|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on May 9, 2012 0:17:05 GMT -8
2 charts, anyone want to explain what happened in the 1970s? ;D   |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on May 10, 2012 14:58:52 GMT -8
Being a dirty hippy made it tough to pay you what you're worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 11, 2012 11:00:59 GMT -8
This is when the economists from the University of Chicago began to ascend in political influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on May 11, 2012 13:44:34 GMT -8
The middle class is saying adios.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 11, 2012 13:58:42 GMT -8
The middle class is saying adios. Could be...  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on May 12, 2012 13:23:37 GMT -8
This is when the economists from the University of Chicago began to ascend in political influence. Wrong, Friedman was Reagan's economic adviser in the 80s. Unless you're referring to someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on May 12, 2012 13:32:52 GMT -8
I'll just answer my own question, August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon took the US off the gold standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 12, 2012 17:56:22 GMT -8
This is when the economists from the University of Chicago began to ascend in political influence. Wrong, Friedman was Reagan's economic adviser in the 80s. Unless you're referring to someone else. So you think Freidman was under a rock until 1980? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 12, 2012 18:03:15 GMT -8
I'll just answer my own question, August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon took the US off the gold standard. Please explain your answer. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 13, 2012 7:17:07 GMT -8
This is a much more complex problem or issue than can be explained by just the backing of the dollar or workers not being able to fully be compensated for productivity increase. You must understand that just to remain remotely competitive with off shore businesses you must have dramatic increases in productivity or just give in and move off shore. Unions also have to be included into the equation of how we divide the business dollar.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on May 13, 2012 12:52:26 GMT -8
Wrong, Friedman was Reagan's economic adviser in the 80s. Unless you're referring to someone else. So you think Freidman was under a rock until 1980? I didn't say that, obviously he wasn't under a rock (he won the nobel prize in 76), you don't go from no body to an economic adviser, but you made the claim that economist from UOC began to have political influence in the 70s. 1. As far as I know Freidman only had political influence with Reagan and that was in the 80s 2. Outside of Freidman there weren't really any other UOC economists that had much (if any) political influence. So lets not pretend that they took control over economic policy. Now I may be wrong, if I am show me who Freidman had political influence with in the 70s. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 13, 2012 14:23:50 GMT -8
So you think Freidman was under a rock until 1980? I didn't say that, obviously he wasn't under a rock (he won the nobel prize in 76), you don't go from no body to an economic adviser, but you made the claim that economist from UOC began to have political influence in the 70s. 1. As far as I know Freidman only had political influence with Reagan and that was in the 80s 2. Outside of Freidman there weren't really any other UOC economists that had much (if any) political influence. So lets not pretend that they took control over economic policy. Now I may be wrong, if I am show me who Freidman had political influence with in the 70s. I did not bring up Freidman, you did. I said economists from the University of Chicago. In general called the Chicago School. They, with others, provided the intellectual framework for the deregulation movement. While well meaning, of course, we still live with the results of those ill fated ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on May 13, 2012 14:35:18 GMT -8
I didn't say that, obviously he wasn't under a rock (he won the nobel prize in 76), you don't go from no body to an economic adviser, but you made the claim that economist from UOC began to have political influence in the 70s. 1. As far as I know Freidman only had political influence with Reagan and that was in the 80s 2. Outside of Freidman there weren't really any other UOC economists that had much (if any) political influence. So lets not pretend that they took control over economic policy. Now I may be wrong, if I am show me who Freidman had political influence with in the 70s. I did not bring up Freidman, you did. I said economists from the University of Chicago. In general called the Chicago School. They, with others, provided the intellectual framework for the deregulation movement. While well meaning, of course, we still live with the results of those ill fated ideas. Like who? I've said that you can correct me if I'm wrong, who are you referring to? Neither Nixon or Carter were influenced by them. Friedman is the only one from the University of Chicago that had much political influence but clearly you must know someone else... |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 13, 2012 17:24:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on May 13, 2012 17:37:55 GMT -8
Yes I know what the Chicago school of economics is, who are you referring to? Give me a name.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on May 13, 2012 17:51:05 GMT -8
I'll just answer my own question, August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon took the US off the gold standard. Please explain your answer. With the gold standard it kept inflation somewhat in check. Now I know a lot of Keynesians think inflation is good, but in reality it's basically theft. If you got $1 in 2007 and say put it in a mattress or a checking account (which is basically the same thing  ) it would have lost 10 cents in value today and that's just 5 years. Same works with price inflation, if before it only cost someone $100 a week to buy groceries and lets say now it costs them $120 that's quite a bit for someone who is poor or even the middle class when you factor everything else. Then you can get into fractional banking and how the fed manipulates interest rates further harming the poor and middle class but I won't get into that right now. The dollar's value before 1970 remained relatively flat, compare that to after 1970: Dollar chart relative to 1913 dollars (as is how many dollars in x year to = $1 in 1913):  Inflation has been a big contributor to why wages have remained flat since the 1970s compare that to the 50 years before. Average Household income since 1901 (info from bls.gov): 1901: $750 1918-19: $1,518 1934-35: $1,524 1950: $4,237 1960-61: $6,691 1972-73: $11,419 1984-85: $23,464 1996-97: $38,983 2002-03: $50,302 So lets take a look at that in steady dollars, inflation calculator from bls.gov only goes back to 1913 so I'll over look the 1st data point. Lets put it in 2000 dollars: 1918: $17,311.23 1934: $19,584.54 1950: $30,274.33 1960: $38,925.34 1972: $47,041.91 1984: $38,888.36 1996: $42,784.40 2002: $48,149.00 Charts:   |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 13, 2012 18:02:27 GMT -8
Yes I know what the Chicago school of economics is, who are you referring to? Give me a name. There was a list of names in the article. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 13, 2012 18:16:19 GMT -8
Certainly pretty graphs. The first graph tell us that in 1913 a dollar was worth a dollar, but by 1973 you had to have 5 dollars to have the same purchasing power. That would be about a 500% increase. Then the gold standard was chucked and we had so much inflation. In fact, by 2009 you would need almost 25 dollars to buy what 5 dollars would have bought in 1973. That would be about a 500% increase. Now what was your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecsrule72001 on May 13, 2012 18:34:20 GMT -8
Certainly pretty graphs. The first graph tell us that in 1913 a dollar was worth a dollar, but by 1973 you had to have 5 dollars to have the same purchasing power. That would be about a 500% increase. Then the gold standard was chucked and we had so much inflation. In fact, by 2009 you would need almost 25 dollars to buy what 5 dollars would have bought in 1973. That would be about a 500% increase. Now what was your point? Thanks, excel makes it easy.  Since I have all the data (didn't really want to list all the data points in that post but I will here): Year Dollar (relative to 1913)
1913 $1.00
1914 $1.01
1915 $1.02
1916 $1.10
1917 $1.29
1918 $1.53
1919 $1.75
1920 $2.02
1921 $1.81
1922 $1.70
1923 $1.73
1924 $1.73
1925 $1.77
1926 $1.79
1927 $1.76
1928 $1.73
1929 $1.73
1930 $1.69
1931 $1.54
1932 $1.38
1933 $1.31
1934 $1.35
1935 $1.38
1936 $1.40
1937 $1.45
1938 $1.42
1939 $1.40
1940 $1.41
1941 $1.48
1942 $1.65
1943 $1.75
1944 $1.78
1945 $1.82
1946 $1.97
1947 $2.25
1948 $2.43
1949 $2.40
1950 $2.43
1951 $2.63
1952 $2.68
1953 $2.70
1954 $2.72
1955 $2.71
1956 $2.75
1957 $2.84
1958 $2.92
1959 $2.94
1960 $2.99
1961 $3.02
1962 $3.05
1963 $3.09
1964 $3.13
1965 $3.18
1966 $3.27
1967 $3.37
1968 $3.52
1969 $3.71
1970 $3.92
1971 $4.09
1972 $4.22
1973 $4.48
1974 $4.98
1975 $5.43
1976 $5.75
1977 $6.12
1978 $6.59
1979 $7.33
1980 $8.32
1981 $9.18
1982 $9.75
1983 $10.06
1984 $10.49
1985 $10.87
1986 $11.07
1987 $11.47
1988 $11.95
1989 $12.53
1990 $13.20
1991 $13.76
1992 $14.17
1993 $14.60
1994 $14.97
1995 $15.39
1996 $15.85
1997 $16.21
1998 $16.46
1999 $16.83
2000 $17.39
2001 $17.88
2002 $18.17
2003 $18.59
2004 $19.08
2005 $19.73
2006 $20.36
2007 $20.94
2008 $21.75
2009 $21.67
2010 $22.03
2011 $22.72
2012 $23.17
So in 1971 it would take $4.09 to equal $1 in 1913 In 2012 it would take $23.17 to equal $1 in 1913 409% change in 58 years vs 567% change in 41 years If we were to go back a comparable 41 years (1930 = $1.69) that would make it a 242% change. I would say that's a pretty big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 14, 2012 10:21:22 GMT -8
A comparable 41 years? Please. 1930 is the start of the Great Depression. There was deflation then. It was not until 1943 did prices come back to 1930 levels.
|
|
) it would have lost 10 cents in value today and that's just 5 years. Same works with price inflation, if before it only cost someone $100 a week to buy groceries and lets say now it costs them $120 that's quite a bit for someone who is poor or even the middle class when you factor everything else.