Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mad Dawgg
My claim is only that there are assets valued in dollars that do not lose value at the same rate as inflation.

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.

149 posted on 12/11/2010 8:19:17 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies ]


To: Toddsterpatriot
"My example proved your claim from post #85 was incorrect. I didn't want to pile on. You already admitted your error."

From post 85: " any asset that is valued in Dollars suffers the same loss..."

What is so hard to understand about this toddster, You have indeed agreed with the premise that any asset loses the same 1% inflation per dollar, this is a true statement.

Where did I make that claim?

Right here in Post 125: "My share purchases exactly a tank of gas, no matter what the rate of inflation."

If your share does this then explain how you go about it. First you must convert your share to legal tender and as soon as you do you most pay fees to the SEC your broker and of course Uncle Sam wants his due on Capital gains. So now your share of 40.40 has at least lost 7 or more bucks trading in your share.

So lets us review first you claimed I said Assets won't increase in value, I never claimed such I claimed (and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt)n all of the dollars he mentioned would suffer the same loss in inflation. He was trying to minimize the loss on inflation by pulling out a large part of the assets.

Next you claim that your investment will not lose purchasing power and be able to purchase the same tank of gas which as we both know isn't close to being true.

153 posted on 12/11/2010 2:11:00 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

To: Toddsterpatriot
"Banks don't hold reserves against loans they sell, so that has nothing to do with your claim."

Ahhh we did this once but we can do it again. Its within the BANK THAT BOUGHT IT wherein the magic happens. (You are confusing individual banks with the banking system).

"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."

Hmmm I see you are having a problem with a definition you requested (to explain PAR) and the issue of values getting changed by repackaging such as happens in CDOs and other magic tricks.

154 posted on 12/11/2010 2:34:16 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson