Posted on 05/10/2009 6:39:42 AM PDT by FromLori
They have an obvious interest in telling you that. But the LCD TV of today is the tractor or airplane of of 1929. The steady invention of new goods is not linked to fiat currency. It would have occurred anyway. You seem to be implying that these inventions were the result of dropping the standard backing our money.
We would still be buying LCD TVs even had FDR never called in the gold, and had nixon not closed the gold standard completely.
The LCD TV would simply have a different price reflecting a currency that doesnt devalue.
As in Global warming, for your argument to make any sense, it needs to be able to correctly “predict” recorded history as well as the future. Can you please tell us when you believe inventions/technology and our quality of life was stunted in the USA *because* our currency was backed by a specified amount of gold set by law?
There is simply no such example.
THAT was a good article. Honestly, if someone can read that, and still argue that FIAT money is better, i certainly don’t believe i can reach them.
It’s all explained in the new Star Trek movie using an alternate timeline.
My point was that only by comparing what the currency would buy in terms of a basket of goods, i.e. the price level, can you compare eras given the average income level of the era. Looking at individual commodities is meaningless.
Our standard of living has obviously improved as stated by the Cleveland Fed and most other economists.
Again, in real terms, the inflation adjusted per capita income level is over 500% higher than it was in 1929.
Not entirely. Remember, though, that the factories of the late 1800's were much more labor intensive than those even one generation later. Factories before 1850 were rare. And consumer goods coming out of factories were minimal in 1910; we were still basically doing "B2B" and capital goods production then, with non-union labor. Bt the time 1930 rolled around... Consumer goods, union labor, easier credit, etc.
Not saying that the Fed did not contribute to inflation, they did, mostly through credit policies. But they also were a non-factor in the deflation of the '30's and the freeze of the early 40's.
Now as for imaginery value, well, that's tougher to say. Is the guy that is making $400 a month in 1950 and paying $.25 for a hamburger worse off than the guy making $4000 a month and paying $2.00 for a hamburger in 2005? The economist would point out that the 2005 guy is enjoying his burger for less of a proportion of his wages than the 1950 guy.
It may be that our grandkids are living in $10Mil homes and making $3Mill a year. There are no simple answers, here. We had economic issues before the fed and general distrust of banks even until the mid 20th century. We did'nt get richer before or after 1913 because there was or was not a fed. We got richer due to the profit motive and ingenuity of our workers, inventors, and businessmen.
very plausible. references please?
it’s also IMPOSSIBLE to correctly measure the distance between any 2 objects, but we can get within a margin of error.
that is not what heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says.
Tell me what the margin of error is?
it depends on your measuring instrument. a tape measure, maybe 1/32”, a laser, maybe 1 micron
This book.
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Banker-Hjalmar-Greeley-Schacht/dp/0316929166
There’s another book, it escapes me, but it was more general on Hitler’s Germany before, and during the way, and what and, for people that wanted to take over the world, what a screwed up allocation of resources. Think Chicago, public schools, Washington D.C.
ok, so it’s just someone’s theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.