"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:8mn19.42089$Fq6.3837975 at news2.west.cox.net...
> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Fel19.698$7p.507207 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > news:lZk19.41024$Fq6.3791761 at news2.west.cox.net...> > >
> >
> > Actually, gold is the worst thing that could be used. The inflation
rates
> > used by the Federal Reserve are the best.
> >
>> The Federal Reserve is controlled by jews who do nothing but LIE, and you
> accept this? For 3,000 years, gold was a perfectly acceptable standard,
and
> just 30 years ago, the jews decided to use paper dollars rather than gold,
> and you *accept* this? The entire rest of the world refuses to use
American
> dollars and instead demands that gold be used as a standard, and you
believe
> the jewish LIES about the "inflation rates"?
Gold was not a perfectly acceptable standard, that's why it was changed.
And most developed countries in the world DO NOT use gold.
> This is ridiculous.
Take a course in macroeconomics, or read a book.
> > > But by comparing median incomes and median home prices in *current*
> > dollars,
> > > we're eliminating the need to rely on unreliable statistics like
> "consumer
> > > price indexes".
> >
> > No you're not. Housing prices are an unreliable measure.
> >
> > If you use the 2000 dollars, in the very census table you were using
then
> > you already take purchasing parity into account, and thus your
comparison
> to
> > housing costs is completely useless.
>> We're not using housing prices as a "measure". We're measuring the
ability
> of Americans to simply buy a place to live in, something that most people
in
> the world don't have so much trouble either doing or understanding.
Yes you are. You're using housing prices as a measure of inflation.
> The Japanese pay CASH for their housing, have no mortgage debt, save 33%
of
> every yen they earn, put $2 trillion MORE into personal savings last year,
> but you think it's irrelevant that Americans' incomes didn't keep up with
> prices?
They do. American incomes have increased, in real terms. Evidently while
housing costs seem to have increased, the costs of other things have
decreased even more.
So a country that saves 100% of their income is in the best possible
situation, isn't it?
> > > > > Well, it is FALSE. Here is the math using *your* approach. This
is
> a
> > > > valid
> > > > > approach, but it's misleading because it views ratios rather than
> > > absolute
> > > > > dollars (and absolute dollars are far more important in this
> instance
> > > than
> > > > > ratios). Let's define Purchasing Power as median incomes as a
> > > percentage
> > > > of
> > > > > median home prices. Median incomes decreased from 37.3% of median
> > home
> > > > > prices in 1970 to 24.9% by 2000, as the ratio of men in the labor
> > force
> > > > > decreased 7% and the ratio of women increased 42%. This 33% loss
of
> > > > > purchasing power of the American worker could only have occurred
if
> > > women
> > > > > workers are counter-productive.. It cannot be explained by them
> being
> > > > > merely unproductive:
> > > >
> > > > No, you did it wrong again. Use the income adjusted for inflation.
> > That
> > > is
> > > > how you do these things.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The only reliable way to adjust for inflation is to use the gold
> standard.
> > > There are too many jews involved in fabricating these "consumer price"
> > > indexes.
> >
> > Nope. The gold standard hasn't been a standard for quite some time.
> Money
> > is a numerical value, and it has been that way for a reasonable length
of
> > time.
> >
> > Note: Those figures were already adjusted for inflation. What do you
> think
> > current dollars mean?
> >
>> "Current dollars" means the ACTUAL cost at the time using the value of the
> dollar at the time. *Constant* dollars are adjusted for inflation, but
it's
> EXTREMELY easy to mislead a citizenry which doesn't even understand
> calculus, much less algebra.
Basic algebra is much simpler than calculus. You really can't do calculus
without it.
Actually, I was mistaken. Look at 2000 dollars for the ACTUAL cost,
adjustend for inflation.
I misread the legend.
> > > > > This suggests that the negative productivity of one woman worker
is
> > > equal
> > > > to
> > > > > one half of the positive productivity of one man worker, which is
> > > baloney.
> > > > > It takes more men employees than that just to move file cabinets
for
> > > women
> > > > > employees, not to mention the three firemen that have to be sent
in
> to
> > > > carry
> > > > > out a firewoman and the fire victim she dropped down the stairs.
> > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm> > > >
> > > > The cost of a house is not equal to the cost of living. I'm afraid
> > you're
> > > > still wrong, and will continue to be wrong until you use the figures
> for
> > > > median income adjusted for inflation.
> > >
> > > ok, let's adjust for inflation.
> > >
> > > median income 1970 = 224 ounces of gold
> > > median income 2000 = 151 ounces of gold
> > > median home price 1970 = 602 ounces of gold
> > > median home price 2000 = 606 ounces of gold
> >
> > Gold is irrelevant. You might as well base it on Microsoft stock.
> >
>> Mircosoft stock!? That's not just irrelevant--it's worse than irrelevant.
> It's not based on assets, it's based on pure jewish hype and hot air. The
> two thirds plunge in the value of Microsoft since January 2000 just barely
> scratches the surface of how much hot air's involved. Basing values on
MSFT
> stock would be like using a baloon to measure a mile. The Chinese,
> Japanese, Muslims, Indians, Russians, or Europeans would never accept
> Microsoft stock for payment of something [read: anything], but they'd take
> gold in a heartbeat.
My point was that it was irrelevant.
You do know that currency markets operate on currency, and not gold,
correct? I buy American dollars to buy American goods with Canadian
dollars. An American buys Japanese Yen with American dollars in order to
buy Japanese goods. They don't use gold.
> > > Purchasing Power 1970 = P(1970) = 224/602 = 0.372
> > > Purchasing Power 2000 = P(2000) = 151/606 = 0.25
> >
> > This is meaningless. The current dollar figure gives the purchasing
> power.
> > Thus $30,000 is less than $40,000. It's really quite simple.
> >
> > <Snipped equations that used the wrong figures, again>
> >
> > > Error? Where? http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm> >
> > You used the wrong figures again.
> >
> > Use $42,151 for 2000
> > and $31,397 for 1967.
> >
> > Those are the correct figures, from the census you provided yourself.
> >
>> No, these figures are "adjusted for inflation", using the completely
> unreliable "consumer price index", which is a real lesson in how to LIE
with
> statistics.
They shouldn't be using the cpi. The cpi is adjusted for food, which IS
unreliable due to draught and such. It should be based on the Federal
Reserves index, which is much more reliable.
> In 1965, American family incomes were five times that of Japan, but now
> they're a half to a third of Japan's. If you want a REAL standard, use
the
> yen rather than the "consumer price index" (though they'll produce the
same
> results, since Japan uses the gold standard).
But you posted that Japanese family income was 1/3 of American family
income. Were you mistaken there?
> Either way, you can't do one single calculation which shows that women
> employees contributed a single nickel to economic productivity, can you?
> And every time you try, you get a NEGATIVE figure, don't you? Not even
> using the fraudulent cpi will produce a *positive* productivity figure for
> women employees.
Nope. If you use the figures adjusted for inflation, assuming constant
technology, it looks like women contribute even more than men.
Of course since technology has progressed, it's probably an increase in both
parties.
You could try arguing that male productivity has increased so much that it
offsets female negative productivity enough to show an increase. But then
you'd have to admit that the education system is churning out more
productive workers, at least on the male side.
