Recent Posts4276
Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Last post by tomos on October 23, 2013, 06:53 AM »^I'm not arguing about debasing of a currency, and whether that might be a good thing. (1) I dont want to argue it (2) I'm not qualified to do it anyway ;-)
I was thinking more in term of a comparision with 1800 or even 1900 (referencing your quote that money had lost so much value in the last 2 to 300 years). It's easy to cherry pick a very short period of time when average people did reasonably well, and say that's what the world would be like if [xyz]. But I dont see much logic there, nor much to convince me of anything really. I could just as easily argue that times were good then because banks were much more regulated (and we might both be right - or wrong, or it might just be the case that there's an awful lot more going on at any time, than any simple idea/concept can explain).
Why do I feel like I'm being cheated when you compare minimum wage in 1964 and today in terms of silver
We've touched on this before (my post in basement thread about greenback dollars). SeraphimLabs claims a deflationary model is unstable (second post @ the link above). I dont know about his qualifications, but you didnt respond directly. As I say I'm not qualified to talk about it, but off the top of my head, if money was related to, say, silver, and silver was increasing in value all the time, then wages would probably have to be reduced proportionately, otherwise companies would go bust. Not sure that would go down too well...
I know that you know a lot about the flaws in fiat money Ren. But I get the impression that you dont know a whole lot more about economics than I do, yet you seem so very sure about your ideas. That sets off alarm bells for me. No offence intended - it's the ideas I'm on about
Minimum wage workers in 1964 made about 30% more than minimum wage earners now. *IF* you look at fiat, only.-
I was thinking more in term of a comparision with 1800 or even 1900 (referencing your quote that money had lost so much value in the last 2 to 300 years). It's easy to cherry pick a very short period of time when average people did reasonably well, and say that's what the world would be like if [xyz]. But I dont see much logic there, nor much to convince me of anything really. I could just as easily argue that times were good then because banks were much more regulated (and we might both be right - or wrong, or it might just be the case that there's an awful lot more going on at any time, than any simple idea/concept can explain).
Minimum wage for 1 hour in quarters in 1964 was about 0.82 troy ounces of silver.-
[...]
Today that's worth more than $18.50. (@ $22.60 per ozt)
Why do I feel like I'm being cheated when you compare minimum wage in 1964 and today in terms of silver
We've touched on this before (my post in basement thread about greenback dollars). SeraphimLabs claims a deflationary model is unstable (second post @ the link above). I dont know about his qualifications, but you didnt respond directly. As I say I'm not qualified to talk about it, but off the top of my head, if money was related to, say, silver, and silver was increasing in value all the time, then wages would probably have to be reduced proportionately, otherwise companies would go bust. Not sure that would go down too well...
I know that you know a lot about the flaws in fiat money Ren. But I get the impression that you dont know a whole lot more about economics than I do, yet you seem so very sure about your ideas. That sets off alarm bells for me. No offence intended - it's the ideas I'm on about
