Monday, August 31, 2009

I LOVE This Graph: The US Dollar Since 1800


To get a close look go HERE.

10 comments:

Christopher said...

1. The US population increased by 100 million people from 1950 to 2000, so all you are seeing is the real need of cash.

2. The dollar has no fixed value, not even when it was gold. The value is constantly changing, and as long as it, as a paper currency, stays stable with a low amount of inflation and deflation, it serves proper as a medium of exchange.

3. It takes 1000 "Won" to buy a chocolate bar in South Korea. Why? Because of hyperinflation and/or high inflation for a long period of time. In this case, over decades. Does that make the Won worthless? Heavens no, because it is a relative value. Now that the "Won" is relatively stable, it means that 1000 Won can almost always be counted on to buy a chocolate bar. Over 20 years the money supply will be inflated ever so slightly, so by the time 2029 is here, it won't matter. We won't have noticed and wages will have been increased with inflation. DUH. It is a lot like the calendar, Josh. In the Christian world the year is 2009, but in the traditional Muslim and Chinese calendars it is a seemingly radically different date. IT IS NOT. They are merely systems of keeping track of time. Nothing more. And as long as there is a regularity to them, a relative stability, they work fine. W

Josh said...

I suppose the population decreased and the real need for "cash" decreased between 1865 and 1900?

Christopher said...

But it didn't decrease during those years. It increased by 40 million, and, yes, they needed more gold and more bank reserve notes. In fact, it is probably because of the increases in population that we eventually went off the gold standard.

Josh said...

If the money supply could increase during those 35 years while prices went down, the value of the currency went up, and the economy expanded, why do you think it hasn't happened during the last 90 years?

Christopher said...

Because that's the nature of paper money.

Josh said...

i.e. You have no rational explanation.

Christopher said...

"i.e. You have no rational explanation."

Sure, arguing nature is a rational explanation. Science is based on it. I think that it is the nature of paper currency to have a small amount of inflation tied to it. It has to do with the easy destruction of it..

Josh said...

"Sure, arguing nature is a rational explanation. Science is based on it."

And science goes on to give ration explanations of its conclusions.

"I think that it is the nature of paper currency to have a small amount of inflation tied to it. It has to do with the easy destruction of it.."

I has to do with eh? Maybe you'd like to expand on that..it seems a little confusing to me because we were just talking about the increase in the money suply, not the destruction of it...let me go back to my original question:

If the money supply could increase during those 35 years while prices went down, the value of the currency went up, and the economy expanded, why do you think it hasn't happened during the last 90 years?

Chris said...

"And science goes on to give ration explanations of its conclusions."

Based on looking at the nature of something. DUH.

"I has to do with eh? Maybe you'd like to expand on that..it seems a little confusing to me because we were just talking about the increase in the money suply, not the destruction of it...let me go back to my original question:"

Is that anything like bringing up counterfeit when talking about inflation?

"If the money supply increased during those 35 years while prices went down and the value of the currency went up, and the economy expanded, why do you think it hasn't happened during the last 90 years?"

1. The economy has expanded.
2. The value of the currency is not comparable, because it is not gold (this is a basic comparative fallacy that you boneheads continue to commit. You say that the dollar is worth 8 cents when compared to gold back in 1900 or whatever, but it is a false comparison. Paper money/fiat money is not the same as gold money/fiat money. The 8 cents you talk about does not exist, because the "dollar" of today is not the dollar of 1900. It is more like 10 dollars. But guess what! People make more money to make up for the difference! The value is the same, even though the units are different! You still don't get this, even though my 1000 Won notes spend perfectly even though one Won is worth much less today it was worth just 30 years ago.
3. It's not clear that the money supply actually increased that much during those years. There was a shortage of gold, especially in the colonies, which used silver. In relation to nations with gold, that meant that the American currency was worth less, and probably explains why the UK pound is still worth a ridiculous amount comparatively.

Josh said...

"Is that anything like bringing up counterfeit when talking about inflation?"

Whats the difference between me printing money and the fed printing money? When the FED prints money, it benefits the few who are well connected to government while hurting the poor and middle class. When I print money it benefits me and the places I shop while hurting the poor and middle class. When the Fed does it, its legal. When I do it, its counterfeiting and I go to jail. There is no difference. Its the same thing. We're both counterfeiting.

"You say that the dollar is worth 8 cents when compared to gold back in 1900 or whatever"

No, when compared to its purchasing power. We use the CPI just like you do when you go on and on and on about wages.

"It's not clear that the money supply actually increased that much during those years. There was a shortage of gold, especially in the colonies, which used silver. In relation to nations with gold, that meant that the American currency was worth less, and probably explains why the UK pound is still worth a ridiculous amount comparatively."

LOL. Please read your own quote "But it didn't decrease during those years. It increased by 40 million, and, yes, they needed more gold and more bank reserve notes."