Musk promotes Ron's call to end the Fed

[nikcers]

You are just reiterating what has already been said. The dollar has gone down significantly in value.

The amount of labor at an average wage that you can buy for a dollar today is 1/80th of what it was in 1913.

No I'm not.

It's technically easier to earn 3 1913 dollars today than it was in 1913.

After the federal reserve was created in 1914 Ford increased the daily wage to 5 dollars a day.

This meant that people had 50% more money on average since other places started to raise their wages to compete with Ford.

Even if money was only worth 84% as much in 1914 than it was in 1913 they had atleast 50% more. They made 50%-100% more money in 1914.

People were significantly poorer in 1913 priorer to the FED.

 

[Invisible Man]

No I'm not.

Yes you are. You just don't understand it.

 

[Invisible Man]

Not really 160 fold when you account for wage inflation.

$2.34 for a nine-hour workday in 1913. So to make 20 dollars it would take you 77 hours of work. So 43 dollars per hour.

It went to 5 dollars a day in 1914 so it wasn't quite as bad. At 5 dollars a day that's still 36 hours of work. Or 92 dollars per hour.

The US Median Income $42,220.

Which is an hourly salary of $20.30.

77 hours $1,563 dollars
36 hours $730 dollars

Here's another takeaway from your own numbers.

In 1913, an average worker earned 1/9th of an ounce of Gold per day ($2.34/$20.67).

Today, an average worker earns 1/20th of an ounce of Gold per day ($162/$3,300).

 

[nikcers]

Yes you are. You just don't understand it.

I understand that the dollar is the king of currencies in the world.

 

[Invisible Man]

I understand that the dollar is the king of currencies in the world.

You're a big fan of the Federal Reserve. What led you to this website?

 

[nikcers]

Here's another takeaway from your own numbers.

In 1913, an average worker earned 1/9th of an ounce of Gold per day ($2.34/$20.67).

Today, an average worker earns 1/20th of an ounce of Gold per day ($162/$3,300).

A far cry from 160 fold. If you compare it to bread and eggs or other things most people buy it's not equivalent to gold.

99% of people aren't buying gold. It's in small quantities of their electronics that they throw away and don't even recycle because they are that much wealthier today.

Gold prices are heavily fixed to energy costs because of mining. People hoard the Gold and hold control of the prices so it's pretty fixed to energy costs.

 

[FineSpeech]

This is probably a big part of the reason Musk is on his way out.

Probably not, I don't think he was ever on our side. He served his purpose and he's honestly a disaster for Trump's image.

 

[Invisible Man]

A far cry from 160 fold.

Which is not what anybody said.

 

[nikcers]

You're a big fan of the Federal Reserve. What led you to this website?

Ron Paul had other policy positions besides the federal reserve.

You know when he ran for president he was more than happy to take my federal reserve bucks as a donation for his election.

I was more concerned at the time that the occupy Wallstreet movement was creating an unstoppable momentum and I didn't want a Karl Marx to become president.

 

[nikcers]

Which is not what anybody said.

That's literally the post I responded to they said it was a 160-fold reduction in the value.

They said

One ounce of gold in 1913 was $20.67. Today, one ounce of gold is $3,317. That is a 160-fold reduction in the value of the dollar.

That certainly makes gold a safe investment but the value of the dollar is more valuable because it's an economic growth engine that incentivizes productivity.

 

[Invisible Man]

That's literally the post I responded to they said it was a 160-fold reduction in the value.

They said

One ounce of gold in 1913 was $20.67. Today, one ounce of gold is $3,317. That is a 160-fold reduction in the value of the dollar.

That certainly makes gold a safe investment but the value of the dollar is more valuable because it's an economic growth engine that incentives productivity.

You are mixing things up. Yes, the price of the dollar measured in Gold has decreased 160-fold. The price of labor measured in Gold has decreased by more than half.

Those are two different things.

 

[nikcers]

You are mixing things up. Yes, the value of the dollar measured against Gold has decreased 160-fold. The value of labor measured against Gold has decreased by more than half.

Those are two different things.

The dollar is so valuable it has lifted billions out of poverty and slavery.

The value of the dollar is worth more than the sum of its parts.

 

[ClaytonB]

Not really 160 fold when you account for wage inflation.

Even worse than 160-fold when you account for the massive technological and other deflation that should have occurred in that time-span, but did not, because it was stolen by money-printing. A tractor makes a farm-hand at least 100x more productive. The internal combustion engine has made anything related to transportation hundreds or thousands of times more productive. On top of all that, a telephone makes an office-worker dozens or hundreds of times more productive, including financial workers. The Internet, GPS, Google Maps, smartphones make everyone dozens or hundreds of times more productive -- some occupations are thousands or tens of thousands of times more productive. A farmhand working a plot of land 110 years ago was able to subsist with his wife and probably even raise a few children. With the same level of skill (moderate to low), any worker today should be able to own tens or hundreds of thousands of times as much real wealth, and raise dozens of families if they wanted. To say nothing of craftsmen, artisans, technicians, professionals, engineers, and so on. That is, if the Federal Reserve were not stealing all of that so the military can go blow up the sunshine in the deserts of Podunkistan.

Stop trying to damage-control this issue. The Federal Reserve has nuked the American economy for over a century and its enablers/collaborators in the US government have duped We The People into turning a blind eye. There is no fury of hell or woman that can equal the evil that has been done by the Federal Reserve. No matter how much you hate the Fed, you cannot possibly hate it enough.

 

[Invisible Man]

Even worse than 160-fold when you account for the massive technological and other deflation that should have occurred in that time-span, but did not, because it was stolen by money-printing. A tractor makes a farm-hand at least 100x more productive. The internal combustion engine has made anything related to transportation hundreds or thousands of times more productive. On top of all that, a telephone makes an office-worker dozens or hundreds of times more productive, including financial workers. The Internet, GPS, Google Maps, smartphones make everyone dozens or hundreds of times more productive -- some occupations are thousands or tens of thousands of times more productive. A farmhand working a plot of land 110 years ago was able to subsist with his wife and probably even raise a few children. With the same level of skill (moderate to low), any worker today should be able to own tens or hundreds of thousands of times as much real wealth, and raise dozens of families if they wanted. That is, if the Federal Reserve were not stealing all of that so the military can go blow up the sunshine in the deserts of Podunkistan.

Stop try to damage-control this issue. The Federal Reserve has nuked the American economy for over a century and its enablers/collaborators in the US government have duped We The People into turning a blind eye. There is no fury of hell or even woman strong enough for the evil that has been done by the Federal Reserve. No matter how much you hate the Fed, you cannot possibly hate it enough.

Well put.

 

[nikcers]

Even worse than 160-fold when you account for the massive technological and other deflation that should have occurred in that time-span, but did not, because it was stolen by money-printing. A tractor makes a farm-hand at least 100x more productive. The internal combustion engine has made anything related to transportation hundreds or thousands of times more productive. On top of all that, a telephone makes an office-worker dozens or hundreds of times more productive, including financial workers. The Internet, GPS, Google Maps, smartphones make everyone dozens or hundreds of times more productive -- some occupations are thousands or tens of thousands of times more productive. A farmhand working a plot of land 110 years ago was able to subsist with his wife and probably even raise a few children. With the same level of skill (moderate to low), any worker today should be able to own tens or hundreds of thousands of times as much real wealth, and raise dozens of families if they wanted. That is, if the Federal Reserve were not stealing all of that so the military can go blow up the sunshine in the deserts of Podunkistan.

Stop try to damage-control this issue. The Federal Reserve has nuked the American economy for over a century and its enablers/collaborators in the US government have duped We The People into turning a blind eye. There is no fury of hell or even woman strong enough for the evil that has been done by the Federal Reserve. No matter how much you hate the Fed, you cannot possibly hate it enough.

The fact that the average person makes more money and has more have access to gainful employment isn't the only measurement.

The other things like those technologies being invented and funded are another thing. All of those technologies like airplanes and internet and microwave ovens make you wealthier than the average person was in 1913.

You have access to more information than the president did in 1913. You have access to more electricity.

 

[ClaytonB]

The fact that the average person makes more money and has more have access to gainful employment isn't the only measurement.

The other things like those technologies being invented and funded are another thing. All of those technologies like airplanes and internet and microwave ovens make you wealthier than the average person was in 1913.

You have access to more information than the president did in 1913.

An airplane doesn't magically make me wealthier just by existing. An increase of wealth means owning more tradeable goods (that is, the value thereof), and nothing else besides. Airplanes and microwaves (and Internet, GPS, smartphones, AI, etc.) should be making us wealthier but are not, because the Fed nullifies their wealth-amplifying effect by printing money. The amplifying effect of wealth operates through capital, that is, savings. A man with a tractor is at least 100x more productive than a man without a tractor. So a man without a tractor will obviously want to save up to purchase a tractor, so he can be more productive. If the time-horizon to save up at his current income is too long, he can enter into a time-sharing contract, or rent one, or raise capital on credit (if he has connections), and so on. This is Econ 101 and the Fed apologists like you have to try to convince everybody that the world is actually upside-down and we are really living in Wonderland where supply and demand do not exist or have any relation to prices, etc. In other words, Marxism. The Federal Reserve is the biggest Marxist Trojan horse ever. The Federal Reserve is Marxism in capitalist-drag.

How much stuff I have "access to" is not wealth. Wealth is what makes access available to me. All the airplanes in the world make me no wealthier unless I have the liquid capital to purchase a ticket. Wealth is not "potential tickets", wealth is actual tickets. Your best bet is to stop trying to damage-control this, I assure you that you are way out of your league!!

 

[Invisible Man]

The fact that the average person makes more money and has more have access to gainful employment isn't the only measurement.

The other things like those technologies being invented and funded are another thing. All of those technologies like airplanes and internet and microwave ovens make you wealthier than the average person was in 1913.

You have access to more information than the president did in 1913. You have access to more electricity.

Exactly.

None of this is a point in favor of the Fed. All of it is a mitigating factor against your praise of the Fed.

 

[nikcers]

An airplane doesn't magically make me wealthier just by existing. An increase of wealth means owning more tradeable goods (that is, the value thereof), and nothing else besides. Airplanes and microwaves (and Internet, GPS, smartphones, AI, etc.) should be making us wealthier but are not, because the Fed nullifies their wealth-amplifying effect by printing money. The amplifying effect of wealth operates through capital, that is, savings. A man with a tractor is at least 100x more productive than a man without a tractor. So a man without a tractor will obviously want to save up to purchase a tractor, so he can be more productive. If the time-horizon to save up at his current income is too long, he can enter into a time-sharing contract, or rent one, or raise capital on credit (if he has connections), and so on. This is Econ 101 and the Fed apologists like you have to try to convince everybody that the world is actually upside-down and we are really living in Wonderland where supply and demand do not exist or have any relation to prices, etc. In other words, Marxism. The Federal Reserve is the biggest Marxist Trojan horse ever. The Federal Reserve is Marxism in capitalist-drag.

How much stuff I have "access to" is not wealth. Wealth is what makes accessible available. All the airplanes in the world make me no wealthier unless I have the liquid capital to purchase a ticket. Wealth is not "potential tickets", wealth is actual tickets. Your best bet is to stop trying to damage-control this, I assure you that you are way out of your league!!

Airplanes have value because they save you time when you are traveling.

You have access to fly in an airplane. The average person making a Median wage can afford a plane ticket.

People that are wealthier have more time.

It's the most valuable thing you own.

We also live longer because we have access to modern medicines.

All of this has to do with investments.

Without a central bank funding the investments the money is managed differently.

They hold onto money rather than investing it in things that may not pan out especially when holding onto money is more profitable.

 

[ClaytonB]

Airplanes have value because they save you time when you are traveling.

Every airplane on which I am not currently flying has no value at all to me. In fact, if anything, it is an eyesore / noise-pollution source, so it is a net externality to me (if I'm not actually flying on it). Classic airplanes with aesthetic value excepted.

You have access to fly in an airplane. The average person making a Median wage can afford a plane ticket.

The extent to which I have access to fly in an airplane is exactly equal to the extent that I have capital. I cannot fly on an airplane without the available capital to purchase a ticket. It is not the airplane that makes me rich but my capital (that is, my savings) which can permit me to purchase a ticket and fly on an airplane. My capital becomes more valuable pro rata with the value of the goods and services which I can purchase with it. So, as the "pile of goods and services" grows, and increases in quality, at a given price-point, I become wealthier. This is why deflation is a universal pay-raise/dividend payout.

People that are wealthier have more time.

No, everyone has 24 hours in a day. Time is equal.

It's the most valuable thing you own.

This is a category error, time cannot be "owned". Time is just the unfolding of events.

We also live longer because we have access to modern medicines.

Without the capital to purchase those medicines, they do me no good whatsoever.

All of this has to do with investments.

All of this that you're saying is just word-salad.

Without a central bank funding the investments the money is managed differently.

"Managed differently." Differently than what? What are you even talking about??

They hold onto money rather than investing it in things that may not pan out especially when holding onto money is more profitable.

Yeah, that's all the Keynsian theory you've managed to squeeze into your tiny brain-cell budget, and it's total nonsense. The decision to invest has to do with an individual's time-preference which is independent of the value of money, present or future. When the expected value of future money is low, people (and companies) will hold less liquid capital. As they flee liquidity, they may choose to (a) spend, (b) invest or (c) hoard non-monetary goods (e.g. preppers hoarding ammo). The idea that we "need" any amount of paper-money counterfeiting in the economy in order to "stimulate" the "hoarders" into "investing" because otherwise the economy would "slump" has been debunked to the uttermost. Keynesianism died long, long ago, even modern-day Keynesians have to call themselves "neo-Keynesian" because Keynesianism is so dead.

The central bank punishes savers and this, in turn, centralizes capital. This is what makes central banking Marxism in capitalist-drag. Money-printing causes liquidity to flee into the hands of the bankers themselves, so that the average individual is just one paycheck away from a total liquidity crisis and bankruptcy, no matter what their "net worth" may be on paper. That is the end-goal that central banking exists to bring about. It serves many other useful functions, but this is one of the most important, if not the most important. This is how you put an entire nation on 330 million financial dog-leashes, and you get the dogs to pay you for the privilege of putting themselves on your leash. Central banking is slavery and execrable filth, no string of words in English is foul enough to describe how wicked and sinister it is. It is the most malicious activity I can imagine within the confines of the mundane realm, it is worse than nuclear weapons or bioterrorism. And we've done it to ourselves, supposedly voluntarily. If that is true, then we are a nation of fools...

 

[nikcers]

Every airplane on which I am not currently flying has no value at all to me. In fact, if anything, it is an eyesore / noise-pollution source, so it is a net externality to me (if I'm not actually flying on it). Classic airplanes with aesthetic value excepted.



The extent to which I have access to fly in an airplane is exactly equal to the extent that I have capital. I cannot fly on an airplane without the available capital to purchase a ticket. It is not the airplane that makes me rich but my capital (that is, my savings) which can permit me to purchase a ticket and fly on an airplane. My capital becomes more valuable pro rata with the value of the goods and services which I can purchase with it. So, as the "pile of goods and services" grows, and increases in quantity, at a given price-point, I become wealthier. This is why deflation is a universal pay-raise/dividend payout.



No, everyone has 24 hours in a day. Time is equal.



This is a category error, time cannot be "owned". Time is just the unfolding of events.



Without the capital to purchase those medicines, they do me no good whatsoever.



All of this that you're saying is just word-salad.



"Managed differently." Differently than what? What are you even talking about??



Yeah, that's all the Keynsian theory you've managed to squeeze into your tiny brain-cell budget, and it's total nonsense. The decision to invest has to do with an individual's time-preference which is independent of the value of money, present or future. When the expected value of future money is low, people (and companies) will hold less liquid capital. As they flee liquidity, they may choose to (a) spend, (b) invest or (c) hoard non-monetary goods (e.g. preppers hoarding ammo). The idea that we "need" any amount of paper-money counterfeiting in the economy in order to "stimulate" the "hoarders" into "investing" because otherwise the economy would "slump" has been debunked to the uttermost. Keynesianism died long, long ago, even modern-day Keynesians have to call themselves "neo-Keynesian" because Keynesianism is so dead.

The central bank punishes savers and this, in turn, centralizes capital. This is what makes central banking Marxism in capitalist-drag. Money-printing causes liquidity to flee into the hands of the bankers themselves, so that the average individual is just one paycheck away from a total liquidity crisis and bankruptcy, no matter what their "net worth" may be on paper. That is the end-goal that central banking exists to bring about. It serves many other useful functions, but this is one of the most important, if not the most important. This is how you put an entire nation on 330 million financial dog-leashes, and you get the dogs to pay you for the privilege of putting themselves on your leash. Central banking is slavery and execrable filth, no string of words in English is foul enough to describe how wicked and sinister it is. It is the most malicious activity I can imagine within the confines of the mundane realm, it is worse than nuclear weapons or bioterrorism. And we've done it to ourselves, supposedly voluntarily. If that is true, then we are a nation of fools...

Certainly the federal reserve is profitable. It's the most successful in the world.

If there were a more successful alternative it could emerge outside of the boundaries of our law and it would overtake the dollar.