Ummm OK except that is not what you claimed at all and we both know it. You claimed:
"My share is valued in dollars and still buys the same tank of gas therefore, by your own example, suffered no loss."
It doesn't, in fact your share valued at $40.40 has costs and tax implications associated with it and to purchase the same amount of goods (ergo a tank of gas) as U.S. legal tender it must transfer ownership which triggers those associated costs and taxes and thus you end up with less money in which to buy your tank of gas.
"I can come up with examples that actually gain in buying power..."
I am sure you can being now that you have been proved wrong on your first example but then by doing such you further destroy your claim of "purchasing power is not reduced by inflation" on assets other than cash. Because if your claim was true then you wouldn't end up with less money when you converted to legal tender.
So the bottom line is for any stock or bond asset to acheive parity with inflation it must increae in value greater that the rate of inflation or suffer loss of principal when converted to legal tender.
As far as PAR goes it is a term with differing values and you asked for a definition and a link.
Par is also a term that denotes present value which can be (and usually is) different then starting value. My point was and still is that the FED allows such instruments to be repackaged and sold and thus by doing so they change the underlying PAR value of the instrument (be it Stocks, Bonds, Mortgages etc.) This is the shell game no one pays attention to.
Its like allowing the Casinos to put a "2" in front of the "5" on a 5 Dollar Chip and repackaging it into a 25 Dollar chip. No more actual physical Cash is in the Casino at the time of the repackaging but the chips are supposedly worth more.
Ummm OK except that is not what you claimed at all and we both know it.
Ummm, it is what I claimed. Then I gave a simple example using your example (tank of gas) showing an investment that exactly mirrored yours.
I am sure you can being now that you have been proved wrong on your first example
My example proved your claim from post #85 was incorrect. I didn't want to pile on. You already admitted your error.
I am sure you can being now that you have been proved wrong on your first example but then by doing such you further destroy your claim of "purchasing power is not reduced by inflation" on assets other than cash.
Where did I make that claim?
As far as PAR goes it is a term with differing values and you asked for a definition and a link.
I want to know where you got the idea that banks can somehow multiply their loans based on a different par number, even if the actual value of the 3 types of bonds is identical.
My point was and still is that the FED allows such instruments to be repackaged and sold
Banks don't hold reserves against loans they sell, so that has nothing to do with your claim.