What Has Government Done to Our Money?


Francisco Ferrer

Recommended Posts

These are examples of "You can prove anything with statistics," Wolf.

???

20140917_chart.jpg

I bet if there was a third line on that graph of the growth of government means tested benefits program spending, it would explain the red vector.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolf is exploiting my supposed ignorance and naivete to display his beloved graphs.

--Brant

reality will make him pay for this--damned if I know how; that's Greg's department (no where to run; no where to hide; reality's gonna get ya, get ya, get ya, get ya, get ya!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say or imply that. Just baffled by your remark 'statistics can prove anything.' I don't want to repeat myself about hedonic adjustments to CPI. The salient fact is purchasing power of the dollar has been cut in half since 1988. Individual stocks have outperformed indexes, but the whole thing is a house of cards driven by central bank outright purchases, ZIRP, stock buybacks, and loose fiscal policy (little different than Japan in macro result).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolf, my (fun) quote was from Rand. It's not a true statement by her for while statistics can only be a partial way to knowing something and per se prove nothing, knowledge comes from multi-faceted sources compared and balanced one illuminating--or not--others. Proof of the kind Rand was implying, apropos cigarettes, health and cancer specifically, I think, is of the supposed scientific kind. But scientific proof is of varying exactnesses usually depending on the complexity of what is being studied and/or evaluated. Rand was using "proof" as a smokescreen to hide how smoking, even back in those days, defied common sense. I remember in jr high in '57 or '58 how the music teacher in front of the class lit up a cigarette--just try that today, music man!--and blew its virgin smoke through a facial tissue and showed the residue remarking that that's what happens to your lungs when you smoke.

What your graphs and statistics show, of course, are serious data for evaluation and general consideration. "Proof" is not relevant. I was critiquing Rand, not you. I can get too obscure sometimes, but--I gotta be me!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly think Rand felt a need to be like her heroes to the extent that if she fell short she would fake it for public display--that is, fall on her sword for Atlas Shrugged and pay a private price, only it went public eventually. Her heroes just had to be right, they just had to be real, they just had to be possible. But they were so perfect they were refined of true moral choice. Once they had the right knowledge they went and did the right thing, without much more to fight than the temptations of Jesus.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly think Rand felt a need to be like her heroes to the extent that if she fell short she would fake it for public display--that is, fall on her sword for Atlas Shrugged and pay a private price, only it went public eventually. Her heroes just had to be right, they just had to be real, they just had to be possible. But they were so perfect they were refined of true moral choice. Once they had the right knowledge they went and did the right thing, without much more to fight than the temptations of Jesus.

--Brant

I know you have (or had, or have the memory of) a personal experience of Ayn Rand, as a handful of others here have. I didn't and don't. Her recorded interviews and speeches are atrocious. Her power was private, one on one, or in small private gatherings, attested to by numerous witnesses. I'm similarly situated, terrible on TV or in front of a big crowd, unbeatable in private -- so I understand weaknesses and strengths. Same thing with literary efforts. My people are perfect, do the impossible. Living an unchosen life of inescapable handicaps inspires crystal clear projection of the ideal. The only difference between Ayn Rand and myself is a matter of stature. I'm a little bird sitting on the shoulder of a powerful tiger.

What this has to do with money is interesting. I have to study charts. She nailed it in a few words.

When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor— your claim upon the energy of the men who produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atrocious? I'd have to see some again. Seeing her many times live at the Ford Hall Forum she was powerfully (even ironically) charismatic, just as described by Barbara Branden. I've never seen much to the contrary. I also have vinyl NBI recordings of her to the same effect.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The salient fact is purchasing power of the dollar has been cut in half since 1988.

As long as your income at least doubled since 1988 the point is rendered moot. The free market reliably assures parity between what you charge others for what you sell, and what you pay others for what you buy. The dollar denominations are just arbitrary transient variables.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The salient fact is purchasing power of the dollar has been cut in half since 1988.

As long as your income at least doubled since 1988 the point is rendered moot. The free market reliably assures parity between what you charge others for what you sell, and what you pay others for what you buy. The dollar denominations are just arbitrary transient variables.

Greg

But not if you stupidly stuffed your dollars into your mattress.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The salient fact is purchasing power of the dollar has been cut in half since 1988.

As long as your income at least doubled since 1988 the point is rendered moot. The free market reliably assures parity between what you charge others for what you sell, and what you pay others for what you buy. The dollar denominations are just arbitrary transient variables.

Greg

But not if you stupidly stuffed your dollars into your mattress.

--Brant

You've earned the title, "Master of the Obvious", Brant. :wink:

One of the best uses of money I know is to invest it in being debt free.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The salient fact is purchasing power of the dollar has been cut in half since 1988.

 

As long as your income at least doubled since 1988 the point is rendered moot.

 

Real per capita income declined slightly (first chart) unless you strip out government paychecks (second chart) and entitlements

(third chart) -- in which case real private income declined sharply (fourth chart) and we earn less than our masters (fifth chart).

Fred+Personal+Disposable+Income+per+Capi

blog_government_jobs.jpg

NOT-2-600x372.jpg

us-diposable-income.png

average-total-compensation-us-federal-go

BONUS CHART: ATLAS IS A CHUMP

319-Million.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is especially revealing because it shows how the economic gap is being filled...

us-diposable-income.png

The American Spirit of Independence is evaporating right before our very eyes. Giving people what they did not work to earn only makes them into ingrate parasites, because it feeds their infantile sense of entitlement as well as their petulant resentful contempt for the giver. There's gonna be hell to pay when something eventually happens that rips the government teat out of their mouths.

Better build an ark now...

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now