Originally posted by Capitalizt
..I hate when people who semi-agree with me on some things post crazy . Is this whatshisname from a while back? culrout?
That's right gotta stay cool bro.
iTranscendence
I love it when fabian socialits engage in sophistry, it's good for entertainment.
idoru
I love it when people start all of their posts with "I love it when," in an vain attempt at making people sound hilariously foolish.
iTranscendence
The best thing I learned from the first video was about allodial title.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by iTranscendence
I love when Fabian socialists claim someone is an economic neophyte because they come from the system they despise for being universally more successful in causing wealth for the majority of a population, the Austrian school.
Every single post you make about economics just proves that you don’t understand it (like most Austrian “economists”, and I use the term ing loosely). Christ, here you are talking about wealth creation, when during the times of “sound” money and before central banking there were how many banking panics exactly? A dozen, maybe more? Awesome! You don’t even get the contribution the gold exchange standard made to prolonging the Great Depression, that gold has a contractionary bias and there isn’t even enough gold in the entire ing world to back the GDP of the US, let alone everyone else.
“More successful in causing wealth?” Go to ing school you uneducated peasant.
iTranscendence
It's cute when fabian socialists try and claim that the GDP could outstrip in magnitude all the potential sound money, when just a single material isn't the only option.
Whats even cuter about it is that most of the difference in value is actually due to the unstable and dramatically inconsistent nature of having a fiat currency who's value is based entirely on it's perceived value in a futures market.
In laymen terms for a libtard:
A house in 1950 cost less than 75k, now at the height of the last bubble was almost 300k isn't because it's become more expensive. It's because your dollar is worth .
If it was still sound money, it would still be around 75k and the US currency would be the strongest currency on the planet. Instead of 1.5 to 1 with the euro it would be almost 700 to 1.
Lews
quote:
Originally posted by iTranscendence
If it was still sound money, it would still be around 75k and the US currency would be the strongest currency on the planet. Instead of 1.5 to 1 with the euro it would be almost 700 to 1.
Wow. I'm so glad you're on top of what's going on with world economics.
Keep on going champ
What other great theories do you have?
Edit: I just want to say, there are so many things wrong with those two sentences it's not even funny.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by iTranscendence
It's cute when fabian socialists try and claim that the GDP could outstrip in magnitude all the potential sound money, when just a single material isn't the only option.
Whats even cuter about it is that most of the difference in value is actually due to the unstable and dramatically inconsistent nature of having a fiat currency who's value is based entirely on it's perceived value in a futures market.
In laymen terms for a libtard:
A house in 1950 cost less than 75k, now at the height of the last bubble was almost 300k isn't because it's become more expensive. It's because your dollar is worth .
If it was still sound money, it would still be around 75k and the US currency would be the strongest currency on the planet. Instead of 1.5 to 1 with the euro it would be almost 700 to 1.
You don’t understand economics. Go get a degree, muppet.
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by iTranscendence
A house in 1950 cost less than 75k, now at the height of the last bubble was almost 300k isn't because it's become more expensive. It's because your dollar is worth .
If you're gonna make the argument, at least use correct numbers..
1950:
Average Cost of new house $8,450.00
Average wages per year $3,210.00
At the peak of the 2007/08 bubble, the median house price was $240k..while the average income was around $40k. So prices had inflated to 6X annual wages.
Lews
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
If you're gonna make the argument, at least use correct numbers..
Not even mentioning the numbers about USD to Euro :stongue:
idoru
quote:
Originally posted by iTranscendence
It's cute when fabian socialists...
... Whats even cuter about it is...
Here are a few things that are even cuter!
And for good measure, a cute video with the very music that plays in my head whenever I read iTranscendence' posts...
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
If you're gonna make the argument, at least use correct numbers..
1950:
Average Cost of new house $8,450.00
Average wages per year $3,210.00
At the peak of the 2007/08 bubble, the median house price was $240k..while the average income was around $40k. So prices had inflated to 6X annual wages.
Of course, the differences in the cost of a house you’ve mentioned here isn’t just tied to inflation over time; certainly the bubble in particular is based upon what people were willing to spend on a house, not just the fact that their dollar wasn’t worth as much. House prices in Australia have doubled in the last ~10 years, but the value of our currency hasn’t halved.
The points that CTs like iStupid always ignore is that while the value of $1 is worth less today than 60 years ago, people also earn considerably more. More than 10x in your assessment. Idiots like him would try and pretend the US was better off during the Great Depression, because a dollar was worth so much more then. Typical CT stupidity!
