Discussion:
Trade Goods was OT: Ron Paul 2012! Hooray!!!
(too old to reply)
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-09 00:56:03 UTC
Permalink
There were lots of goods available in Wiemar Germany...yet they were
buying them with wheelbarrows full of money.
They will be raising the debt limit soon
I guess you'll be investing your life savings
in wheelbarrows
Hell no! Ill be buying gold and silver, guns and ammo. Lots of ammo.
Whiskey is a trade good too. Even better if you are a
non-drinker.
True indeed!! Good thinking!
Basically, now is the time to "stock up" on the "trade goods".
Whiskey, beer and wine, cigarettes, TP, tin foil, toothpaste --- what
ever you use in your house, somebody else will also want.

If you can food, jars, lids and seals. (Although I heard about a
guy who has invented a reusable canning jar lid. GIYF.) Matches,
lighters, charcoal, propane, adaptors and O-rings.
--
pyotr filipivich.
Discussing the decline in the US's tech edge, James Niccol once wrote
"It used to be that the USA was pretty good at producing stuff teenaged
boys could lose a finger or two playing with."
Shall not be infringed
2011-06-09 01:03:53 UTC
Permalink
There were lots of goods available in Wiemar Germany...yet they were
buying them with wheelbarrows full of money.
They will be raising the debt limit soon
I guess you'll be investing your life savings
  in wheelbarrows
Hell no!  Ill be buying gold and silver, guns and ammo. Lots of ammo.
       Whiskey is a trade good too.  Even better if you are a
non-drinker.
True indeed!!  Good thinking!
        Basically, now is the time to "stock up" on the "trade goods".
Whiskey, beer and wine, cigarettes, TP, tin foil, toothpaste --- what
ever you use in your house, somebody else will also want.
        If you can food,  jars, lids and seals.  (Although I heard about a
guy who has invented a reusable canning jar lid. GIYF.)  Matches,
lighters, charcoal, propane, adaptors and O-rings.
--  
pyotr filipivich.
"It used to be that the USA was pretty good at producing stuff teenaged
boys could lose a finger or two playing with."    
Bicycles, spokes, inner tubes and tires. You can get a lot farther
down the road on a bicycle than you can on foot.
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-09 06:24:40 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Shall not be
Post by Shall not be infringed
There were lots of goods available in Wiemar Germany...yet they were
buying them with wheelbarrows full of money.
They will be raising the debt limit soon
I guess you'll be investing your life savings
  in wheelbarrows
Hell no!  Ill be buying gold and silver, guns and ammo. Lots of ammo.
       Whiskey is a trade good too.  Even better if you are a
non-drinker.
True indeed!!  Good thinking!
        Basically, now is the time to "stock up" on the "trade goods".
Whiskey, beer and wine, cigarettes, TP, tin foil, toothpaste --- what
ever you use in your house, somebody else will also want.
        If you can food,  jars, lids and seals.  (Although I heard about a
guy who has invented a reusable canning jar lid. GIYF.)  Matches,
lighters, charcoal, propane, adaptors and O-rings.
--  
pyotr filipivich.
"It used to be that the USA was pretty good at producing stuff teenaged
boys could lose a finger or two playing with."    
Bicycles, spokes, inner tubes and tires. You can get a lot farther
down the road on a bicycle than you can on foot.
Cool. I recall reading of a gentleman who was offered an
apartment in trade for his Fiat. He turned it down. Three years
later the Fiat was in the junk yard, and now that apartment is worth a
half million.


tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a 900lb gorilla with a flashlight!!
Gunner Asch
2011-06-09 08:51:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 23:24:40 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Shall not be
Post by Shall not be infringed
There were lots of goods available in Wiemar Germany...yet they were
buying them with wheelbarrows full of money.
They will be raising the debt limit soon
I guess you'll be investing your life savings
  in wheelbarrows
Hell no!  Ill be buying gold and silver, guns and ammo. Lots of ammo.
       Whiskey is a trade good too.  Even better if you are a
non-drinker.
True indeed!!  Good thinking!
        Basically, now is the time to "stock up" on the "trade goods".
Whiskey, beer and wine, cigarettes, TP, tin foil, toothpaste --- what
ever you use in your house, somebody else will also want.
        If you can food,  jars, lids and seals.  (Although I heard about a
guy who has invented a reusable canning jar lid. GIYF.)  Matches,
lighters, charcoal, propane, adaptors and O-rings.
--  
pyotr filipivich.
"It used to be that the USA was pretty good at producing stuff teenaged
boys could lose a finger or two playing with."    
Bicycles, spokes, inner tubes and tires. You can get a lot farther
down the road on a bicycle than you can on foot.
Cool. I recall reading of a gentleman who was offered an
apartment in trade for his Fiat. He turned it down. Three years
later the Fiat was in the junk yard, and now that apartment is worth a
half million.
tschus
pyotr
Ouch!!


The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

...It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474
Ed Huntress
2011-06-09 10:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
There were lots of goods available in Wiemar Germany...yet they were
buying them with wheelbarrows full of money.
They will be raising the debt limit soon
I guess you'll be investing your life savings
in wheelbarrows
Hell no! Ill be buying gold and silver, guns and ammo. Lots of ammo.
Whiskey is a trade good too. Even better if you are a
non-drinker.
True indeed!! Good thinking!
Basically, now is the time to "stock up" on the "trade goods".
Whiskey, beer and wine, cigarettes, TP, tin foil, toothpaste --- what
ever you use in your house, somebody else will also want.
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!

I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Post by pyotr filipivich
If you can food, jars, lids and seals. (Although I heard about a
guy who has invented a reusable canning jar lid. GIYF.) Matches,
lighters, charcoal, propane, adaptors and O-rings.
--
pyotr filipivich.
"It used to be that the USA was pretty good at producing stuff teenaged
boys could lose a finger or two playing with."
d***@krl.org
2011-06-09 11:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.

Dan
Frank
2011-06-09 12:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
Dan
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly. Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.

I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest. With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-09 14:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest.  This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house.  Interest rates are very low
now.  I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
                                                            Dan
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly.  Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
Why hyperinflation? Just 10 or 20% of everyone's savings should hold
the gov't over for now. Jimmy Carter-levels should be more than
enough.
Post by Frank
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest.  With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Durable goods are better than an inflating currency. I bought a few
lathes just to dabble, but not enough to amount to serious money.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-12 04:11:49 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest.  This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house.  Interest rates are very low
now.  I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
                                                            Dan
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly.  Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
Why hyperinflation? Just 10 or 20% of everyone's savings should hold
the gov't over for now. Jimmy Carter-levels should be more than
enough.
Hyperinflation is one of those "I'll know it when I see it" kind
of things. That is to say Economists have varying definitions. But
pretty much, once the month to month increases go over 1%, you are in
trouble. Once that rate is enters double digits ... hyper inflation
is no longer an abstract theory. (By my calculator, a 10% monthly
increase means that a year from "now" that dollar burger will cost
$3.14 - 'would you like fries with that?"
Anyone else remember the seventies? How the costs pretty much
double from 1970 to 1980?
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Frank
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest.  With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Durable goods are better than an inflating currency. I bought a few
lathes just to dabble, but not enough to amount to serious money.
Durable goods are worth buying. The "gold and silver" stash
really is insurance, not an "investment."
--
pyotr filipivich
Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a 900lb gorilla with a flashlight!!
CaveLamb
2011-06-12 04:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
Hyperinflation is one of those "I'll know it when I see it" kind
of things. That is to say Economists have varying definitions. But
pretty much, once the month to month increases go over 1%, you are in
trouble. Once that rate is enters double digits ... hyper inflation
is no longer an abstract theory. (By my calculator, a 10% monthly
increase means that a year from "now" that dollar burger will cost
$3.14 - 'would you like fries with that?"
Anyone else remember the seventies? How the costs pretty much
double from 1970 to 1980?
Durable goods are worth buying. The "gold and silver" stash
really is insurance, not an "investment."
At today's prices, gold and silver purchases just feed the inflation bubble.
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-18 23:34:33 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that CaveLamb
Post by CaveLamb
Post by pyotr filipivich
Hyperinflation is one of those "I'll know it when I see it" kind
of things. That is to say Economists have varying definitions. But
pretty much, once the month to month increases go over 1%, you are in
trouble. Once that rate is enters double digits ... hyper inflation
is no longer an abstract theory. (By my calculator, a 10% monthly
increase means that a year from "now" that dollar burger will cost
$3.14 - 'would you like fries with that?"
Anyone else remember the seventies? How the costs pretty much
double from 1970 to 1980?
Durable goods are worth buying. The "gold and silver" stash
really is insurance, not an "investment."
At today's prices, gold and silver purchases just feed the inflation bubble.
At today's prices, the inflation "bubble" is factored in. People
are buying gold, not for the number of banknotes that it currently
trades for, but that the time may come when they will need the "value"
that the banknotes have not retained. Not as an investment, but as
insurance.
Right now, gold trades for three weeks' take home pay. If the
price goes to 3000, I expect that will also be three weeks of take
home pay.
--
pyotr filipivich
Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a 900lb gorilla with a flashlight!!
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-12 18:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest.  This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house.  Interest rates are very low
now.  I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
                                                            Dan
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly.  Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
Why hyperinflation?  Just 10 or 20% of everyone's savings should hold
the gov't over for now.  Jimmy Carter-levels should be more than
enough.
        Hyperinflation is one of those "I'll know it when I see it" kind
of things.  That is to say Economists have varying definitions.  But
pretty much, once the month to month increases go over 1%, you are in
trouble.  Once that rate is enters double digits ... hyper inflation
is no longer an abstract theory.  (By my calculator, a 10% monthly
increase means that a year from "now" that dollar burger will cost
$3.14 - 'would you like fries with that?"
My point being that they don't need to grab anything like 10% / month
to shirk paying their bills. "Just" 10% a year accomplishes the trick
nicely without making the natives too restless(*). That dilutes the
debt (and your savings) to nothingness in just a few years. All at
your expense obviously--it's a stealth tax.

(*) And risking, for example, another (Boston) Tea Party
Post by pyotr filipivich
        Anyone else remember the seventies?  How the costs pretty much
double from 1970 to 1980?
Post by Frank
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest.  With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Durable goods are better than an inflating currency.  I bought a few
lathes just to dabble, but not enough to amount to serious money.
        Durable goods are worth buying.  The "gold and silver" stash
really is insurance, not an "investment."
Yup. Gold and silver prices have too much emotion in them. Durable
goods have real value that transcends (and survives) paper fantasies.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
josephkk
2011-06-16 07:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest.  This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house.  Interest rates are very low
now.  I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
                                                            Dan
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly.  Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
Why hyperinflation?  Just 10 or 20% of everyone's savings should hold
the gov't over for now.  Jimmy Carter-levels should be more than
enough.
        Hyperinflation is one of those "I'll know it when I see it" kind
of things.  That is to say Economists have varying definitions.  But
pretty much, once the month to month increases go over 1%, you are in
trouble.  Once that rate is enters double digits ... hyper inflation
is no longer an abstract theory.  (By my calculator, a 10% monthly
increase means that a year from "now" that dollar burger will cost
$3.14 - 'would you like fries with that?"
My point being that they don't need to grab anything like 10% / month
to shirk paying their bills. "Just" 10% a year accomplishes the trick
nicely without making the natives too restless(*). That dilutes the
debt (and your savings) to nothingness in just a few years. All at
your expense obviously--it's a stealth tax.
Except the interest rate you have to service goes to twice the inflation
rate and the debt grows faster than your ability to pay.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
(*) And risking, for example, another (Boston) Tea Party
Post by pyotr filipivich
        Anyone else remember the seventies?  How the costs pretty much
double from 1970 to 1980?
Post by Frank
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest.  With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Durable goods are better than an inflating currency.  I bought a few
lathes just to dabble, but not enough to amount to serious money.
        Durable goods are worth buying.  The "gold and silver" stash
really is insurance, not an "investment."
Yup. Gold and silver prices have too much emotion in them. Durable
goods have real value that transcends (and survives) paper fantasies.
josephkk
2011-06-16 07:15:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:11:49 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest.  This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house.  Interest rates are very low
now.  I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
                                                            Dan
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly.  Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
Why hyperinflation? Just 10 or 20% of everyone's savings should hold
the gov't over for now. Jimmy Carter-levels should be more than
enough.
Hyperinflation is one of those "I'll know it when I see it" kind
of things. That is to say Economists have varying definitions. But
pretty much, once the month to month increases go over 1%, you are in
trouble. Once that rate is enters double digits ... hyper inflation
is no longer an abstract theory. (By my calculator, a 10% monthly
increase means that a year from "now" that dollar burger will cost
$3.14 - 'would you like fries with that?"
Anyone else remember the seventies? How the costs pretty much
double from 1970 to 1980?
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Frank
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest.  With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Durable goods are better than an inflating currency. I bought a few
lathes just to dabble, but not enough to amount to serious money.
Durable goods are worth buying. The "gold and silver" stash
really is insurance, not an "investment."
And then only if you have and can maintain physical possession.
jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
2011-06-09 14:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
Dan
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly. Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest. With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Why do you believe inflation is coming?
Was it because the lemmings said so?

The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
Gunner Asch
2011-06-09 16:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Frank
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly. Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest. With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Why do you believe inflation is coming?
Was it because the lemmings said so?
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
When a $100 buys a candy bar....sometimes..making cash really doesnt
mean anything.

You are not aware of the situation in Weimar Germany..and a host of
other countries in history...are you?

Jim...sometimes...I dispair for you.

Gunner

"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability that any object will,
through quantum effects, tunnel from the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,
Indiana (unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which case the object will
tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).

The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-09 17:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest.  This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house.  Interest rates are very low
now.  I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly.  Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest.  With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Why do you believe inflation is coming?
Was it because the lemmings said so?
We've got about 5% inflation right now. It doesn't show because the
government conveniently stopped counting energy and food. Those drive
up the cost of everything else.

A related fact is that we're printing new dollars, diluting value of
the old ones.
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
Just about everything else costs more--wheat, corn, fuel -- gasoline
has doubled under Obama -- and so forth.

All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.

It's dumb.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Hawke
2011-06-09 18:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly. Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest. With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Why do you believe inflation is coming?
Was it because the lemmings said so?
We've got about 5% inflation right now. It doesn't show because the
government conveniently stopped counting energy and food. Those drive
up the cost of everything else.
A related fact is that we're printing new dollars, diluting value of
the old ones.
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
Just about everything else costs more--wheat, corn, fuel -- gasoline
has doubled under Obama -- and so forth.
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation. Leave the economics to others.
You'll be better off.

Hawke
PrecisionmachinisT
2011-06-09 21:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly. Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest. With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Why do you believe inflation is coming?
Was it because the lemmings said so?
We've got about 5% inflation right now. It doesn't show because the
government conveniently stopped counting energy and food. Those drive
up the cost of everything else.
Then why hasn't the price of "everything else" gone up ?
Post by d***@yahoo.com
A related fact is that we're printing new dollars,
Same with every other nation on the globe that has a functioning central
banking system.
diluting value of the old ones.
And it's a good thing, too...

--otherwise, the interest payments alone would bankrupt pretty much
everybody except for the filthy rich...
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
Just about everything else costs more--wheat, corn, fuel -- gasoline
has doubled under Obama -- and so forth.
Bullshit.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/wheat

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/corn

In fact, there was a huge spike in just about every commodities category
between ~ 2005 and mid 2008 at which point the bottom abruptly dropped out
and what you are now seeing when looking back at the moving averages over
the last decade is actually a relatively normal and fairly mild inflation
curve though at the moment several categories happen to be leaning a bit
towards the high side

--IOW, anyone that is betting for commodities to continue on a sharply
higher curve is likely to lose his shirt come the next correction.
Post by d***@yahoo.com
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
"this spending" ?

WTF you talkin about, Willis ?
Post by d***@yahoo.com
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are not
part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two items
are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in measuring
something like inflation. Leave the economics to others. You'll be better
off.
Hawke
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-10 07:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by PrecisionmachinisT
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest.  This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house.  Interest rates are very low
now.  I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly.  Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest.  With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Why do you believe inflation is coming?
Was it because the lemmings said so?
We've got about 5% inflation right now.  It doesn't show because the
government conveniently stopped counting energy and food.  Those drive
up the cost of everything else.
Then why hasn't the price of "everything else" gone up ?
Phase delay. It will.
Post by PrecisionmachinisT
A related fact is that we're printing new dollars,
Same with every other nation on the globe that has a functioning central
banking system.
diluting value of  the old ones.
And it's a good thing, too...
--otherwise, the interest payments alone would bankrupt pretty much
everybody except for the filthy rich...
What does that statement even mean? Our present debt service is only ~
$200B right now, IIRC. That's almost trivial. When interest rates
rise, then it'll be more serious.
Post by PrecisionmachinisT
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
Just about everything else costs more--wheat, corn, fuel -- gasoline
has doubled under Obama -- and so forth.
Bullshit.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/wheat
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/corn
Both those show substantial increases since Obama got in. Wheat's up
from 700 to 900, roughly 30%. The jump you see in July 2010
corresponds to QE2. Corn's up from ~450 to 760. We'll leave out
gold, that's too fickle, but how about foreign exchange rates?
Aluminum's up about 50%.

The peak prices immediately before Obama were in the midst of an
economic mania. Today's prices are marginally higher than those
hysterical peaks /despite/ the ongoing malaise.
Post by PrecisionmachinisT
In fact, there was a huge spike in just about every commodities category
between ~ 2005 and mid 2008 at which point the bottom abruptly dropped out
and what you are now seeing when looking back at the moving averages over
the last decade is actually a relatively normal and fairly mild inflation
curve though at the moment several categories happen to be leaning a bit
towards the high side
--IOW, anyone that is betting for commodities to continue on a sharply
higher curve is likely to lose his shirt come the next correction.
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
"this spending" ?
WTF you talkin about, Willis ?
"Stimulus" spending. It's dumb. It doesn't work. Or do you propose
that it has worked, that everything's fine and the $3 trillion we blew
through was well spent, that everyone's gainfully employed doing
things that make sense?

a) How many $75,000 a year jobs should you be able to make with $1.5T
a year? b) How many jobs did we "make"? c) What compound annual rate
of return is needed to ever recover that money we've squandered? d)
What increase in annual GDP growth is needed to generate that rate of
revenue increase? e) If you pull demand artificially forward with
temporary incentives, what's the effect when you let off? (E.g.
incentives to buy houses or cars.)

If you figure out stuff like that you'll see what I mean.

You can't borrow your way out of debt. You can't spend your way to
prosperity handing out candy. There are all sorts of obfuscations and
shell games played to make it seem otherwise, but it boils down to
that.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-10 07:37:20 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 10, 2:09 am, ***@yahoo.com wrote:


<snip>
Both [wheat and corn] show substantial increases since Obama got in.  Wheat's up
from 700 to 900,  roughly 30%.
 The jump you see in July 2010
corresponds to QE2.*
*I might be wrong on that. QE2 wasn't announced until November, but
ISTR Bernanke pretty well indicated it was coming many months in
advance. I thought that might've been July. But there were other
things happening too--I don't remember for sure.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-10 06:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest.  This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house.  Interest rates are very low
now.  I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly.  Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest.  With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Why do you believe inflation is coming?
Was it because the lemmings said so?
We've got about 5% inflation right now.  It doesn't show because the
government conveniently stopped counting energy and food.  Those drive
up the cost of everything else.
A related fact is that we're printing new dollars, diluting value of
the old ones.
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
Just about everything else costs more--wheat, corn, fuel -- gasoline
has doubled under Obama -- and so forth.
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.

You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs. That causes inflation.

To put a finer point on it, everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled. The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.

It's really not that hard.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Hawke
2011-06-10 17:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs. That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it, everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled. The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
The question was why are food and energy not counted when figuring
inflation. As I said, it's because they are extremely volatile. That is
a decision made by the economic professionals, of which I am not one.
You're right that those two items do affect just about everything else
but the experts chose not to use them. You can argue with their decision
to leave them out if you want but I don't. They know a lot more than I
do about the subject. I just know why they leave those two out when
calculating inflation.

Hawke
Bill Bowden
2011-06-11 05:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs.  That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it,  everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled.  The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
The question was why are food and energy not counted when figuring
inflation. As I said, it's because they are extremely volatile. That is
a decision made by the economic professionals, of which I am not one.
You're right that those two items do affect just about everything else
but the experts chose not to use them. You can argue with their decision
to leave them out if you want but I don't. They know a lot more than I
do about the subject. I just know why they leave those two out when
calculating inflation.
Hawke
Yes, it's silly to count food in inflation. Who cares what a loaf of
bread costs? And a 10 pound sack of potatoes goes for around $2. The
big item is rent which is holding steady since real estate keeps
falling. Sometimes I have a buffet lunch for $9 and figure I could
save $6 fixing it myself, but I like all the different items they
have, and I'm lazy doing it myself.

-Bill
Ed Huntress
2011-06-11 05:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs. That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it, everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled. The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
The question was why are food and energy not counted when figuring
inflation. As I said, it's because they are extremely volatile. That is
a decision made by the economic professionals, of which I am not one.
You're right that those two items do affect just about everything else
but the experts chose not to use them. You can argue with their decision
to leave them out if you want but I don't. They know a lot more than I
do about the subject. I just know why they leave those two out when
calculating inflation.
Hawke
Yes, it's silly to count food in inflation. Who cares what a loaf of
bread costs? And a 10 pound sack of potatoes goes for around $2. The
big item is rent which is holding steady since real estate keeps
falling. Sometimes I have a buffet lunch for $9 and figure I could
save $6 fixing it myself, but I like all the different items they
have, and I'm lazy doing it myself.
-Bill
If your interest is in consumer costs and overall cost inflation, read CPI-U
figures -- the top-line Consumer Price Index reported by the government. It
includes food and fuel.

If your interest is in how the economy is behaving internally -- in other
words, what's going on that we can do something about -- you read Core CPI
figures. They don't include food because most of it is priced on the basis
of world commodity prices. And they don't include fuel because those are
fungible products that are priced on the world market.

It's all there for anyone who cares to look.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
2011-06-11 21:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Huntress
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs. That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it, everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled. The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
The question was why are food and energy not counted when figuring
inflation. As I said, it's because they are extremely volatile. That is
a decision made by the economic professionals, of which I am not one.
You're right that those two items do affect just about everything else
but the experts chose not to use them. You can argue with their decision
to leave them out if you want but I don't. They know a lot more than I
do about the subject. I just know why they leave those two out when
calculating inflation.
Hawke
Yes, it's silly to count food in inflation. Who cares what a loaf of
bread costs? And a 10 pound sack of potatoes goes for around $2. The
big item is rent which is holding steady since real estate keeps
falling. Sometimes I have a buffet lunch for $9 and figure I could
save $6 fixing it myself, but I like all the different items they
have, and I'm lazy doing it myself.
-Bill
If your interest is in consumer costs and overall cost inflation, read CPI-U
figures -- the top-line Consumer Price Index reported by the government. It
includes food and fuel.
If your interest is in how the economy is behaving internally -- in other
words, what's going on that we can do something about -- you read Core CPI
figures. They don't include food because most of it is priced on the basis
of world commodity prices. And they don't include fuel because those are
fungible products that are priced on the world market.
It's all there for anyone who cares to look.
The point is as I said before, there is a very good reason why food and
energy are not counted in the core CPI figures. Like you said, you can
get the figures where those are included too if you want them. But they
are not left out for some nefarious purpose as the ignorant seem to believe.

Hawke
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-12 18:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Post by Ed Huntress
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs. That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it, everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled. The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
The question was why are food and energy not counted when figuring
inflation. As I said, it's because they are extremely volatile. That is
a decision made by the economic professionals, of which I am not one.
You're right that those two items do affect just about everything else
but the experts chose not to use them. You can argue with their decision
to leave them out if you want but I don't. They know a lot more than I
do about the subject. I just know why they leave those two out when
calculating inflation.
Hawke
Yes, it's silly to count food in inflation. Who cares what a loaf of
bread costs? And a 10 pound sack of potatoes goes for around $2. The
big item is rent which is holding steady since real estate keeps
falling. Sometimes I have a buffet lunch for $9 and figure I could
save $6 fixing it myself, but I like all the different items they
have, and I'm lazy doing it myself.
-Bill
If your interest is in consumer costs and overall cost inflation, read CPI-U
figures -- the top-line Consumer Price Index reported by the government. It
includes food and fuel.
Summary: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
Full: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.toc.htm
Post by Hawke
Post by Ed Huntress
If your interest is in how the economy is behaving internally -- in other
words, what's going on that we can do something about -- you read Core CPI
figures. They don't include food because most of it is priced on the basis
of world commodity prices. And they don't include fuel because those are
fungible products that are priced on the world market.
It's all there for anyone who cares to look.
The point is as I said before, there is a very good reason why food and
energy are not counted in the core CPI figures. Like you said, you can
get the figures where those are included too if you want them. But they
are not left out for some nefarious purpose as the ignorant seem to believe.
Hawke
It's not nefarious, it's just that the "CPI less food and fuel" for-
dummies number cited is for discerning different things. It is not an
accurate measure of current inflation.

The consumer price index logic has not been that food and fuel are
unimportant, but that food and fuel can go up and down for temporary
reasons--such as a crop failure, weather, or a refinery explosion--
that do not imply actual inflation. Removing those insulates the rest
of index from political and other temporary events.

They're obviously very important overall, and unquestionably fuel long-
term inflation.

This also means that the "CPI less food and fuel" number won't
immediately reflect increases in those elements, obviously. That
takes many months to percolate through

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Hawke
2011-06-12 19:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by Ed Huntress
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs. That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it, everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled. The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
The question was why are food and energy not counted when figuring
inflation. As I said, it's because they are extremely volatile. That is
a decision made by the economic professionals, of which I am not one.
You're right that those two items do affect just about everything else
but the experts chose not to use them. You can argue with their decision
to leave them out if you want but I don't. They know a lot more than I
do about the subject. I just know why they leave those two out when
calculating inflation.
Hawke
Yes, it's silly to count food in inflation. Who cares what a loaf of
bread costs? And a 10 pound sack of potatoes goes for around $2. The
big item is rent which is holding steady since real estate keeps
falling. Sometimes I have a buffet lunch for $9 and figure I could
save $6 fixing it myself, but I like all the different items they
have, and I'm lazy doing it myself.
-Bill
If your interest is in consumer costs and overall cost inflation, read CPI-U
figures -- the top-line Consumer Price Index reported by the government. It
includes food and fuel.
Summary: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
Full: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.toc.htm
Post by Hawke
Post by Ed Huntress
If your interest is in how the economy is behaving internally -- in other
words, what's going on that we can do something about -- you read Core CPI
figures. They don't include food because most of it is priced on the basis
of world commodity prices. And they don't include fuel because those are
fungible products that are priced on the world market.
It's all there for anyone who cares to look.
The point is as I said before, there is a very good reason why food and
energy are not counted in the core CPI figures. Like you said, you can
get the figures where those are included too if you want them. But they
are not left out for some nefarious purpose as the ignorant seem to believe.
Hawke
It's not nefarious, it's just that the "CPI less food and fuel" for-
dummies number cited is for discerning different things. It is not an
accurate measure of current inflation.
The consumer price index logic has not been that food and fuel are
unimportant, but that food and fuel can go up and down for temporary
reasons--such as a crop failure, weather, or a refinery explosion--
that do not imply actual inflation. Removing those insulates the rest
of index from political and other temporary events.
They're obviously very important overall, and unquestionably fuel long-
term inflation.
This also means that the "CPI less food and fuel" number won't
immediately reflect increases in those elements, obviously. That
takes many months to percolate through
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
As Ed already mentioned there is another index, I think he said it's the
CPI-U that includes gas and food. So it's not a matter of hiding
anything. It's just one more government statistic. If the core CPI isn't
reflecting true inflation then you can look at the other one.

The point is inflation is not a problem right now. At least that is what
economists say and I guarantee they are looking at all the statistics.
Everybody worries about inflation so the FED is on top of measuring it
constantly. When they start acting as if inflation is getting too high
then maybe you should start to worry about it.

Hawke
Ray Keller
2011-06-13 16:08:30 UTC
Permalink
"GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO
ASK!"

A Series Authored by Walter J. "John" Williams

"The Consumer Price Index" (Part Four in a Series of Five)

October 1, 2006 Update

(September 22, 2004 Original)

_____


Foreword

This installment has been updated from the original 2004 version to
incorporate additional research on earlier changes to the CPI. The source
for most of the information in this installment is the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, which generally has been very open about its methodologies and
changes to same. The BLS Web site: www.bls.gov contains descriptions of the
CPI and its related methodologies. Other sources include my own analyses of
the CPI data and methodological changes over the last 30 years as well as
interviews with individuals involved in inflation reporting.
______


Payments to Social Security Recipients Should be Double Current Levels

Inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is understated by
roughly 7% per year. This is due to recent redefinitions of the series as
well as to flawed methodologies, particularly adjustments to price measures
for quality changes. The concentration of this installment on the quality of
government economic reports will be first on CPI series redefinition and the
damages done to those dependent on accurate cost-of-living estimates, and on
pending further redefinition and economic damage.

The CPI was designed to help businesses, individuals and the government
adjust their financial planning and considerations for the impact of
inflation. The CPI worked reasonably well for those purposes into the
early-1980s. In recent decades, however, the reporting system increasingly
succumbed to pressures from miscreant politicians, who were and are intent
upon stealing income from social security recipients, without ever taking
the issue of reduced entitlement payments before the public or Congress for
approval.

In particular, changes made in CPI methodology during the Clinton
Administration understated inflation significantly, and, through a
cumulative effect with earlier changes that began in the late-Carter and
early Reagan Administrations have reduced current social security payments
by roughly half from where they would have been otherwise. That means Social
Security checks today would be about double had the various changes not been
made. In like manner, anyone involved in commerce, who relies on receiving
payments adjusted for the CPI, has been similarly damaged. On the other
side, if you are making payments based on the CPI (i.e., the federal
government), you are making out like a bandit.

In the original version of this background article, I noted that Social
Security payments should 43% higher, but that was back in September 2004 and
only adjusted for CPI changes that took place after 1993. The current
estimate adjusts for methodology gimmicks introduced since 1980.

Elements of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) had their roots in the mid-1880s,
when the Bureau of Labor, later known as the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS), was asked by Congress to measure the impact of new tariffs on prices.
It was another three decades, however, before price indices would be
combined into something resembling today's CPI, a measure used then for
setting wage increases for World War I shipbuilders. Although published
regularly since 1921, the CPI did not come into broad acceptance and use
until after World War II, when it was included in auto union contracts as a
cost-of-living adjustment for wages.

The CPI found its way not only into other union agreements, but also into
most commercial contracts that required consideration of cost/price changes
or inflation. The CPI also was used to adjust Social Security payments
annually for changes in the cost of living, and therein lay the eventual
downfall to the credibility of CPI reporting.

Let Them Eat Hamburger

In the early 1990s, press reports began surfacing as to how the CPI really
was significantly overstating inflation. If only the CPI inflation rate
could be reduced, it was argued, then entitlements, such as social security,
would not increase as much each year, and that would help to bring the
budget deficit under control. Behind this movement were financial luminaries
Michael Boskin, then chief economist to the first Bush Administration, and
Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System.

Although the ensuing political furor killed consideration of Congressionally
mandated changes in the CPI, the BLS quietly stepped forward and began
changing the system, anyway, early in the Clinton Administration.

Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using
the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward
concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market
costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that
market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a
constant standard of living.

The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the
consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation
measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak,
instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in
the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the
rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living.
Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system
told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying
steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps,
after that.

The Boskin/Greenspan concept violated the intent and common usage of the
inflation index. The CPI was considered sacrosanct within the Department of
Labor, given the number of contractual relationships that were anchored to
it. The CPI was one number that never was to be revised, given its
widespread usage.

Shortly after Clinton took control of the White House, however, attitudes
changed. The BLS initially did not institute a new CPI measurement using a
variable-basket of goods that allowed substitution of hamburger for steak,
but rather tried to approximate the effect by changing the weighting of
goods in the CPI fixed basket. Over a period of several years, straight
arithmetic weighting of the CPI components was shifted to a geometric
weighting. The Boskin/Greenspan benefit of a geometric weighting was that it
automatically gave a lower weighting to CPI components that were rising in
price, and a higher weighting to those items dropping in price.

Once the system had been shifted fully to geometric weighting, the net
effect was to reduce reported CPI on an annual, or year-over-year basis, by
2.7% from what it would have been based on the traditional weighting
methodology. The results have been dramatic. The compounding effect since
the early-1990s has reduced annual cost of living adjustments in social
security by more than a third.

The BLS publishes estimates of the effects of major methodological changes
over time on the reported inflation rate (see the "Reporting Focus" section
of the October 2005 Shadow Government Statistics newsletter -- available to
the public in the Archives of www.shadowstats.com). Changes estimated by the
BLS show roughly a 4% understatement in current annual CPI inflation versus
what would have been reported using the original methodology. Adding the
roughly 3% lost to geometric weighting -- most of which not included in the
BLS estimates -- takes the current total CPI understatement to roughly 7%.

There now are three major CPI measures published by the BLS, CPI for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U), CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(CPI-W) and the Chained CPI-U (C-CPI-U). The CPI-U is the popularly followed
inflation measure reported in the financial media. It was introduced in 1978
as a more-broadly-based version of the then existing CPI, which was renamed
CPI-W. The CPI-W is used in calculating Social Security benefits. These two
series tend to move together and are based on frequent price sampling, which
is supposed to yield something close to an average monthly price measure by
component.

The C-CPI-U was introduced during the second Bush Administration as an
alternate CPI measure. Unlike the theoretical approximation of geometric
weighting to a variable, substitution-prone market basket, the C-CPI-U is a
direct measure of the substitution effect. The difference in reporting is
that August 2006 year-to-year inflation rates for the CPI-U and the C-CPI-U
were 3.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Hence current inflation still has a 0.4%
notch to be taken out of it through methodological manipulation. The C-CPI-U
would not have been introduced unless there were plans to replace the
current series, eventually.

Traditional inflation rates can be estimated by adding 7.0% to the CPI-U
annual growth rate (3.8% +7.0% = 10.8% as of August 2006) or by adding 7.4%
to the C-CPI-U rate (3.4% + 7.4% = 10.8% as of August 2006). Graphs of
alternate CPI measures can be found as follows. The CPI adjusted solely for
the impact of the shift to geometric weighting is shown in the graph on the
home page of www.shadowstats.com. The CPI adjusted for both the geometric
weighting and earlier methodological changes is shown on the Alternate Data
page, which is available as a tab at the top of the home page.

Hedonic Thrills of Using Federally Mandated Gasoline Additives

Aside from the changed weighting, the average person also tends to sense
higher inflation than is reported by the BLS, because of hedonics, as in
hedonism. Hedonics adjusts the prices of goods for the increased pleasure
the consumer derives from them. That new washing machine you bought did not
cost you 20% more than it would have cost you last year, because you got an
offsetting 20% increase in the pleasure you derive from pushing its new
electronic control buttons instead of turning that old noisy dial, according
to the BLS.

When gasoline rises 10 cents per gallon because of a federally mandated
gasoline additive, the increased gasoline cost does not contribute to
inflation. Instead, the 10 cents is eliminated from the CPI because of the
offsetting hedonic thrills the consumer gets from breathing cleaner air. The
same principle applies to federally mandated safety features in automobiles.
I have not attempted to quantify the effects of questionable quality
adjustments to the CPI, but they are substantial.

Then there is "intervention analysis" in the seasonal adjustment process,
when a commodity, like gasoline, goes through violent price swings.
Intervention analysis is done to tone down the volatility. As a result,
somehow, rising gasoline prices never seem to get fully reflected in the
CPI, but the declining prices sure do.

How Can So Many Financial Pundits Live Without Consuming Food and Energy?

The Pollyannas on Wall Street like to play games with the CPI, too. The
concept of looking at the "core" rate of inflation-net of food and
energy-was developed as a way of removing short-term (as in a month or two)
volatility from inflation when energy and/or food prices turned volatile.
Since food and energy account for about 23% of consumer spending (as
weighted in the CPI), however, related inflation cannot be ignored for long.
Nonetheless, it is common to hear financial pundits cite annual "core"
inflation as a way of showing how contained inflation is. Such comments are
moronic and such commentators are due the appropriate respect.

Too-Low Inflation Reporting Yields Too-High GDP Growth

As is discussed in the final installment on GDP, part of the problem with
GDP reporting is the way inflation is handled. Although the CPI is not used
in the GDP calculation, there are relationships with the price deflators
used in converting GDP data and growth to inflation-adjusted numbers. The
more inflation is understated, the higher the inflation-adjusted rate of GDP
growth that gets reported.


______
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-13 17:06:34 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 13, 11:08 am, "Ray Keller" <LEFTARD TROLLS ARE DESPERATE>
Post by Ray Keller
The
concept of looking at the "core" rate of inflation-net of food and
energy-was developed as a way of removing short-term (as in a month or two)
volatility from inflation when energy and/or food prices turned volatile.
Since food and energy account for about 23% of consumer spending (as
weighted in the CPI), however, related inflation cannot be ignored for long.
Yup. That's what I said.

Thanks.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-18 23:34:33 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
***@yahoo.com reported Elvis on Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:44:26
-0700 (PDT) in misc.survivalism:

[snip]
Post by d***@yahoo.com
It's not nefarious, it's just that the "CPI less food and fuel" for-
dummies number cited is for discerning different things. It is not an
accurate measure of current inflation.
The consumer price index logic has not been that food and fuel are
unimportant, but that food and fuel can go up and down for temporary
reasons--such as a crop failure, weather, or a refinery explosion--
that do not imply actual inflation. Removing those insulates the rest
of index from political and other temporary events.
It also means, that when Cost of Living Adjustments are made, the
"cost of living" isn't higher, thus saving the Treasury a lot of bucks
too.
--
pyotr filipivich
Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a 900lb gorilla with a flashlight!!
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-12 18:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs.  That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it,  everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled.  The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
The question was why are food and energy not counted when figuring
inflation. As I said, it's because they are extremely volatile. That is
a decision made by the economic professionals, of which I am not one.
You're right that those two items do affect just about everything else
but the experts chose not to use them. You can argue with their decision
to leave them out if you want but I don't. They know a lot more than I
do about the subject. I just know why they leave those two out when
calculating inflation.
Hawke
Yes, it's silly to count food in inflation. Who cares what a loaf of
bread costs? And a 10 pound sack of potatoes goes for around $2.
I suppose you could say the same about the price of gas--it's also
excluded.
Who cares? Everyone cares.
Post by Bill Bowden
The
big item is rent which is holding steady since real estate keeps
falling.
No they aren't. In over-priced California maybe, but not everywhere
else.

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110612/BIZ13/306129960/-1/BIZ09
"...the biggest threat to containing inflation may be the shift away
from homeownership, which is pushing up the cost of leases across the
nation’s 38 million rented residences."

But, the biggest inflationary item is the government itself. We've
got to pay for all that stimulus and those bailouts, for saving all
those naughty banks. They already take a huge chunk and, to meet all
this new spending they're fixing to double it overall, basically.(*)

(*) (Though they're taking great pains to hide it, like forcing you or
your employer to buy added insurance under Obamacare, rather than
making you pay it as tax on your 1040, and diluting the currency.)
Bill Bowden
2011-06-13 03:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs.  That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it,  everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled.  The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
The question was why are food and energy not counted when figuring
inflation. As I said, it's because they are extremely volatile. That is
a decision made by the economic professionals, of which I am not one.
You're right that those two items do affect just about everything else
but the experts chose not to use them. You can argue with their decision
to leave them out if you want but I don't. They know a lot more than I
do about the subject. I just know why they leave those two out when
calculating inflation.
Hawke
Yes, it's silly to count food in inflation. Who cares what a loaf of
bread costs? And a 10 pound sack of potatoes goes for around $2.
I suppose you could say the same about the price of gas--it's also
excluded.
Who cares?  Everyone cares.
Post by Bill Bowden
The
big item is rent which is holding steady since real estate keeps
falling.
No they aren't.  In over-priced California maybe, but not everywhere
else.
I tend to follow charts James, not economists. Notice the VNQ
(Vanguard REIT) has fallen 8% relative to the S&P at 5%. Around here
we have a 20% vacancy, so rent increases are unlikely, unless they
want to lose more.

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=VNQ&t=3m&q=l&l=on&z=l&c=^GSPC&p=s&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US

-Bill
Post by d***@yahoo.com
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20110612/BIZ13/306129960/-1/BIZ09
"...the biggest threat to containing inflation may be the shift away
from homeownership, which is pushing up the cost of leases across the
nation’s 38 million rented residences."
But, the biggest inflationary item is the government itself.  We've
got to pay for all that stimulus and those bailouts, for saving all
those naughty banks.  They already take a huge chunk and, to meet all
this new spending they're fixing to double it overall, basically.(*)
(*) (Though they're taking great pains to hide it, like forcing you or
your employer to buy added insurance under Obamacare, rather than
making you pay it as tax on your 1040, and diluting the currency.)
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-13 16:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The big item is rent which is holding steady since real estate keeps
falling.
No they aren't.  In over-priced California maybe, but not everywhere
else.
I tend to follow charts James, not economists. Notice the VNQ
(Vanguard REIT) has fallen 8% relative to the S&P at 5%.
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=VNQ&t=3m&q=l&l=on&z=l&c=^GSPC&p=s&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US
a) That's a short-term chart.
b) They've nearly doubled over the last year and a half.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=VNQ+Interactive#symbol=VNQ;range=2y

c) The performance of that particular REIT ETFcould be better or worse
for any number of reasons completely unrelated to household rents
nationwide. They could be idiots, for example.
d) You're mistaken--VNQ is outperforming the S&P in your chart.
e) "Economists"? Aren't actual tabulations of rents a far better
indicator of ... rents ... than [the perceived fortunes] of [a
collection of people's business profits] who are [in the business of
renting]?
Post by Bill Bowden
Around here
we have a 20% vacancy, so rent increases are unlikely, unless they
want to lose more.
Rental rates /should/ be falling in California because of your high
unemployment, and because people are leaving in droves. Also, you've
got tons of people who've stopped paying their mortgages living rent-
free in their houses. Later, when those people are finally evicted
they'll be competing for rental properties, driving up rents.

So, there are a number of competing factors. The net result depends
on both magnitude and phase of each.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Gunner Asch
2011-06-13 18:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Rental rates /should/ be falling in California because of your high
unemployment, and because people are leaving in droves. Also, you've
got tons of people who've stopped paying their mortgages living rent-
free in their houses. Later, when those people are finally evicted
they'll be competing for rental properties, driving up rents.
So, there are a number of competing factors. The net result depends
on both magnitude and phase of each.
Rental rates here in California havent gone down much for homes.
Shops,...hell yes. Lots and lots and lots of empty commercial properties

But so many people were foreclosed on and had to move out..and they had
to rent a place..so rental prices havent gone down a hell of a lot for
housing.

They will start falling towards the end of the year and next year as the
illegals and jobless start moving out of the state in larger numbers

Gunner

"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability
that any object will,through quantum effects, tunnel from
the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,Indiana
(unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which
case the object will tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).

The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking
Bill Bowden
2011-06-15 05:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by d***@yahoo.com
The big item is rent which is holding steady since real estate keeps
falling.
No they aren't.  In over-priced California maybe, but not everywhere
else.
I tend to follow charts James, not economists. Notice the VNQ
(Vanguard REIT) has fallen 8% relative to the S&P at 5%.
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=VNQ&t=3m&q=l&l=on&z=l&c=^GSPC&p=s&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US
a) That's a short-term chart.
b) They've nearly doubled over the last year and a half.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=VNQ+Interactive#symbol=VNQ;range=2y
c) The performance of that particular REIT ETFcould be better or worse
for any number of reasons completely unrelated to household rents
nationwide.  They could be idiots, for example.
d) You're mistaken--VNQ is outperforming the S&P in your chart.
e) "Economists"?  Aren't actual tabulations of rents a far better
indicator of ... rents ... than [the perceived fortunes] of [a
collection of people's business profits] who are [in the business of
renting]?
Post by Bill Bowden
Around here
we have a 20% vacancy, so rent increases are unlikely, unless they
want to lose more.
Rental rates /should/ be falling in California because of your high
unemployment, and because people are leaving in droves.  Also, you've
got tons of people who've stopped paying their mortgages living rent-
free in their houses.  Later, when those people are finally evicted
they'll be competing for rental properties, driving up rents.
So, there are a number of competing factors.  The net result depends
on both magnitude and phase of each.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Well, it sounds like a game of musical chairs where everyone had a
place to sit, and now have to move to an empty chair. So, I don't see
the net change or prices?

As for the short term chart, it just illustrates the decline of real
estate relative to the S&P during the past 6 week correction, which is
the longest since 2002. Not very encouraging, but maybe history is
just a thing of the past.

-Bill
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-18 23:34:33 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Bill Bowden
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs.  That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it,  everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled.  The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
The question was why are food and energy not counted when figuring
inflation. As I said, it's because they are extremely volatile. That is
a decision made by the economic professionals, of which I am not one.
You're right that those two items do affect just about everything else
but the experts chose not to use them. You can argue with their decision
to leave them out if you want but I don't. They know a lot more than I
do about the subject. I just know why they leave those two out when
calculating inflation.
Hawke
Yes, it's silly to count food in inflation. Who cares what a loaf of
bread costs? And a 10 pound sack of potatoes goes for around $2.
Now. When diesel is five bucks a gallon, the bread and spuds are
going to go up - tractor fuel, farm truck fuel, processing fuel,
delivery fuel - it adds up.
That of course, assumes that the supply of wheat stays "constant".
Post by Bill Bowden
The big item is rent which is holding steady since real estate keeps
falling. Sometimes I have a buffet lunch for $9 and figure I could
save $6 fixing it myself, but I like all the different items they
have, and I'm lazy doing it myself.
The problem with excluding food and fuel is that they have an
impact on discretionary spending, now. And the impact of increased
fuel cost impact everything that requires fuel. Increased fuel raises
food costs by raising the cost of production and distribution. It
does the same for all the other "good and services".
Yes F&F are more volatile than "core goods" but those core goods
are also depending on F&F being 'stable'. Removing food and fuel
from the equation allows the eggheads to say "It can't be all that
bad, why inflation is only 'nominally low rate.'." As if I buy a car
or house every week.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
If you get hit by a train, it isn't the caboose what kills you.
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-12 04:11:49 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
Just about everything else costs more--wheat, corn, fuel -- gasoline
has doubled under Obama -- and so forth.
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs. That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it, everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled. The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
Unless you are a devotee of the groves of Academia, in which the
real world is superceded by the theoretical.
--
pyotr filipivich
Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a 900lb gorilla with a flashlight!!
d***@yahoo.com
2011-06-12 18:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
Just about everything else costs more--wheat, corn, fuel -- gasoline
has doubled under Obama -- and so forth.
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs.  That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it,  everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled.  The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
        Unless you are a devotee of the groves of Academia, in which the
real world is superceded by the theoretical.
"An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and
wonders if it would work in theory." --R. Reagan.
Hawke
2011-06-12 19:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
Just about everything else costs more--wheat, corn, fuel -- gasoline
has doubled under Obama -- and so forth.
All this spending inevitably causes inflation, saddles us with debt,
creates a temporary bubble, which then deflates and leaves us worse
off.
It's dumb.
It may seem like it to someone like you but it's obvious that you don't
know jack about economics. For example, you don't know what anyone with
any understanding of economics knows, which is why food and energy are
not part of the equation when figuring inflation. It's because those two
items are extremely volatile, too volatile for them to be useful in
measuring something like inflation.
I know perfectly well that food and energy were originally excluded
from short-term figures because they're volatile.
You should see perfectly well too that they're feedstocks for every
other product, and drive up those costs. That causes inflation.
To put a finer point on it, everyone has to eat, everyone needs
transport and things that are transported, and all those things
require fuel, the cost of which has doubled. The cost and price of
all those things must, therefore, increase.
It's really not that hard.
Unless you are a devotee of the groves of Academia, in which the
real world is superceded by the theoretical.
"An economist is someone who sees something that works in practice and
wonders if it would work in theory." --R. Reagan.
An economist is someone who knows economics far better than Mr. Reagan
ever did. Acting, that's something Reagan knew something about. But the
problem is so many people were willing to listen to someone like Reagan,
who was completely ignorant about economics, and disregard what real
experts on the subject had to say. It's like listening to Jim Jones
saying to drink the grape Kool-Aid and a doctor telling you not to. In
Jonestown everyone listened to Jones and in the U.S. too many people
listened to Reagan. So he got the ball rolling on spending way too much
and taxing too little, which has continued ever since. To our detriment.

Hawke
Shall not be infringed
2011-06-10 10:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Frank
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest.  This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house.  Interest rates are very low
now.  I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
                                                            Dan
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly.  Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest.  With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Why do you believe inflation is coming?
Was it because the lemmings said so?
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable-
What has happened to the price of farm land?
d***@krl.org
2011-06-10 15:37:07 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.

Dan
Shall not be infringed
2011-06-11 22:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.
                               Dan
Farm land is Waaaaay Up.
jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
2011-06-12 01:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shall not be infringed
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.
Dan
Farm land is Waaaaay Up.
Do you mean the period from 2003-2008?
the price of US agricultural land doubled in those 5 years

Today US farmland is slightly down
from the peak it reached in 2008

Farmland didn't lose as much as other real estate in 2009
and it has recovered some of the loss in the past year
PaxPerPoten
2011-06-12 05:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Shall not be infringed
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed<hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.
Dan
Farm land is Waaaaay Up.
Do you mean the period from 2003-2008?
the price of US agricultural land doubled in those 5 years
Today US farmland is slightly down
from the peak it reached in 2008
Not here. Gasohol has driven it up even more. Corn doing great..Going to
Switchgrass and farming lots of Wind Generators. Demand for cropland is
extremely high. Financing for that land is readily available.
Up to 16/Bushel Beams $7/Bushel Corn..Same for Wheat. China buying big
time. Everything in the food chain is waaay up.. Or haven't you noticed
the grocery bill lately.
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Farmland didn't lose as much as other real estate in 2009
and it has recovered some of the loss in the past year
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
Gunner Asch
2011-06-12 10:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Today US farmland is slightly down
from the peak it reached in 2008
Not here. Gasohol has driven it up even more. Corn doing great..Going to
Switchgrass and farming lots of Wind Generators. Demand for cropland is
extremely high. Financing for that land is readily available.
Up to 16/Bushel Beams $7/Bushel Corn..Same for Wheat. China buying big
time. Everything in the food chain is waaay up.. Or haven't you noticed
the grocery bill lately.
Actually..the prices havent gone up at all.

The value of the dollar has fallen.

Gunner

"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability
that any object will,through quantum effects, tunnel from
the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,Indiana
(unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which
case the object will tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).

The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking
jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@
2011-06-12 13:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Today US farmland is slightly down
from the peak it reached in 2008
Not here. Gasohol has driven it up even more. Corn doing great..Going to
Switchgrass and farming lots of Wind Generators. Demand for cropland is
extremely high. Financing for that land is readily available.
Up to 16/Bushel Beams $7/Bushel Corn..Same for Wheat. China buying big
time. Everything in the food chain is waaay up.. Or haven't you noticed
the grocery bill lately.
Actually..the prices havent gone up at all.
The value of the dollar has fallen.
Yes, that is a brilliant insight.

Since you are someone who understands the true nature of things
Perhaps you could help me out with something I find puzzling

From 2003 to 2008 the price of farmland in the US
increased 15% per year
The value of farm real estate doubled in those 5 years

Then in 2009 the price fell 3.2% (US average)
Then in 2010 the last year that we have numbers for
the price went back up 1.5%, but still below 2008 prices

So why is it at this point in time
people expect I should become suddenly alarmed about
the price of farm dirt?

If you could explain that it would be most helpful
Post by Gunner Asch
Gunner
Gunner Asch
2011-06-12 19:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@
Post by Gunner Asch
Actually..the prices havent gone up at all.
The value of the dollar has fallen.
Yes, that is a brilliant insight.
Since you are someone who understands the true nature of things
Perhaps you could help me out with something I find puzzling
Sure..help yourself

http://www.google.com/search?q=value+of+the+dollar+has+fallen+rising+prices


No thanks are necessary. I often contibute to those who are very needy.


Gunner

"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability
that any object will,through quantum effects, tunnel from
the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,Indiana
(unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which
case the object will tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).

The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking
jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
2011-06-12 20:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@
Post by Gunner Asch
Actually..the prices havent gone up at all.
The value of the dollar has fallen.
Yes, that is a brilliant insight.
Since you are someone who understands the true nature of things
Perhaps you could help me out with something I find puzzling
Sure..help yourself
http://www.google.com/search?q=value+of+the+dollar+has+fallen+rising+prices
Don't worry about it
is OK
if you don't know the answer

I know its difficult to keep things in focus, but
We were talking about farm real estate market

In that particular market the value of
your dollars were plummeting from 2003 to 2008
and today in that market
your dollars are worth more than they were in 2008

As far as international trade goes
the dollar is valued very highly
That is why we trade so much US money for foreign goods
If the value of the dollar falls in the global market
the the US will have to go back to making its own goods

- Would that be so bad?
Gunner Asch
2011-06-13 07:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@
Post by Gunner Asch
Actually..the prices havent gone up at all.
The value of the dollar has fallen.
Yes, that is a brilliant insight.
Since you are someone who understands the true nature of things
Perhaps you could help me out with something I find puzzling
Sure..help yourself
http://www.google.com/search?q=value+of+the+dollar+has+fallen+rising+prices
Don't worry about it
is OK
if you don't know the answer
I know its difficult to keep things in focus, but
We were talking about farm real estate market
In that particular market the value of
your dollars were plummeting from 2003 to 2008
and today in that market
your dollars are worth more than they were in 2008
As far as international trade goes
the dollar is valued very highly
That is why we trade so much US money for foreign goods
If the value of the dollar falls in the global market
the the US will have to go back to making its own goods
- Would that be so bad?
So you didnt click on the link and read the articles on google.

Shrug..not my problem you wish to continue to be as dumb as a box of
rocks

Gunner

"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability
that any object will,through quantum effects, tunnel from
the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,Indiana
(unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which
case the object will tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).

The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking
jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
2011-06-13 10:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@
Post by Gunner Asch
Actually..the prices havent gone up at all.
The value of the dollar has fallen.
Yes, that is a brilliant insight.
Since you are someone who understands the true nature of things
Perhaps you could help me out with something I find puzzling
Sure..help yourself
http://www.google.com/search?q=value+of+the+dollar+has+fallen+rising+prices
Don't worry about it
is OK
if you don't know the answer
I know its difficult to keep things in focus, but
We were talking about farm real estate market
In that particular market the value of
your dollars were plummeting from 2003 to 2008
and today in that market
your dollars are worth more than they were in 2008
As far as international trade goes
the dollar is valued very highly
That is why we trade so much US money for foreign goods
If the value of the dollar falls in the global market
the the US will have to go back to making its own goods
- Would that be so bad?
So you didnt click on the link and read the articles on google.
No. I didn't read all 18 million articles
and I didn't see any on the topic of farm land prices

I did read several that looked interesting
One article said that the median US home purchased today
has a mortgage of $900/month (30 yr mortgage 10% down)
In 2007 that same house and mortgage would have been $1350/month

One could buy a lot of groceries and gas with the $450
that one would save on house payments

But I still didn't get an answer to my question about farm land

Why should I be worried about inflation in farm land values
3 years after the worst inflationary period in history came to an end?
Gunner Asch
2011-06-13 18:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Gunner Asch
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@
Post by Gunner Asch
Actually..the prices havent gone up at all.
The value of the dollar has fallen.
Yes, that is a brilliant insight.
Since you are someone who understands the true nature of things
Perhaps you could help me out with something I find puzzling
Sure..help yourself
http://www.google.com/search?q=value+of+the+dollar+has+fallen+rising+prices
Don't worry about it
is OK
if you don't know the answer
I know its difficult to keep things in focus, but
We were talking about farm real estate market
In that particular market the value of
your dollars were plummeting from 2003 to 2008
and today in that market
your dollars are worth more than they were in 2008
As far as international trade goes
the dollar is valued very highly
That is why we trade so much US money for foreign goods
If the value of the dollar falls in the global market
the the US will have to go back to making its own goods
- Would that be so bad?
So you didnt click on the link and read the articles on google.
No. I didn't read all 18 million articles
and I didn't see any on the topic of farm land prices
My but your alzheimers seems to be kicking up doesnt it?

The question you asked and I answered was about the Dollar.

Now you are spewing on and on about farm land?

Take your meds fucktard.

Gunner

"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability
that any object will,through quantum effects, tunnel from
the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,Indiana
(unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which
case the object will tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).

The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking
PrecisionmachinisT
2011-06-14 06:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
As far as international trade goes
the dollar is valued very highly
That is why we trade so much US money for foreign goods
If the value of the dollar falls in the global market
the the US will have to go back to making its own goods
A US politician who advovates strengthening the dollar is an idiot.

Or a traitor.
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
- Would that be so bad?
Heavily tax any business whose "profits" are the result of the net
expatriation of US currency.....

--IOW if you want go somewhere and have your shit made where labor is
cheaper then you can also go somewhere else to fucking sell it.

Preferably, hell.

--
jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
2011-06-12 00:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shall not be infringed
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.
Dan
Farm land is Waaaaay Up.
Do you mean the period from 2003-2008?
the price of US agricultural land doubled in those 5 years

Today US farmland is slightly down
from the peak it reached in 2008

Farmland didn't lose as much as other real estate in 2009
and it has recovered some of the loss in the past year
PaxPerPoten
2011-06-12 05:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shall not be infringed
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed<hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.
Dan
Farm land is Waaaaay Up.
About $10 grand an acre for an entire farm. Small acreages are about $40
to $60 grand an acre. Doesn't make any difference whether good land or
bad. Cliff side acreages are outa site if they are zoned for building a
home on. Average farm size here is 1200 to 2000 acres and upwards. Guy
down the road farms 13,000 acres. Ted Turner has 70,000 acre buffalo
ranch a couple of hundred miles from here
--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster
Shall not be infringed
2011-06-13 22:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaxPerPoten
Post by Shall not be infringed
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed<hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.
                                Dan
Farm land is Waaaaay Up.
About $10 grand an acre for an entire farm. Small acreages are about $40
to $60 grand an acre. Doesn't make any difference whether good land or
bad. Cliff side acreages are outa site if they are zoned for building a
home on. Average farm size here is 1200 to 2000 acres and upwards. Guy
down the road farms 13,000 acres. Ted Turner has 70,000 acre buffalo
ranch a couple of hundred miles from here
Feeding the world can be lucrative. Holding GM stock... probably not.
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-12 04:11:49 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
Post by d***@krl.org
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.
Because hedge funds (among others) are buying the farms. People
got to eat.

The real question is - is the "smart money" going to pull it off,
or are they going to get taken to the cleaners?
--
pyotr filipivich
Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a 900lb gorilla with a flashlight!!
CaveLamb
2011-06-12 04:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.
Because hedge funds (among others) are buying the farms. People
got to eat.
The real question is - is the "smart money" going to pull it off,
or are they going to get taken to the cleaners?
You mean like they did in the sub-prime and alt-a markets?? :)
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-13 19:23:27 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that CaveLamb
Post by CaveLamb
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.
Because hedge funds (among others) are buying the farms. People
got to eat.
The real question is - is the "smart money" going to pull it off,
or are they going to get taken to the cleaners?
You mean like they did in the sub-prime and alt-a markets?? :)
Oooh, hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of how in the
1880's, the "smart money" got into the cattle business - just in time
for the winter of 1888 (iirc, aka "Eighteen hundred and froze to
death") to cause a massive herd lose as the cattle froze to death.

Who knows? Just keep the popcorn handy and enjoy the show.

pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a 900lb gorilla with a flashlight!!
Shall not be infringed
2011-06-15 02:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that CaveLamb
Post by pyotr filipivich
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
On Jun 10, 6:49 am, Shall not be infringed <hot-ham-and-
Post by Shall not be infringed
What has happened to the price of farm land?
Farm land is up.
       Because hedge funds (among others) are buying the farms.  People
got to eat.
       The real question is - is the "smart money" going to pull it off,
or are they going to get taken to the cleaners?
You mean like they did in the sub-prime and alt-a markets??  :)
        Oooh, hadn't thought of that.  I was thinking of how in the
1880's, the "smart money" got into the cattle business - just in time
for the winter of 1888 (iirc, aka "Eighteen hundred and froze to
death") to cause a massive herd lose as the cattle froze to death.
        Who knows?  Just keep the popcorn handy and enjoy the show.
I can remember all those internal combustion engines and coal power
plants causing all that climate change back in 1880s. The CO2 levels
were just awful.
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-12 04:11:49 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that jim
Post by jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@,net>
Post by Frank
I don't like it either but a lot think that the hyper inflation is
coming shortly. Those with money will lose, but those with debt will
profit as they can pay off latter with devalued dollars.
I have another CD to up next week and the way they are going, I'll be
lucky to get 1% interest. With inflation coming, I'd be better off to
cash it in and buy some durable item that might cost twice as much in a
couple of years.
Why do you believe inflation is coming?
Was it because the lemmings said so?
The price of houses and commercial real estate
has dropped quite a bit and is likely to fall still more
How far does it have to fall before you realize
That is making cash a lot more valuable
How often do you buy a house? How often do you buy food? Which
has a more immediate impact on your discretionary funds?

You ask Why I believe inflation is coming? Because I have seen
this same sort of action (increasing the money supply) before. And
the history of such action is that it is followed by an inflation of
prices in nominal terms (the "dime" jukebox becomes becomes two for a
quarter, became two quarters for one). And the last time the US did
such a thing (inflate the money supply), the "long term" effect was
double digit prime rates. And double digit unemployment. "What fun -
Not!"

You do not need to be an academic with a degree in economics to
understand the down side of the last fifty years of government policy.
Especially the last four years.

pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and why it is Geroge Bush's fault.
F. George McDuffee
2011-06-09 17:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
Dan
==============

This is indeed the conventional wisdom, the problem being
these are not normal times. A major problem with stock
index funds is that there may be nothing behind them except
the "good name" of the originator, who may well be a future
version of Lehaman or Bear-Sterns, and you may be stuck with
some very expensive wall paper.

Without the universal and draconian application of "mark to
market, corporate valuations and "book values" are [still]
fantasy.

IMNSHO, Cash, albeit not necessaraly U.S. dollars, is still
king.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
d***@krl.org
2011-06-09 21:02:01 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 9, 1:14 pm, F. George McDuffee <***@mcduffee-
associates.us>

 A major problem with stock
Post by F. George McDuffee
index funds is that there may be nothing behind them except
the "good name" of the originator, who may well be a future
version of Lehaman or Bear-Sterns, and you may be stuck with
some very expensive wall paper.  
Without the universal and draconian application of "mark to
market, corporate valuations and "book values" are [still]
fantasy.  
IMNSHO, Cash, albeit not necessaraly U.S. dollars, is still
king.
-- Unka George  (George McDuffee)
Have you ever looked at an index fund? Your major problem just does
not exist.

Dan
F. George McDuffee
2011-06-10 01:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
associates.us>
 A major problem with stock
Post by F. George McDuffee
index funds is that there may be nothing behind them except
the "good name" of the originator, who may well be a future
version of Lehaman or Bear-Sterns, and you may be stuck with
some very expensive wall paper.  
Without the universal and draconian application of "mark to
market, corporate valuations and "book values" are [still]
fantasy.  
IMNSHO, Cash, albeit not necessaraly U.S. dollars, is still
king.
-- Unka George  (George McDuffee)
Have you ever looked at an index fund? Your major problem just does
not exist.
Dan
=============
You might wish to take a look at
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5d5f1eb6-2fc6-11e0-91f8-00144feabdc0.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14f226d4-6502-11e0-9369-00144feab49a.html
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/08/18/67466/the-rise-of-synthetic-etfs/
<snip>
However, there is one issue. Retail investors are now
incrementally more exposed to OTC counterparty risk.
<snip>


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
Hawke
2011-06-09 18:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
Dan
As I said a day or two ago, people are saving at a much higher rate than
they have in years. They are putting that saving into the banks, which
as you note, pay them nothing. Proving once again that the average
person simply does not know what they are doing, and should tell you why
polls telling you what the majority thinks should be ignored.

Hawke
Charlie E.
2011-06-11 00:57:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:01:53 -0700, Hawke
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
Dan
As I said a day or two ago, people are saving at a much higher rate than
they have in years. They are putting that saving into the banks, which
as you note, pay them nothing. Proving once again that the average
person simply does not know what they are doing, and should tell you why
polls telling you what the majority thinks should be ignored.
Hawke
Or, it could be that the average person is much smarter than you are!
If the choice is 'Spend now, and then have nothing in six months when
you loose your job, so that you loose your house and other
possesions.' or 'Save now, and loose some of the value of that money
to inflation, but you will have some next year when some crisis
comes.' then the wise choice is to save. You don't buy stocks in this
market, they are too volitile, not even index funds. Too many of us
lost large fractions of our 401Ks just a few years ago, much of it in
those index funds. We don't buy houses, because, even if you are
buying a foreclosure, there is no guarantee that we have bottomed out
of the market yet. Folks are smarter than you think!

Charlie
Hawke
2011-06-11 21:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlie E.
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:01:53 -0700, Hawke
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
Dan
As I said a day or two ago, people are saving at a much higher rate than
they have in years. They are putting that saving into the banks, which
as you note, pay them nothing. Proving once again that the average
person simply does not know what they are doing, and should tell you why
polls telling you what the majority thinks should be ignored.
Hawke
Or, it could be that the average person is much smarter than you are!
If the choice is 'Spend now, and then have nothing in six months when
you loose your job, so that you loose your house and other
possesions.' or 'Save now, and loose some of the value of that money
to inflation, but you will have some next year when some crisis
comes.' then the wise choice is to save. You don't buy stocks in this
market, they are too volitile, not even index funds. Too many of us
lost large fractions of our 401Ks just a few years ago, much of it in
those index funds. We don't buy houses, because, even if you are
buying a foreclosure, there is no guarantee that we have bottomed out
of the market yet. Folks are smarter than you think!
Charlie
No, they're not. What they are is fearful and ignorant. That is why they
are putting their money into banks even though they are getting so
little for that money they are actually losing on the deal because of
inflation.

So what are smart people with money doing with it? Putting it in bank
savings accounts? You know that's not true. Any savvy investor can find
lots of things to do with their money that pays some interest and is
still relatively safe.

The stock market is down right now but if you bought the right stocks
you're still getting very good returns from companies that pay high
dividends. If you have AT&T stock you're getting over 5% in dividends
regardless of what the stock price is. Lots of bonds pay better too and
are safe too. The truth is virtually nobody should be putting their
money in bank savings accounts. They can do a lot better. But like I
said, they're ignorant and don't know that.

Hawke
Bill Bowden
2011-06-12 06:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Post by Charlie E.
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:01:53 -0700, Hawke
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest.  This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house.  Interest rates are very low
now.  I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
                                                             Dan
As I said a day or two ago, people are saving at a much higher rate than
they have in years. They are putting that saving into the banks, which
as you note, pay them nothing. Proving once again that the average
person simply does not know what they are doing, and should tell you why
polls telling you what the majority thinks should be ignored.
Hawke
Or, it could be that the average person is much smarter than you are!
If the choice is 'Spend now, and then have nothing in six months when
you loose your job, so that you loose your house and other
possesions.' or 'Save now, and loose some of the value of that money
to inflation, but you will have some next year when some crisis
comes.' then the wise choice is to save.  You don't buy stocks in this
market, they are too volitile, not even index funds.  Too many of us
lost large fractions of our 401Ks just a few years ago, much of it in
those index funds.  We don't buy houses, because, even if you are
buying a foreclosure, there is no guarantee that we have bottomed out
of the market yet.  Folks are smarter than you think!
Charlie
No, they're not. What they are is fearful and ignorant. That is why they
are putting their money into banks even though they are getting so
little for that money they are actually losing on the deal because of
inflation.
So what are smart people with money doing with it? Putting it in bank
savings accounts? You know that's not true. Any savvy investor can find
lots of things to do with their money that pays some interest and is
still relatively safe.
The stock market is down right now but if you bought the right stocks
you're still getting very good returns from companies that pay high
dividends. If you have AT&T stock you're getting over 5% in dividends
regardless of what the stock price is. Lots of bonds pay better too and
are safe too. The truth is virtually nobody should be putting their
money in bank savings accounts. They can do a lot better. But like I
said, they're ignorant and don't know that.
Hawke
Yes, it's hard to find a safe investment these days. But like you say
anything is better than CD rates at 1%. Junk bonds have held up
against the S&P index and pay about 8% which is excellent nowadays. I
like them because they usually only fall half as much as equities.
From the chart, notice the S&P drops 5% while junk bonds (JNK) only
drop 3% and keep paying 8.29%.
Such a deal.

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=JNK&t=3m&q=l&l=on&z=l&c=SPY&p=s&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US


-Bill
Hawke
2011-06-12 06:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bowden
Post by Hawke
Post by Charlie E.
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:01:53 -0700, Hawke
Post by Hawke
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
Dan
As I said a day or two ago, people are saving at a much higher rate than
they have in years. They are putting that saving into the banks, which
as you note, pay them nothing. Proving once again that the average
person simply does not know what they are doing, and should tell you why
polls telling you what the majority thinks should be ignored.
Hawke
Or, it could be that the average person is much smarter than you are!
If the choice is 'Spend now, and then have nothing in six months when
you loose your job, so that you loose your house and other
possesions.' or 'Save now, and loose some of the value of that money
to inflation, but you will have some next year when some crisis
comes.' then the wise choice is to save. You don't buy stocks in this
market, they are too volitile, not even index funds. Too many of us
lost large fractions of our 401Ks just a few years ago, much of it in
those index funds. We don't buy houses, because, even if you are
buying a foreclosure, there is no guarantee that we have bottomed out
of the market yet. Folks are smarter than you think!
Charlie
No, they're not. What they are is fearful and ignorant. That is why they
are putting their money into banks even though they are getting so
little for that money they are actually losing on the deal because of
inflation.
So what are smart people with money doing with it? Putting it in bank
savings accounts? You know that's not true. Any savvy investor can find
lots of things to do with their money that pays some interest and is
still relatively safe.
The stock market is down right now but if you bought the right stocks
you're still getting very good returns from companies that pay high
dividends. If you have AT&T stock you're getting over 5% in dividends
regardless of what the stock price is. Lots of bonds pay better too and
are safe too. The truth is virtually nobody should be putting their
money in bank savings accounts. They can do a lot better. But like I
said, they're ignorant and don't know that.
Hawke
Yes, it's hard to find a safe investment these days. But like you say
anything is better than CD rates at 1%. Junk bonds have held up
against the S&P index and pay about 8% which is excellent nowadays. I
like them because they usually only fall half as much as equities.
From the chart, notice the S&P drops 5% while junk bonds (JNK) only
drop 3% and keep paying 8.29%.
Such a deal.
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=JNK&t=3m&q=l&l=on&z=l&c=SPY&p=s&a=v&p=s&lang=en-US&region=US
-Bill
I hear experts all the time saying the stock market is still cheap right
now. Especially after the last six weeks. The point is that putting your
money in a bank only loses you money. I don't know any smart people who
do that.

Many other investments are out there that pay decent to good rates and
still have low risks. You have to look for them though and you need some
knowledge about investing. If you don't know anything you can put your
money in the bank. Lots of people are doing that right now. It's not
something that I would advise anyone to do with their money. But then I
expect to make money on my investments. Obviously, a lot of people don't.

Hawke
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-10 04:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
The gentleman who turned down the trade of a Fiat for an apartment
tells of a Don Alfredo who inherited $3000 dollars from his aunt. At
the height of the Chile inflation during the Allende administration.
It wasn't enough to "do anything" with (leave the country, start
over.), so he went to the brokers and bought 'blue chip' stocks, then
selling at a steep discount. His thinking was that either the economy
would recover (and he'd make money) or it wouldn't - and he be no
worse off that he was. Well, a few months later, the Allende regime
was overthrown, and the price of the stocks rose tenfold in a very
short period of time. Since then "Don Alfredo" has done quite well,
thank you.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
PrecisionmachinisT
2011-06-10 04:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now. I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
The gentleman who turned down the trade of a Fiat for an apartment
tells of a Don Alfredo who inherited $3000 dollars from his aunt. At
the height of the Chile inflation during the Allende administration.
It wasn't enough to "do anything" with (leave the country, start
over.), so he went to the brokers and bought 'blue chip' stocks, then
selling at a steep discount. His thinking was that either the economy
would recover (and he'd make money) or it wouldn't - and he be no
worse off that he was. Well, a few months later, the Allende regime
was overthrown, and the price of the stocks rose tenfold in a very
short period of time. Since then "Don Alfredo" has done quite well,
thank you.
Big deal...

--My father in law won ~70 grand in the Wa. State lottery just a few months
ago !!

Oh, and thank you, very much.

--
pyotr filipivich
2011-06-12 04:11:49 UTC
Permalink
I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that
Post by d***@krl.org
Post by Ed Huntress
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
--
Ed Huntress
Having your money in saving accounts is in my opinion a losing
proposition. Saving accounts pay almost no interest. This is probably
a good time to re-mortgage your house. Interest rates are very low
now.
"now". The real question is whether or not wage inflation will
cut in sooner or later. Because there is nothing like having a $1200
monthly mortgage payment on a quarter million house, when your weekly
pay is twice that.
Post by d***@krl.org
I like to buy individual stocks, but do not recommend this.
Better to buy an index fund unless you have enough money to own a
dozen or so stocks that are diversified.
Dan
--
pyotr filipivich
Just when you think you see the light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a 900lb gorilla with a flashlight!!
Hawke
2011-06-09 17:59:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Huntress
Post by pyotr filipivich
There were lots of goods available in Wiemar Germany...yet they were
buying them with wheelbarrows full of money.
They will be raising the debt limit soon
I guess you'll be investing your life savings
in wheelbarrows
Hell no! Ill be buying gold and silver, guns and ammo. Lots of ammo.
Whiskey is a trade good too. Even better if you are a
non-drinker.
True indeed!! Good thinking!
Basically, now is the time to "stock up" on the "trade goods".
Whiskey, beer and wine, cigarettes, TP, tin foil, toothpaste --- what
ever you use in your house, somebody else will also want.
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
These folks are clearly not "investors". You're getting an insight into
the thinking of the common man here, and it's plain to see how afraid
they are. It's understandable that people are overly sensitive right now
considering what the last republican administration did to them.

But their solutions are not well thought out and indicate that they have
no idea what is going on in the world economically, which leaves them
acting on nothing but their fears. This just goes to show you how
different the uninformed think and act from smart people. The smart
people are investing in things people need too, they call them
commodities. But they're not stocking up the house with whiskey or
ammunition. That's what the knuckleheads are doing.

Hawke
Ed Huntress
2011-06-09 18:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Post by Ed Huntress
Post by pyotr filipivich
There were lots of goods available in Wiemar Germany...yet they were
buying them with wheelbarrows full of money.
They will be raising the debt limit soon
I guess you'll be investing your life savings
in wheelbarrows
Hell no! Ill be buying gold and silver, guns and ammo. Lots of ammo.
Whiskey is a trade good too. Even better if you are a
non-drinker.
True indeed!! Good thinking!
Basically, now is the time to "stock up" on the "trade goods".
Whiskey, beer and wine, cigarettes, TP, tin foil, toothpaste --- what
ever you use in your house, somebody else will also want.
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
These folks are clearly not "investors". You're getting an insight into
the thinking of the common man here, and it's plain to see how afraid they
are. It's understandable that people are overly sensitive right now
considering what the last republican administration did to them.
I just want them to do something useful for the country, like stimulating
the economy. Voting for libertarians is a good idea, too. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Post by Hawke
But their solutions are not well thought out and indicate that they have
no idea what is going on in the world economically, which leaves them
acting on nothing but their fears. This just goes to show you how
different the uninformed think and act from smart people. The smart people
are investing in things people need too, they call them commodities. But
they're not stocking up the house with whiskey or ammunition. That's what
the knuckleheads are doing.
Hawke
PrecisionmachinisT
2011-06-10 04:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Huntress
Post by Hawke
Post by Ed Huntress
Post by pyotr filipivich
There were lots of goods available in Wiemar Germany...yet they were
buying them with wheelbarrows full of money.
They will be raising the debt limit soon
I guess you'll be investing your life savings
in wheelbarrows
Hell no! Ill be buying gold and silver, guns and ammo. Lots of ammo.
Whiskey is a trade good too. Even better if you are a
non-drinker.
True indeed!! Good thinking!
Basically, now is the time to "stock up" on the "trade goods".
Whiskey, beer and wine, cigarettes, TP, tin foil, toothpaste --- what
ever you use in your house, somebody else will also want.
Buy, buy, buy! Take all of your money out of savings, re-mortgage your
house, and buy!
I'll stand back and watch.
These folks are clearly not "investors". You're getting an insight into
the thinking of the common man here, and it's plain to see how afraid
they are. It's understandable that people are overly sensitive right now
considering what the last republican administration did to them.
I just want them to do something useful for the country, like stimulating
the economy. Voting for libertarians is a good idea, too. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Post by Hawke
But their solutions are not well thought out and indicate that they have
no idea what is going on in the world economically, which leaves them
acting on nothing but their fears. This just goes to show you how
different the uninformed think and act from smart people. The smart
people are investing in things people need too, they call them
commodities. But they're not stocking up the house with whiskey or
ammunition. That's what the knuckleheads are doing.
Anyone that paid attention during his high school science classes can
produce distilled spirits from cane sugar or even from a grain mash if need
be.

And reloaded brass will work perfectly fine if some home-schooled son of a
bible thumping knuckle head happens to show up.

--
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...