U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 12-05-2019, 10:05 PM
 
9,610 posts, read 4,222,988 times
Reputation: 1870

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
Who cares? I make a lot more dollars today than I did in 1990. My concern isn't what I can get for a dollar but what I can get with my paycheck.


And unless you are the only one with the ribeyes you can't tie a token to a pound of ribeye because I might not sell you a pound of my ribeye for your silly token next week much less in 20 years. Essentially, what fiat currency is tied to is the GDP.
It could be boiled down even more, in that the concern might be closer tied to the relative standards of living over time.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-05-2019, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
4,084 posts, read 1,863,983 times
Reputation: 6831
If you take nominal gdp usd figures and divide them by the price of gold 1960 and now our economy is basically the same.

If you take the nominal wages paid to manufacturing employees then our pretax earnings have shrunk significantly in terms of gold.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2019, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Western Washington
9,792 posts, read 8,980,996 times
Reputation: 17127
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
If you take nominal gdp usd figures and divide them by the price of gold 1960 and now our economy is basically the same.

If you take the nominal wages paid to manufacturing employees then our pretax earnings have shrunk significantly in terms of gold.
You are inserting biased data into your proposed comparison. We know that manufacturing has largely been automated, and has shifted in balance towards non-union employment. You would get different results if you compared CEO, athletes, or IT compensation from the 1960s to today.

Economies are dynamic, and measuring a singular data point that we know to be an outlier does not give usable information.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2019, 10:05 AM
 
13,280 posts, read 3,501,575 times
Reputation: 8641
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
Lets say that you are debt free, own your home outright, have resources where you can survive without money, can work or trade something of value for food and water.

If the money fails will the services of the Government fail? Will the water get shut off? Will the utilities fail?

Is there some kind of projection on how bad things can get?
It would basically be the 'Walking Dead', but without the undead zombies walking around, the major threat would be armed gangs taking control over certain areas.


It wouldnt matter one bit if you were debt free or had a paid off house, in a world like that, a gang could come along and throw you out on the street if they wanted what you had, it would be a world where only the strong survive, violence would be the currency.


Some people would do well and others would not, same as today.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2019, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
2,722 posts, read 1,383,027 times
Reputation: 6479
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
If you take nominal gdp usd figures and divide them by the price of gold 1960 and now our economy is basically the same.
I'm going to have to challenge you on that. The size of our economy / GDP has grown very significantly over the past 60 years. The price of gold is immaterial to that. I have a hard time believing that the world's gold supply has dramatically increased as much. And, of course, the price of gold fluctuates, but is at the same price it was about six years ago. If there was a correlation, there would be no net economic growth in the US or the world over that six years, and that isn't the case.

If I had bought my precious metals as an investment, I'd have done very poorly indeed. I should have sold my silver in 2011, when it was $48+ per ounce. I knew that in my head, and in retrospect I could have bought it all back for the same price as I'd paid for it three years or so later. But that still wouldn't be an investment. They have held their value over the time span I've owned them, but that's it... and in inflation-eroded dollars.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2019, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
4,084 posts, read 1,863,983 times
Reputation: 6831
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains View Post
You are inserting biased data into your proposed comparison. We know that manufacturing has largely been automated, and has shifted in balance towards non-union employment. You would get different results if you compared CEO, athletes, or IT compensation from the 1960s to today.

Economies are dynamic, and measuring a singular data point that we know to be an outlier does not give usable information.

Two of those positions didn't regularly exist as far back as I'm going however. CEOs were Presidents and often owners with personal liability, and President Truman's IT guy was just terrible. But there's data on sports.

Looking at baseball is tough, because the inherent value of the sport increased tremendously with television rights and advertising over performance only revenues, but we can perhaps soft gauge that baseball in 2007 reached more people through more lucrative channels than in 1907. However, the point I think you'll see is that two points affected baseball players in the early 70's. The first was Nixon going to an economy of confidence in 1971. The second was baseball going to free market agency in 1974.



1922 Babe Ruth becomes the first $50K man when he signs for $52,000. At that time, that would give you 2600 troy ounces of gold.



1930 Babe Ruth signs for a massive $80K for the year. While gold ownership was outlawed at the time, presuming the 20 piece was still available brings his pay to 4,000 troy ounces of gold. For comparison standpoint, it was the first time a baseball player made more than the President. When asked about it, Ruth remarked that he was having a better year than the President was. (This was the Depression). 4,000 oz of gold at $1450 an ounce would be about $5.8M, btw.



1947 Hank Greenberg becomes first $100K player, yet his salary would only buy 2,881 ($34.71) ounces of gold at the time. 1947 also saw the first televised world series, estimated to be seen by 3.7M people despite only having approximately 100,000 TV sets in the entire country at the time.



1950 - Commission first agrees to split TV/radio royalties to the world series. The first regular season game was aired in 1958



1959 Ted Williams' last year of his contract nets him a best ever $125,000 which would buy him 3,550 ounces of gold. ($35.21)


1962 - First satellite telecast from Chicago allows for out of network watching.


1964 - The first pay TV is introduced.


1965 - ABC makes first nationwide baseball broadcast



1966 Willie Mays was the next to break the record. He signs a deal for $130,000 which would buy him 3,672 ounces of gold ($35.40)


1971 Nixon moves to an economy of confidence. The gold price in dollar terms begins to surge.



1971 Baseball commissioner believes a wider telecast audience could be reached if night games are introduced. 61M people tune into the first prime time telecast of Game 4 of the World Series, a tremendous record.



1972 Hank Aaron, who had made less than $35K in 1957 when he was MVP, signs a $200,000 deal. The deal would bring him 3,077 ounces of gold ($65)


1974 Players win the right to free agency


1974 Catfish Hunter uses the free agency to become the highest paid player in baseball, signing for 3x more than the next highest player at $750,000 per year for 5 years. The massive first year was worth 6,438 ($116.50) ounces of gold, however, by the following year, in 1975 that premium had fallen to just 4,286 ($175) ounces of gold.



1979 Nolan Ryan (Dave Parker arguably in 1978) becomes the first guaranteed million dollar man signing a 4 year deal effective starting 1980. Yet the million dollar man will yield just 1,789 ounces of gold ($559)


1985 - TV Broadcasts move to in Stereo, making significant sound improvements. First all night game (prime time) world series.



1989 Kirby Puckett signs a 3 year deal making him the first $3M man. This also nets a staggering 7,288 ounces of gold.



1996 ESPN successfully bids for airing rights at $80M a year, or $440M total for the contract for a Wednesday double-header and to replay a Sunday night game of the week as well as post season games not on Fox or NBC, bringing the first MLB games to cable.



1996 Alberte Belle snags an $11M contract, more than $2M over Ken Griffey Jr. His contract would allow him a tremendous buying power of gold. Able to snag 28,266 ounces of $389.15/oz gold.



2007 Alex Rodriguez artfully gets the Rangers to sign a 10 year contract for $275M. While gold would later peak during the contract, the initial year would give Alex 31,538 ounce of gold.


2017 Clayton Kershaw was baseball's highest paid player in 2017. The pitcher drew $33M in 2017 or approximately 26,250 ounces of gold.


What does this tell us? Well, the value of a players wages increased as TV exposure increased, and golden coin is still just a coin. A rising tide lifts all star boats in the majors. When cable was able to outFOX the competition, it put up coin to do so, and the players were ready to get their slice of the pie. As they should....the tool of broadcast allow a single player to entertain many more people than Babe Ruth could have dreamed of doing.



It looks like an easy to speculate that baseball star value has increased 8-10X since the radio days of Babe Ruth. But the delta between 10X Babe Ruth at 800,000 and $33M paid to Clayton Kershaw?....that's dollar sink...


Collapse is defined as sudden. That's what i'd put at 20%. Of it being worth a ridiculously small amount in comparison to today I'd put at 95%.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2019, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
4,084 posts, read 1,863,983 times
Reputation: 6831
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr View Post
I'm going to have to challenge you on that. The size of our economy / GDP has grown very significantly over the past 60 years. The price of gold is immaterial to that. I have a hard time believing that the world's gold supply has dramatically increased as much. And, of course, the price of gold fluctuates, but is at the same price it was about six years ago. If there was a correlation, there would be no net economic growth in the US or the world over that six years, and that isn't the case.

If I had bought my precious metals as an investment, I'd have done very poorly indeed. I should have sold my silver in 2011, when it was $48+ per ounce. I knew that in my head, and in retrospect I could have bought it all back for the same price as I'd paid for it three years or so later. But that still wouldn't be an investment. They have held their value over the time span I've owned them, but that's it... and in inflation-eroded dollars.
Nominal GDP in 1960 = 542,000,000,000 / $36.50 per ounce = 14,849,315,068 ounce of gold.

Nominal GDP in 2018 = 20,865,000,000,000 / $1278.30 per ounce = 16,322,459,517 ounce of gold.

Expected GDP 2019 = 21,482,410,000,000 / $1460.00 per ounce = 14,713,979,452 ounce of gold.

When it comes to worldwide acceptance, gold is the standard, not silver. Anyway, here's your economy in terms of gold. No doubt the dollar economy has grown. We can do the same thing in terms of many things. A loaf of bread. An hour of attorney time. A sf of residential real estate in a given market. A semester hour at a college.

I'd argue that inflation in the US is much higher than has been reported for things here in the United States. However, what has kept the price down is import substitution and productivity. First in materials, then in manufactured products, now in white collar projects.

There's no way to save the dollar. That's not even a good idea...but will the circusmasters mess up in the next 30 years, or get dealt an attack they can't handle....I'd go with 20% yes 80% no.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top