GAME OVER MAN GAME OVER
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i am posting in this high quality thread
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: GAME OVER MAN GAME OVER
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter,
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
Comparing apples to apples this time rather than apples to sneakers?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Sneakers > apples
But oranges blow everything out of the water.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Dollars: Highly valued and sought after by all humans. Of no value (except to buy gold) to space aliens.
Gold: Highly valued and sought after by everyone, including the space aliens the U.S. government bribes with said gold to not land and take over again.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Gold & Dollars: Both worthless when the zombie apocalypse happens.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Toilet Paper & Ramen: More valuable than family members in the zombie apocalypse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You need hot water to make ramen. I would go with those packages of tuna.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Gold & Dollars: Both worthless when the zombie apocalypse happens.
But gold could save your life in the Cyberman Apocalypse.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
see he is saying that gold vs. the dollar is like a quote from private hudson. what is pertinent to this socioeconomic discussion is that hudson as a symbolic representation of fiat vs. commodity exchange currency acts in the visual representative stead, a sort of cinematic specie, as it were, and recognizing the depths and layers of fiat market currency is like recognizing that bill paxton is the anarcho-representative talismanic fetish of the federal reserve; an ignorant person might just look at the economic situation today and see the dollar (hudson) being eaten by an Alien, but the truly wise can look underneath that and see the dollar (paxton) being reborn symbolically and hollowly to be killed by not only the xenomorph but also a Predator (capital gains tax) and a Terminator (the future governor of California) and that this is exactly the kind of nuanced observation and comparative representation of hollywood residuals as a representation of our monetary concerns that the world truly needs. furthermore,
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I wonder if that was as much work to write as it was to read.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Gold & Dollars: Both worthless when the zombie apocalypse happens.
I bet you could beat a zombie to death with a gold brick, but slapping them with cash will likely only get you a one way ticket to brain eating town.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
You could make a scalemail gorget out of dimes, though.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Screw that. Load shotgun shells with dimes and show zombies the money.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Gold & Dollars: Both worthless when the zombie apocalypse happens.
I bet you could beat a zombie to death with a gold brick, but slapping them with cash will likely only get you a one way ticket to brain eating town.
Have you ever tried to beat somebody to death with a gold brick? They're very unwieldy.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Let's build a fire, sing some songs.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You could make bullets/shot easier out of gold then steel, but about the same as copper.
quote:Have you ever tried to beat somebody to death with a gold brick?
You know, it's funny you should ask, as I did try and beat someone with a gold brick just the other day. Although I must admit I just wanted them unconscious and not dead.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Gold & Dollars: Both worthless when the zombie apocalypse happens.
I bet you could beat a zombie to death with a gold brick, but slapping them with cash will likely only get you a one way ticket to brain eating town.
Have you ever tried to beat somebody to death with a gold brick? They're very unwieldy.
Well, you put it in a sock first. Duh.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Have you ever tried to beat somebody to death with a gold brick?
Yes, but I usually wrap a slice of lemon around it first.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
One slice for a whole brick? You need a bigger lemon, or a bigger brick. But yeah, I like the way you think. Way to add insult to injury.
Jake, I hope those are some high quality socks you wear.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Only the best, Strider. Only the best.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Gold could be dropped on the zombies from a height, or heated to melting and flung at them, GoT style.
I suppose if you had enough cash you could create some sort of fire trap, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Have you ever tried to beat somebody to death with a gold brick?
Yes, but I usually wrap a slice of lemon around it first.
ahhhh yesssssssss
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Aaaand we have discovered Sam's fetish.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The pan Galactic Gargle-blaster?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Gold & Dollars: Both worthless when the zombie apocalypse happens.
I bet you could beat a zombie to death with a gold brick, but slapping them with cash will likely only get you a one way ticket to brain eating town.
Have you ever tried to beat somebody to death with a gold brick? They're very unwieldy.
Well, you put it in a sock first. Duh.
Most people have no clue how truly heavy a gold brick is.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Nearly 30 pounds. For context, a woman standing about 5'7" of average build, would comprise a little over 4 gold bars in weight.
A giant like me would be closer to 8 bars.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Gold & Dollars: Both worthless when the zombie apocalypse happens.
I bet you could beat a zombie to death with a gold brick, but slapping them with cash will likely only get you a one way ticket to brain eating town.
Have you ever tried to beat somebody to death with a gold brick? They're very unwieldy.
Well, you put it in a sock first. Duh.
Most people have no clue how truly heavy a gold brick is.
Some people have no clue how truly sturdy my socks are.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Having (to the best of my knowledge) never met you in person, Rabbit doesn't understand the critical importance to everyone around you of your socks' sturdiness.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Nearly 30 pounds. For context, a woman standing about 5'7" of average build, would comprise a little over 4 gold bars in weight.
A giant like me would be closer to 8 bars.
Five seven and 120lbs is average build in your world? Do you live in the land of TV stars and gymnasts?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Having (to the best of my knowledge) never met you in person, Rabbit doesn't understand the critical importance to everyone around you of your socks' sturdiness.
It's true. I have a nasty case of Happy Feet. I rely on my heavy, sturdily built socks to prevent this terrible affliction from being expressed.
quote:Five seven and 120lbs is average build in your world? Do you live in the land of TV stars and gymnasts?
Have you been reading nothing, Kate? He lives in the land of the zombie apocalypse. The average build of a woman is his bleak, ruined world is probably shambling around in an advanced state of decomposition. There's nothing like rotting to help shed pounds.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
I imagine Noemon was familiar with the reference.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: There's nothing like rotting to help shed pounds.
Also, brains are very low in fat.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
"Dollars: Highly valued and sought after by all humans. Of no value (except to buy gold) to space aliens.
Gold: Highly valued and sought after by everyone, including the space aliens the U.S. government bribes with said gold to not land and take over again."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
"Screw that. Load shotgun shells with dimes and show zombies the money."
LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOL
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
"I bet you could beat a zombie to death with a gold brick, but slapping them with cash will likely only get you a one way ticket to brain eating town.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Nearly 30 pounds. For context, a woman standing about 5'7" of average build, would comprise a little over 4 gold bars in weight.
A giant like me would be closer to 8 bars.
Five seven and 120lbs is average build in your world? Do you live in the land of TV stars and gymnasts?
I was rounding to 30, but my math was a bit lazy. What is it, 130? I can never tell how much women are supposed to weigh. And anyway, I live in Czech republic, where women are on average a lot slimmer. For my part, my muscle and bone density is very high, so everybody underestimates my weight by about 10 percent.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
121-160 is the general "ideal" range for a woman who is 5'7".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
As high as 160? I know the "BMI" scale is outdated, but 160 sounds high to me. Would that be a woman with a very wide frame, or large breasts? Just curious, maybe I'm underestimating how tall a woman is at 5' 7". I usually overestimate women's heights for some reason, probably because most are shorter than me, so I just don't notice.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Wide frame, large breasts, huge goiter, hunchback and elephantiasis of all four limbs. I mean how else could a woman weigh 160 lbs. without being a hideous freak of nature? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Average height for American women is 5'6". So 5'7" is on the slightly tall side for a woman.
And the notion that 160 is "too high" for a woman of 5'7" is a sign that you have been influenced by the many unrealistic images of women in the media.
Or it's the zombies, like Jake said.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, not necessarily. It's not that I have an unrealistic image of how a woman is supposed to look. I just don't know how heavy a normal looking woman weighs, honestly. Maybe if women stopped lying about their weight?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: There's nothing like rotting to help shed pounds.
Also, brains are very low in fat.
An excellent point!
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: "Screw that. Load shotgun shells with dimes and show zombies the money."
LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLOL
Yeah, I was pretty entertained by that one too.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Who is this Jake guy, and why does he agree with everything Noemon says?
You know what? I think they're alts. They must be TomDavidson!
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
We are legion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Warning--- NITPICKING AHEAD --- Warning
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Nearly 30 pounds. For context, a woman standing about 5'7" of average build, would comprise a little over 4 gold bars in weight.
A giant like me would be closer to 8 bars.
Five seven and 120lbs is average build in your world? Do you live in the land of TV stars and gymnasts?
I was rounding to 30, but my math was a bit lazy. What is it, 130?
A gold brick weighs a little less than 30 pounds (27.4 lbs to be precise) which means that 4 gold bricks weigh just under 110 lbs -- which is really skinny for a 5'7" woman (BMI 15). Five gold bricks weigh 137 lbs which is the dead middle of the healthy range for a woman of 5'7" and well below average weight for American women.
quote:Average height for American women is 5'6".
Surprisingly (at least to me), the median height for American women is only 63.8" (5'3.8"). US health Statistics. The median height for white women between 20 and 29 is only slightly higher (5'4.8"). At just under 5'5", I've always considered myself short. It turns out I'm a bit over the 50th percentile for women of my age.
-------- End NitPick ---------------
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm not sure if I've hefted gold or saw it on Mr. Roger's. But it was impressive. I think they showed an equivalent weight of iron and it blew my mind. I mean I sort of understand density, but the idea of iron being fluffy compared to another metal just boggles me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: How many women shave off 15 pounds, or won't say what they weigh?
IME, men lie about their weight just as much. Many people lie (or refuse to answer, and unless you're their doctor, rigging mountain climbing gear, etc., why shouldn't they?) about their weight -- male or female.
Rabbit, you're right about the average height. I always misremember that one (probably because I'm pretty tall, and my daughter is taller).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There may be a relative gender bias in that case. IME, men are generally honest with each other about what they weigh, if it's a topic of discussion. Do you think maybe women lie to men more than to other women? I have definitely lied about my weight to women. I don't recall lying about it to another man.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Do you think maybe women lie to men more than to other women?
I would bet on it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:...rigging mountain climbing gear...
Not really here, either. When you rig climbing gear, it's with a margin of safety of several times the body weight of anyone that's not so obese they couldn't walk on their own (a typical carabiner is rated for around 5000 lb.).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I believe that means someone lied to me.
And I believed them! Tsk on me.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
You guys are all being dumb. Everyone knows that in the future gold will become obsolete, along with every other form of currency. We will all live in a socialistic one-world government where people do their jobs because it betters society as a whole, and everyone can have whatever they want because we've got replicators and all kinds of other stuff.
At least that's what Star Trek said would happen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, if material resources actually become fully fungible and infinitely replenishable, then at that point, it will be an interesting question as to what will actually serve as a valuable commodity. It stands to reason that in that scenario, intellectual creativity would increase in perceived value.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Star Trek does away with money, so whenever someone needs something they have to trade replicator rations. Even in a fictional socialist paradise, the market rears its ugly head. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: You guys are all being dumb. Everyone knows that in the future gold will become obsolete, along with every other form of currency. We will all live in a socialistic one-world government where people do their jobs because it betters society as a whole, and everyone can have whatever they want because we've got replicators and all kinds of other stuff.
At least that's what Star Trek said would happen.
Sans replicators as pure science fiction I don't see anything objectionable about the above.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, if material resources actually become fully fungible and infinitely replenishable, then at that point, it will be an interesting question as to what will actually serve as a valuable commodity. It stands to reason that in that scenario, intellectual creativity would increase in perceived value.
Or Nancy Kress's short story "Nano Comes to Clifford Falls"?
Or Charles Strauss' novel Singularity Sky (well, this one kind of deals with the subject tangentally)?
Or some other short story or novel length examination of this idea that will occur to me after I click "Submit".
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Screw that. Load shotgun shells with dimes and show zombies the money.
MONEY SHOT!!!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Star Trek does away with money, so whenever someone needs something they have to trade replicator rations. Even in a fictional socialist paradise, the market rears its ugly head.
Replicator rations were a minor plot point on Voyager, because of a damaged power system. They were not really a currency, as the source of power remained fully fungible and infinitely renewable. This was not a currency scheme used in the rest of the series as I recall.
And anyway, the economic system was not exactly socialist, but I think the implication as simply that there exists virtually no incentive to trade in commodities due to the ready availability of nearly infinite sources of energy. So the only valuable good, energy, has almost no market value, making the pursuit of accumulated wealth in the form of physical possessions outdated.
One could even argue that the economics of Star Trek's Earth are libertarian, only with no valuable physical commodities market. All government organizations are volunteer, and all trade and social advancement is intellectual.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I should point out though, some theories on Star Trek economics place the system at a different point in th scale, as "participatory Econmics". Essentially that credit exists to value work and social input, but that credit is not tradable, and goods, and work, have a fixed absolute value. It is impossible to privately control the means of production, and since credit is nontransferable,, there exists no financial incentive for corruption. So the theory suggests.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Plus there's latinum.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's Star Trek, but not the Earth or Federation economies.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It's not entirely clear, but the Federation does use a form of currency known as the Federation credit which is probably exchangeable with gold pressed latinum. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Federation_credit
It's not well explained how this exists in conjunction with the frequent assertions that there is no money http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Money
In reality, the first article touches on some of the behind the scenes disagreement on money, which explains why the portrayal of currency is somewhat inconsistent between episodes and shows.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I seem to remember people in Next Generation bargaining away holodeck privileges, but I can't cite a specific episode off the top of my head.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Honestly thought the thread title read "GOD vs the dollar."
I figured it was a bit of an unfair fight, considering the fact that every dollar trusts in god.
Now Rocky vs Drago, THAT was a good matchup.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Star Trek does away with money, so whenever someone needs something they have to trade replicator rations. Even in a fictional socialist paradise, the market rears its ugly head.
Replicator rations were a minor plot point on Voyager, because of a damaged power system. They were not really a currency, as the source of power remained fully fungible and infinitely renewable. This was not a currency scheme used in the rest of the series as I recall.
And anyway, the economic system was not exactly socialist, but I think the implication as simply that there exists virtually no incentive to trade in commodities due to the ready availability of nearly infinite sources of energy. So the only valuable good, energy, has almost no market value, making the pursuit of accumulated wealth in the form of physical possessions outdated.
One could even argue that the economics of Star Trek's Earth are libertarian, only with no valuable physical commodities market. All government organizations are volunteer, and all trade and social advancement is intellectual.
Have we really given up so COMPLETELY on solving actual economic problems in real life?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Star Trek does away with money, so whenever someone needs something they have to trade replicator rations. Even in a fictional socialist paradise, the market rears its ugly head.
Replicator rations were a minor plot point on Voyager, because of a damaged power system. They were not really a currency, as the source of power remained fully fungible and infinitely renewable. This was not a currency scheme used in the rest of the series as I recall.
And anyway, the economic system was not exactly socialist, but I think the implication as simply that there exists virtually no incentive to trade in commodities due to the ready availability of nearly infinite sources of energy. So the only valuable good, energy, has almost no market value, making the pursuit of accumulated wealth in the form of physical possessions outdated.
One could even argue that the economics of Star Trek's Earth are libertarian, only with no valuable physical commodities market. All government organizations are volunteer, and all trade and social advancement is intellectual.
Have we really given up so COMPLETELY on solving actual economic problems in real life?
Oh, I'm sorry to intrude on the Serious Business clearly intended by the topic starter. Fiction is a reflection of our feelings about our shared realities. It's a valid topic for discussion, and it can edify and enrich our understanding of life. So don't be a tool.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: Honestly thought the thread title read "GOD vs the dollar."
I figured it was a bit of an unfair fight, considering the fact that every dollar trusts in god.
Now Rocky vs Drago, THAT was a good matchup.
For a minute I thought this said "Rocky vs. Drogo," and I thought, "Rocky vs. Khal Drogo? That's be badass."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Man, I thought that until you pointed it out that it wasn't.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Screw that. Load shotgun shells with dimes and show zombies the money.
MONEY SHOT!!!
I literally lol'd.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It's not entirely clear, but the Federation does use a form of currency known as the Federation credit which is probably exchangeable with gold pressed latinum.
It's not well explained how this exists in conjunction with the frequent assertions that there is no money
Anyone looking for logical consistency in Star Trek is looking in the wrong place. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No argument.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yep. I would note its kind of understandable when you're looking at multiple "creators" and dozens of writers over the years.
Makes it kind of fun though, IMO. When one looks at the frequent retcons and inconsistencies in even some fairly rigidly controlled single creator universes, I actually find that the Star Trek universe holds together at all somewhat endearing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah it is surprising that we can even kind of sort of make sense of a commonly defined history and structure of a society portrayed by not only over a 5 decade period, but in how many fairly independently generated series and films? Understandably, the novels can't play into a definition that calls the whole thing "cohesive," but the cannon content is remarkably so, even for its inconsistencies.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Oh, I'm sorry to intrude on the Serious Business clearly intended by the topic starter. Fiction is a reflection of our feelings about our shared realities. It's a valid topic for discussion, and it can edify and enrich our understanding of life. So don't be a tool .
At long last, some outright name calling! And in response to such a benign and flippant quip of mine! Huzzah!
Brother, if there was a "butthurt" alarm, it'd be screaming right now.
Twas in jest. Fret not, I don't ACTUALLY believe any of life's problems would ever be solved on this internet forum. "Debates" around here have long since devolved to thinly and poorly veiled attempts at declaring, "I'm more enlightened than you! Nanny nanny boo boo!"
So, Star Trek or no Star Trek, I wasn't sincerely hanging the world's economic hopes here in this thread. So don't be butthurt.
[ August 27, 2011, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:It's a valid topic for discussion, and it can edify and enrich our understanding of life.
And if this is actually fact, then I submit to you that all of our economic woes can be solved with Pootie Tang's belt. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: Brother, if there was a "butthurt" alarm, it'd be screaming right now.
children, please
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: So, Star Trek or no Star Trek, I wasn't sincerely hanging the world's economic hopes here in this thread. So don't be butthurt.
Well, alright, be a tool then.
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
Paper money will collapse. It is too elastic, and governments can devalue it too quickly. Gold is preferrable. Maybe that is what the original post is about?
[ September 04, 2011, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: EarlNMeyer-Flask ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The best thing about the gold standard is that it makes it easy to recognize people whose opinions you should generally dismiss.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: Paper money will collapse. It is too elastic, and governments can devalue it too quickly. Gold is preferrable.
Espousing a return to the gold standard right now is like saying "We have volatile markets that we think is likely to result in an unstable fiat currency in the future. But why bother with the ambiguity? With the gold standard, we could have an unstable currency right now!"
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
There's not even enough physical stores of gold to back the economy anyway, right? So what is the proposal, back currency with assumed gold credit?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The best thing about the gold standard is that it makes it easy to recognize people whose opinions you should generally dismiss.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How about we back the paper money with something? Inflation is a problem.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not really. Hyperinflation is, inflation on its own isn.t
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: How about we back the paper money with something?
Do you think the dollar is not backed by anything?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When the US$ was on the gold standard, you could walk into a bank and exchange currency for gold or silver.
Now the dollar is 100% conceptual, you can still buy things, but that is the definition of curacy, there is not set standard good that is backing the money.
Oh, also 1 US$ is worth .03¢ now (compared to the original value).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In that case, I'll give you 3 cents on the dollar in exchange for every dollar that you own Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That'll be 9¢ please.
[ September 08, 2011, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think you mean 0.0027 cents (Also, you must have a very low cost ISP)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Buying power of one U.S. dollar compared to 1774 USD:
And I was saying I have $3 to my name...what does my internet provider have to do with it? I pay them in sea shells.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Normally, I would jump at the chance to trade 100% of the US dollars minted in 1774 for cold hard cash, but right now I'm more intrigued that you're worried about inflation when you have a grand total of $3.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That'll be .09¢ please.
That is not 9 cents. It is 9-hundreths of a cent.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:When the US$ was on the gold standard, you could walk into a bank and exchange currency for gold or silver.
No, you often couldn't. The dollar was frequently "backed" by gold or silver in a less than convertible fashion. Anyways, you can go purchase gold and silver right now with your dollars, easily. Heck, you can do it online and pay someone else a tiny fee to store it for you! Dollars into gold or silver, just like you asked for.
quote: Now the dollar is 100% conceptual, you can still buy things, but that is the definition of curacy, there is not set standard good that is backing the money.
It is backed by the full faith and credit of the united states government, which means that if someone stops accepting dollars as payment on debt the US gov't will use its not-inconsiderable power to make them. It also volunteers to manage the currency. That's a
quote: Oh, also 1 US$ is worth .03¢ now (compared to the original value).
First, so what? You don't have dollars then, you have dollars now, and you have rather more of them. You might have a complaint if a typical day's wages were still frequently paid in pennies. They aren't. All that number means is that all the numbers are larger. If I took everyone's dollars, and handed them two billion times as many new dollars, ignoring the costs for retooling everything (which is barely noticeable when done gradually over hundreds of years) to accept the new rates, absolutely nobody would have gained or lost anything of value (well, excepting maybe some collectible money). Apparently you think everyone would be two billion times poorer or something.
Second, and in some ways more importantly for getting at the conceptual problem at the heart of all this, is that your numbers are wrong. Inflation is not such a simple construct. When comparing two years near each other, where people basically consume similar things, in similar proportions, we can boil it fairly reasonably down to a number or two and have that be an acceptable approximation. But viewed across centuries, inflation can't be viewed as one number, two numbers, ten numbers, or much of anything other than thousands of numbers, as the prices of so many goods will have varied almost independently of each other. Take a look at some of the ways we can approximate inflation (with available data) here: http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/index.php . But even that only goes so far in showing the complication. Imagine you have diarrhea one morning. Would you rather have a dollar's worth of healthcare in 1774 or a dollar's worth of healthcare today? Remember that 1774's dollar of healthcare is costing you, for some really hard to pin down notion of "more", over twenty times more than the dollar of healthcare today. Would it get you over twenty times better care, or even close to the same care? Potentially useful information: people, even rich people, frequently died of diarrhea in 1774. Hardly anyone dies of diarrhea today. (Granted, a lot of that is sanitation improvements, but we're already presupposing you have the diarrhea, which can still be deadly today if untreated; if you want, we can imagine you being in some country around the world with much worse sanitation, but you've found a small hospital willing to give you care in dollars).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So, your point is that inflation is like a fraction, that is, as long as both numerator and the denominator both grow evenly then the whole number it represents is the same, i.e. 1,000/1,000 = 1/1?
As to the relative value of the dollar, that I just find interesting, I didn't have a big sweeping point or anything.
So, in 1970 average income was $7k/year (or so) and the dollar was at $0.20/original... Ok, in 2010 average income was $41k/year (or so) and the dollar was at $0.03/original...
So, 7,000 x .2 = 1,400 and 41,000 x .03 = 1,230
So, we are making less...but I imagine that a lot of things are a lot cheaper right?
So, in 1970 the average cost of a new car was $3,542 and the dollar was at $0.20/original... So, in 2000 the average cost of a new car was $20,355 and the dollar was at $0.05/original...
So, 3,542 x .2 = 708 and 20,355 x .05 = 1,017
Yes, inflation is meaningless if income and cost of things stay the same, but when they don't...then it is a different story.
It isn't inflation that's like a fraction, it is money. It doesn't matter if the numbers are bigger or smaller, just what their ratios are. If the ratio between income and the cost of things people buy a lot of with that income goes down, people have less to spend. If the ratio goes up, people have more to spend. If we multiply both parts of the ratio by a huge number, people still have exactly the same amount to spend.
The average cost of a car (especially just the purchase price, ignoring the actual cost of owning a car) is almost irrelevant. What matters is the prices people do pay, and the prices people can pay. For instance, I bet you people can buy a used car now that works objectively better in pretty much every way than almost any car in existence in 1970 for far less than $3,542, much less $20k. Have prices really gone up if you can buy something better for less in nominal dollars yet your income in nominal dollars is nearly six times greater?
The question doesn't have a single easy answer, especially when you consider it across the universe of goods. And that's with just forty years of change.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
[to stonewolf] You know that in a zero-inflation world average wages can decline as well? In particular, the takeaway from these stats should be: why has inflation outpaced wage growth? Other good questions in this area are: why have medical expenses outpaced inflation? Why has the cost of higher education outpaced inflation?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Medical and education prices have outpaced inflation because, I think anyway, condensation of wealth has placed greater disposable wealth in the hands of enough people to consume most of the available goods at a very high premium. This has been aided by the expansion of debt availability to the top earners as well- so even those who can't pay the costs can borrow enormous amounts in order to pay. Availability of education and medical care thus decline overall, as more of the industry chases a smaller source of business at a higher premium.
Essentially the equation works out to: the rich or well off either pay the highest price they can, or borrow in order to meet that price. The rest of society in the next generation will be forced to pay those systemic costs in the form of higher prices on homes, cars, and insurance and education, at a rate much higher than it would have been as a function of percentage f income if the previous generation had not borrowed so heavily and inflated prices.
Republicans, by the way, are doing everything they possibly can to maintain this trend, by removing all roadblocks in place of people driving up these prices. Keeping capital gains low, fighting marginal tax increases, and fighting regulation of the health industry and banking systems to ensure that the means to own housing and obtain medical care is in the hands of only the rich and powerful.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
The average cost of a car (especially just the purchase price, ignoring the actual cost of owning a car) is almost irrelevant. What matters is the prices people do pay, and the prices people can pay. For instance, I bet you people can buy a used car now that works objectively better in pretty much every way than almost any car in existence in 1970 for far less than $3,542, much less $20k. Have prices really gone up if you can buy something better for less in nominal dollars yet your income in nominal dollars is nearly six times greater?
The question doesn't have a single easy answer, especially when you consider it across the universe of goods. And that's with just forty years of change.
I think you're ignoring the effect of wealth condensation and income disparity on political enfranchisement. You can buy a car fir less today, but does owning that car make you as enfranchised as it did in 1970? the car, by the way, being only symbol of wealth. Real wealth has a far greater effect on political potency. If I control a larger portion of the means of production and money, then I have more political say- even if your actual personal standards of living increased in 40 years, your status has declined.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I think you're ignoring the effect of wealth condensation and income disparity on political enfranchisement. You can buy a car fir less today, but does owning that car make you as enfranchised as it did in 1970? the car, by the way, being only symbol of wealth. Real wealth has a far greater effect on political potency. If I control a larger portion of the means of production and money, then I have more political say- even if your actual personal standards of living increased in 40 years, your status has declined.
That's pretty much entirely outside the question of inflation. Not that it isn't an important thing to discuss (though it is an entirely new universe of fuzzy), but that it isn't what is being discussed.
And while enfranchisement is an important consideration, it is important not to downplay other things. Even with the extremely high enfranchisement of, say, a 5th century jarl, I think you'd find extremely few alive today who would switch lives with one.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Medical and education prices have outpaced inflation because, I think anyway, condensation of wealth has placed greater disposable wealth in the hands of enough people to consume most of the available goods at a very high premium. This has been aided by the expansion of debt availability to the top earners as well- so even those who can't pay the costs can borrow enormous amounts in order to pay. Availability of education and medical care thus decline overall, as more of the industry chases a smaller source of business at a higher premium.
Debt is hardly just available to the top earners. Extensive debt has been made available to just about everyone (you know all those technical college advertisements? That's why). Further, availability of education in the US has done nothing but increase, as has average availability of medical care (though one might wish it had increased more, and the story for medical care is more complicated). There's a lot to talk about on those topics, but you should make certain your story lines up with the facts.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
On availability of education- what I should have said was "the means for the average person to afford an education," and for that matter, decent healthcare. Particularly in the arts, the costs are quickly outstripping the benefits of an education if you're talking purely economic potential for a graduate. And with inflation outstripping the rise in low level wages, paying back the debt that people take out (and yes, it's more available across the board), gets to be harder and harder.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
At long last, some outright name calling! And in response to such a benign and flippant quip of mine! Huzzah!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)