost of living is higher than the rural cost of living. Maybe because wage growth is a whole different ball game from the cost of a changing bag of goods.
Only suspended for American citizens, Foreigners were still able to convert paper dollars into gold. This is why Nixon did it, France wanted their $800 Billion in gold.Really? I thought that pragmatically specie payments on any bank receipt had been suspended for decades already.
Want to know where the word dollar came from :3
Subsidies =/= Interest rates =/= Credit (In reference to the college example proposed)yes easy credit did. The concept of free money. When the Fed lowered the interest rates it led to mal investment. We saw that right before the stock market crash the dot com and housing bubble. It causes prices to rise artificially. It is the same thing that is causing the cost of college to rise so much.
Colleges no longer assume the risk of making loans so they raise prices. College costs 3k per year govt gives out the loan. Next year the price is 3.5k per year. Govt still gives out the loan. And so on.
Easy credit caused the big crash on the railroad bubble. The House of Cook received unlimited money.
Well I was going to give you a much longer explanation that it came from the ending of one of the best coin/note maker's Bohemian last name but... yea pretty much ):!Only suspended for American citizens, Foreigners were still able to convert paper dollars into gold. This is why Nixon did it, France wanted their $800 Billion in gold.
I do believe that the name dollar came from the European silver coin called the Thaler.
Well, the CPI-W would keep track of whether wages went up or down. The second sentence is entirely accurate, but it's easier to understanding things in dollar terms because that's what we deal with all day every day.You don't really need wage growth if you have deflation. Purchasing power is more important than the actual number.
Example: I make $5 an hour. A basket of food costs $2.50. 5 years later I still make $5.00 an hour but now that same basket of food costs $2.25.
I agree with you that the banks needed regulators, unfortunately the banks hire the smartest most talented individuals and the government hires they guys who barely got a degree. The private market shaker and movers have very deep pockets and buy their immunity from the regulators bosses anyway. Regulation works mostly on the small person who can't make a difference anyway.As I said before, it depends on your lean... if you're behind Ludwig von Mises' Austrian business cycle (or evil credit super-villian corp.) then your belief is accurate, but if you think that life has the tendency to make things good, great, bad, awful and everything in between on every person which then translates to the economy then you might lean to my belief. As I said before, the artificially low interest rates DID lead to a collapse but in all honesty the amount of re-regulation we had didn't help, the sub-prime market should have never taken off like it did and it wouldn't have if we had 'adequate' (entirely subjective) banking regulation. (Remember that that specific market is where a lot of the abuses occurred, like equity stripping)
Sure, your used to the NAME of using a dollar, but its value fluctuates hourly. It has no set value so you aren't using a constant.Well, the CPI-W would keep track of whether wages went up or down. The second sentence is entirely accurate, but it's easier to understanding things in dollar terms because that's what we deal with all day every day.
Regulations work :/. Well... I feel like we can go into another side-discussion about how the regulations that WERE in place kind of added to the fire (lending to unqualified borrowers because the bank needed to meet their racial quota) but I've seen the difference personally. My father used to be a correspondent lender and his friend, a real banker, lets me tag along and go into his main branch office when I have the time because I'm close to acquiring my loan officer's license and there's one thing I noticed that was significantly different than before... the paper work. It doesn't matter if your big, smaller, medium, enormous if you don't fill out the paper work then you're going to have the Fed knocking on your door now. (Unlike before, when it was common for loan officers and brokers to fill in any blanks or to use a robo-signers, the latter of which the gov't did/does as well).I agree with you that the banks needed regulators, unfortunately the banks hire the smartest most talented individuals and the government hires they guys who barely got a degree. The private market shaker and movers have very deep pockets and buy their immunity from the regulators bosses anyway. Regulation works mostly on the small person who can't make a difference anyway.
Its like Jon Corzine purposely taking $200 billion of customer funds and giving it to JP Morgan to meet the margin call. Illegal? Sure is!! Will anything happen to Corzine? Hell no! Will all those people just be out their money? Yep!
Or you could use terms like 'current' or '1999' or 'real' dollar which fixates the dollar to a specific value it held at a specific point in time.Sure, your used to the NAME of using a dollar, but its value fluctuates hourly. It has no set value so you aren't using a constant.
Yep, you could do that. I would think you are going to get some strange looks from people though.Or you could use terms like 'current' or '1999' or 'real' dollar which fixates the dollar to a specific value it held at a specific point in time.
That's the exact method used to calculate real GDP (well it's chain-weighted now but it's basically the same thing).Yep, you could do that. I would think you are going to get some strange looks from people though.
sorry, but you lost me there.That's the exact method used to calculate real GDP (well it's chain-weighted now but it's basically the same thing).
EDIT:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-NyKt7F07dQA/TXfjWygZPmI/AAAAAAAAA_4/oZDBIMAN1kU/s1600/Remittance+Ukraine.png
The graph was to show that current dollar is used.sorry, but you lost me there.
Ok, haha I thought maybe you were trying to tell me that GDP is computed by just looking at the current dollar index, but figured you weren't that dense and wanted you to elaborate.The graph was to show that current dollar is used.
In the calculation of real GDP they count everything in a dollar, but of a specific peroid (like 1990, or 1992). The chain-weighting is for things like computers, which cost more in real terms ten years ago. You can't just say that computers cost the same because they're still the same good, because technology and other events have made it cheaper now which has translated to a greater quantity produced. In the old method of calculating real GDP you would multiply the cost of the computer in 1990 or 1992 by the quantity sold today to get that part of this year's real production. But that way of doing it was distorted because it didn't take into account that inputs had been reduced which largely spurred that increase in demand/production.
Haha, yea I just put in 'current dollar BLS' and picked the first graph that showed it xPP Sorry about thatOk, haha I thought maybe you were trying to tell me that GDP is computed by just looking at the current dollar index, but figured you weren't that dense and wanted you to elaborate.
The Graph threw me for a loop because it is named "Ukraine" i thought you were showing me something from another country to back up the GDP thing and was VERY confused.
How do they weight all the spending the government does when they add it to GDP?
no lol...I'm so mad at you. Ask me why :3
Perfect, I was high when I wrote that and forgot what I was going to say xPno lol...
That sounds good in theory but its not reality. If people want it, need it, they'll purchase the product. I can see waiting when it comes to an investment but cars are not an investment. Theoretically wont the 2012 car sell for a lower price than the 2013 car in 2013?What I'm saying is that deflation punishes spenders. Spenders = Consumers. Why would I buy that brand new 2012 car for 50,000 when I know next year I can get a brand new 2013 car with even more amenities for 45,000 dollars? It's that economic calculation, which makes sense for the consumer, that causes the downward spiral of deflation. Some argue that unions screw up market reflexes and other say that the sticky theory dictates that there's usually going to be significant lag-time between the changes in prices and wages (I don't care how much sense it makes, no one likes to take a paycut).
EDIT:
This is fundamentally what happened to Japan that was their 'Lost Decade'.
Yep and Greshams Law kicked in.Only suspended for American citizens, Foreigners were still able to convert paper dollars into gold. This is why Nixon did it, France wanted their $800 Billion in gold.
I do believe that the name dollar came from the European silver coin called the Thaler.
Glad to see you use the word re regulation and not deregulation. The rules changed.Subsidies =/= Interest rates =/= Credit (In reference to the college example proposed)
Jay Cooke!!! The Northern Pacific Railroad 8D, haha. Good to see. The House of Cooke was also bankrupt after that one.
I've written my piece on the 2000~ dotcom bubble and 2008~ housing bubble, it would have happened anyway because there was a real belief IN THE MARKET that they would produce. It wasn't gov't propaganda. Then people bought it in expectation of gain, which lead to real gain which continued to create more real gain until someone realised that the assets had been overpriced and the bottom fell out, this is what a bubbles is. As I said before, it depends on your lean... if you're behind Ludwig von Mises' Austrian business cycle (or evil credit super-villian corp.) then your belief is accurate, but if you think that life has the tendency to make things good, great, bad, awful and everything in between on every person which then translates to the economy then you might lean to my belief. As I said before, the artificially low interest rates DID lead to a collapse but in all honesty the amount of re-regulation we had didn't help, the sub-prime market should have never taken off like it did and it wouldn't have if we had 'adequate' (entirely subjective) banking regulation. (Remember that that specific market is where a lot of the abuses occurred, like equity stripping)