Just to save you having to reach for a calculator, 77 / 86 = .895, or an 11% 'devaluation' of the US dollar's world market purchasing power over the past 6 months !
Printable View
Just to save you having to reach for a calculator, 77 / 86 = .895, or an 11% 'devaluation' of the US dollar's world market purchasing power over the past 6 months !
No worries, it'll go up again.
The inflation rate for 2009 is -1.5%.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...flation-rates/
That means the purchasing value for the dollar is .75% higher than it was 6 months ago.
^^^ this actually isn't true, as anyone who shops for groceries or pays utility bills will already know. But the cost of food and energy are typically excluded from 'official' core CPI numbers
You're again attempting to rely on the 'official' US gov't Consumer Price Index, which has so many statistical 'games' involved as to have become virtually meaningless, to support an inaccurate assertion. You are aware of course that in the latest CPI release, the BLS reported that the average price of automobiles DECREASED by $3500 or 15-20% ( i.e. the Clunkers credit ) ? You are also aware of course that over 1/3rd of the CPI is based on a concept of 'Owner Equivalent Rent' which is directly tied to falling real estate prices ? Yet in the 'real world' the price of new cars hasn't dropped at all, and the price of making mortgage payments / real estate tax payments hasn't dropped at all.
Says who ? Based on what ?
All the current indicators say that the dollar will NOT rebound. Obama and his Treasury Dept. as well as the Fed are all pursuing weak dollar policy to help exports and to dilute the value of current debt.
The European Central Bank and the Bank of England are supporting the Euro and the Pound respectively.
My grocery payments and utility payments haven't gone up at all. The price of a gallon of gas has decreased. The price of a house has decreased in many areas. Before the Cash for Clunkers, car dealers were offering huge discounts on automobiles, as Earl showed. The American dollar can buy more today than it could six months ago.
Well Eric, perhaps a longer term chart, say, a hundred years, would be more illustrative of my assertion. The dollar has been in a downtrend for a couple of years I believe. It hasn't always been going down, has it? The dollar goes up and the dollar goes down. That's what I base it on. You disagree? It's going to zero is it?
Eric, when oil was at $147, some thought it would go to 2, 3, or $400. It corrected as it should. The dollar is representative of many things, not the least of which is uncertainty and speculation. I would suggest watching for a base and loading up....like I did with the Canadian dollar. Remember when it was 62 cents? There was oh so much knashing of teeth and wringing of hands. "OMG the country is a basket case!" Nope.
Yes and No. You're right that there is a cyclical element to a lot of this stuff. The problem is that unlike 1979-1983, we don't have a President or a Fed Chariman who believes in drilling for oil ; who believes in a sound currency; who believes in tax cuts to stimulate investment.
The last time around we didn't have a Social Security system that is already bleeding MORE in benefits paid than it is taking in. With tens of millions more Baby Boomers on line to retire. While we had a deficit, it wasn't 14% of GDP projected to go to 83% in only 7 years. And there was no push then for National Health Care as there is now.
If the dollar were to break it's downward trend, and go on to rise over the next year or two, in spite of these things you've mentioned....what then?
Arguably, because of taxation and gov't spending policies, Canada still holds onto aspects of being an economic basket case ... as is Spain, Italy, France etc. What changed vis a vis the Canadian $ versus the US $ is that taxation and gov't spending policies in the USA now render it even more of an economic basket case than Canada !Quote:
"OMG the country is a basket case!" Nope.
The other factor in Canada's favor is that, despite taxation and gov't spending policies, Canada earns a s#!tload of imputed foreign income from the export of natural resources and raw materials ... which the USA, Spain, Italy, France etc. can't and don't similarly enjoy.
Fortunately for the gov'ts of these countries, we live in an age of 'infinite fiat' money. Thus there is no accurate yardstick to measure the rise or fall of a country's currency's true 'purchasing power'. This leads to mistaken conclusions such as the Canadian $ 'rising' against the US dollar ... when in fact both are falling in 'purchasing power' but the US $ is falling faster than the Canadian $ is falling !
Only a conservative ideologue would call the countries with highest standard of living in the world "economic basket cases", while raving about countries where large numbers of citizens live in poverty, just because these countries follow their ideology of paying workers very low wages, to work in unsafe working conditions, in plants emitting large amounts of pollution.
What I actually said is that these countries hold onto aspects of being 'economic basket cases', vis a vis their gov'ts taxation and gov't spending policies.Quote:
Only a conservative ideologue would call the countries with highest standard of living in the world "economic basket cases"
As to the standard of living, it appears that your comment is based on the same sort of myopia as HockeyBobby's comment about 'rising' currencies. Consider the following ...
In the 1950's America it was possible for a married couple with two children to sustain a very respectable standard of living if the parents were high school graduates and one parent worked full time.
by the 1970-80's America it was possible for a married couple with two children to sustain a similar standard of living if the parents were high school graduates and BOTH parents worked full time.
now it's again 30 years later and it is simply no longer possible for a married couple with two children to sustain a similar standard of living if the parents are high school graduates and both parents work full time - through their own efforts. In order to maintain a 'minimum acceptable' standard of living it is necessary for the gov't to 'transfer wealth' away from better educated higher earning Americans in order to subsidize their income (via tax credits), their rent / housing budget (via public housing, below market mortgages, down payment and other subsidies), grocery budget (via 'free' school lunch programs, food stamps), utility budget (via gov't utility bill subsidies), medical budget (via MedicAid) etc. of low skill Americans. And arguably this 'minimum acceptable standard of living' doesn't change much regardless of the fact that neither parent or one parent or both parents work full time !
My obvious point here is that if measured in objective terms, the standard of living in the US has constantly been declining since the 1950's. This fact was first disguised by 'taking for granted' that the work effort of the second spouse had to be added to the equation in the 70-80's, and by 'taking for granted' that during the '00's many Americans were allowed to borrow and spend money that they have no real method of ever paying back ( as well as the liquidation of previously accumulated assets ... often generational assets). But the largest current issue is the fact that much of spending which sustains today's apparent standard of living of unskilled Americans is disguised by the permeation of 'wealth transfer' gov't subsidies into so many aspects of a low skill level family's budget !
The flip side of course is to compare the relative standard of living of a highly educated US professional ... say a family practice doctor or automotive engineer ... in the 1950's to the 1970-80's to the present day. For them it has been a downhill slide the entire way ! Of course, this fact is mostly ignored since both the family practice doctor and the automotive engineer still enjoy a higher standard of living than their lower skill level neighbors. However, over that time period, their expected 'returns' on their 'investment' of time and money necessary to become a highly educated US professional have dropped precipitously ... to the point where 'new' US family practice doctors or new US automotive engineers will become scarce ! And therein lies the basis for my comment about 'economic basket case'.
~
Yeah Mel, we should all go back to the 50's when life was just golden. Tell that to people of colour or women who didn't exactly get to share equally in this ideal paradise of yours. We have so much more going for us today, but it would be futile trying to convince you of this.
You should be happy living in a country that is in the stone age relatively speaking. But hey, you get to save all those taxes which would just be 'wasted' on government services that you detest, but enrich the lives of so many others. The rest of us will just have to continue to enjoy lives that are better in every way than our grandparents.
Please don't attempt to invoke social policy or implied racist accusations in order to divert attention from an economic point that is inarguable on a factual basis. While the economic opportunities for minorities and women have changed a lot in the past 60 years, arguably the opportunities available in America in the 1950's weren't any worse than opportunities available for women and minorities in other parts of the world at that time.
As always, you are greatly exaggerating how bad things are here. Far more women are working today than in the 1950's because far more women want to work, and it is much more acceptable for women to work. There are far more jobs available to women in the 1950's. Far more women go to college today. Many married women want the security of having a job, even if they don't need it, because there is no guarantee their marriage is going to last forever.
Aside from the fact we are going through a recession, most Americans are much better off today than they were 50 years. The average size of houses has increased dramatically. So has the average size of vehicles, with many families owning SUV's. In addition, many families own two or three cars. In the 1950's, it wasn't uncommon for families to own a single car. Most workers get a lot more vacation time than they did in the 1950's. Americans also spend much less of a percentage of their income on food than they did in the 1950's as agriculture advances has greatly decreased the cost of food.
Only a small percentage of Americans get subsidies from the government. You're exaggerating this as well.
As for the standard of living for highly skilled professionals, it is far far higher today than it was 50 years ago. 50 years ago, the tax rate for Americans in the highest tax bracket was 90%. Today it is 35%. I don't see how you can possibly think these people were better off 50 years ago.
the gov'ts Earned Income Tax Credit subsidy is now paid out to about 1/3rd of US taxpayersQuote:
Only a small percentage of Americans get subsidies from the government.
over 12% of the US population is now receiving the Food Stamps subsidy on a regular basis
17 million US children now receive the gov'ts school breakfast / lunch subsidy ... which is something greater than 1/3rd of all school age children.
these are not 'small' percentages !
Arguably, whatever decreases in food prices that have taken place are equally the result of importing more and more food from lower cost foreign sources, and the wholesale corporatization / automation of US farming to vastly reduce farm labor costs.Quote:
Americans also spend much less of a percentage of their income on food than they did in the 1950's as agriculture advances has greatly decreased the cost of food
technically true, but as the current holders of US BS Swiss bank accounts will tell you, paying 90% of 'nothing' was much less expensive than paying 35% of 'something' where reported income is concerned. And in terms of middle class tax rates, the impact of currency inflation / bracket creep has significantly increased the 'real world' percentage of middle class income now dedicated to the payment of taxes in one form or another.Quote:
50 years ago, the tax rate for Americans in the highest tax bracket was 90%. Today it is 35%
That depends on how one defines 'ownership', and brings up a fundamental difference between the real world economy of the 1950's and the present day ! In the 1950's these items were usually fully paid for in a comparatively short time ... as were college tuition costs. Today, these items are arguably 'rented' by the month since very few original mortgages and auto loans are actually paid off under original terms ... and a record number of those larger homes and SUV's wind up reverting to the true 'owners' once the buyers fall behind in their payments. As with GDP you are again attempting to equate borrowed money with earned money !Quote:
The average size of houses has increased dramatically. So has the average size of vehicles, with many families owning SUV's. In addition, many families own two or three cars
A few other 'real world' comparisons between the 1950's economy and the economy of today courtesy of
- average 1950's worker dedicated 1.4 months of effort to finance the gov't via taxes, whereas today's average worker must dedicate 5 months of effort paying taxes.
- every dollar saved by a 1950's worker to provide for their own retirement was still worth 85 cents of 'purchasing power' 15 years later, whereas dollars saved toward retirement by a 1990's worker are A. worth about 50 cents of 'purchasing power' 15 years later if B. the gov't actually pays out all of the Social Security money these workers paid in.
pictures are always worth 1000 words ...
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/cpi-old-vs-new.gif
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/cpi-tax.gif
'Owning' a car is overrated. Having the use of a safe, reliable, economical vehicle is what matters. Same with a house...in the end, we're not taking any of it with us. But we can get well built, energy efficient homes with all the amenities, and we can use them while we're here. We have the most amazing technology at our disposal. We may pay more taxes, but we have an array of services and programs for families and those in need. We have it all.
Just by living here in the U.S. or Canada...well, for starters, we are all laughing. Except you Mel. Your negativity is relentless and incessantly dreary and bleak. Can you find no positive reason to be grateful to be alive today in the U.S. of A? Must you constantly try to justify your leaving with every piece of negative news you can scrape up?
You're a moderator...how about some moderation in your U.S. bashing?
She's not bashing the US, HB. She's bashing the direction in which it is being taken. There is a huge difference.
She's actually standing up for the country that most of us grew up in as we watch it being transformed into something that would be unrecognizable to the founding fathers.