Illegal Immigration/Invasion

[Metsfanmax]

Here's the problem that illegal immigrants has on our job market (Player I would love a response from you on this if you would be so kind as to)

The idea in the job industry is that if people are not willing to work for a wage that is too low, the providers of those jobs are going to have to do it themselves. When wages are rejected in a free market, that means the companies need up pay more in order to get employees to do the job. Follow so far? So, there are many crap jobs that American's don't seem to want to do AT THE CURRENT WAGE. If the wages of those crappy jobs were to rise based on supply/demand forces, I guarantee you American would in fact take those jobs. Enter the illegal aliens. They will take the job at minimum wage, cancelling out the free market forces of Americans concerning wages.

THAT'S one of the ways wages are kept artificially low.

Agree?

Are you contending that out of the millions of Americans who are currently unemployed, there is a sizable fraction of people who are simply refusing to work because the wages for jobs are too low?

[Phatscotty]

Shit, if I was them and I heard Obama repeat what he has been repeating over the last 6 months, I would make a B line for the border too. Unfortunately they are starting to stack up againt each other. I'm sure many of you have seen pictures of them all crammed together in a way too small cell. So where are the thousand that show up tomorrow going to go? how about the thousand the next day? what about everyday next week? next month?

If you believe that the way people get their rights is to fight for them, why don't you support people who take a harrowing trip across the border, leaving their homes and families and risking their lives, to obtain greater economic opportunity in a land that prides itself on offering just that?

Why don't I support foreigners breaking my country's laws? I would agree, the way for a Nicaraguan or a Salvadoran to fight for their rights......is to demand change in Nicaragua and Salvador and be the change and never give up and keep fighting.

Support and understanding are two different things. And immigration today is entirely different than immigration over the centuries from other places. There was no welfare check waiting for the immigrants in the 18th and 19th centuries, no food stamps, no free healthcare programs, no rent subsidies, no free education. The immigrants of centuries past had to do it by themselves, and do it they did. That's why it became so common for an immigrant to work 2 crap jobs most of their lives, but their American born children became doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs, those were the family owned businesses that offered good full time jobs and contribute to the community and become part of the economy. They earned the shit out of that. Today, there isn't much to earn, which means there can be no gratitude. And as you know, I think we should have a safety net and all, but I draw the line easily at extending the freebies to foreigners who don't respect our laws and don't respect our country. Sure, they respect money of course. But let's not be dishonest about that. That's why the immigrants of the past were proud to become American, and work for it and do it the right way and be proud and hold their head up high. It's a shining example of everything America used to be about, and why our system worked so well and has been able to benefit million of immigrants from all corners of the world. but 'benefit' today has a totally different meaning. Mets I'm sure you are aware all those benefits come out of my pockets and yours (once to get into the real world anyways) and I'm sure you are aware we pay out far more than we put in to the point we have to borrow billions just to tread water and keep the status quo. Do you really not understand that Americans are severely pinched right now by ridiculous gas prices and double digit energy price increases and higher food costs for crappier food? higher income taxes, more gas taxes, higher tuition bills, higher healthcare bills....Americans are beating their brains out to try to stay afloat, and then some people cross into our country illegally and get many of those things Americans work so hard for, for free.... Which touches on a general theme in all these issues, a major reason why food prices and energy prices and healthcare prices and education prices rise every year, sometimes rise in double digits...because we have to borrow so much and print so much (for Hondurans and Nicaraguans?) our currency is more and more worth less so it takes more worth less currency to buy the same thing next year than it did this year. Also prices keep going up because the artificial demand is guaranteed into the system, and when you have guaranteed money coming in, that's when you start asking more money for the same thing. The practice is as old as government itself.

Do you agree Mets that there is a certain pride and sense of accomplishment and power that you obtain when you do things for yourself, rather than false guilt everyone else into doing it for you?

[Phatscotty]

Here's the problem that illegal immigrants has on our job market (Player I would love a response from you on this if you would be so kind as to)

The idea in the job industry is that if people are not willing to work for a wage that is too low, the providers of those jobs are going to have to do it themselves. When wages are rejected in a free market, that means the companies need up pay more in order to get employees to do the job. Follow so far? So, there are many crap jobs that American's don't seem to want to do AT THE CURRENT WAGE. If the wages of those crappy jobs were to rise based on supply/demand forces, I guarantee you American would in fact take those jobs. Enter the illegal aliens. They will take the job at minimum wage, cancelling out the free market forces of Americans concerning wages.

THAT'S one of the ways wages are kept artificially low.

Agree?

Are you contending that out of the millions of Americans who are currently unemployed, there is a sizable fraction of people who are simply refusing to work because the wages for jobs are too low?

Duh? It's a 100% fact. I've heard it a million times. "I'm not waking up early every morning for a crappy job that pays less than the benefits I'm currently receiving for doing nothing"

Make sense to you?

[Metsfanmax]

Shit, if I was them and I heard Obama repeat what he has been repeating over the last 6 months, I would make a B line for the border too. Unfortunately they are starting to stack up againt each other. I'm sure many of you have seen pictures of them all crammed together in a way too small cell. So where are the thousand that show up tomorrow going to go? how about the thousand the next day? what about everyday next week? next month?

If you believe that the way people get their rights is to fight for them, why don't you support people who take a harrowing trip across the border, leaving their homes and families and risking their lives, to obtain greater economic opportunity in a land that prides itself on offering just that?

Why don't I support foreigners breaking my country's laws? I would agree, the way for a Nicaraguan or a Salvadoran to fight for their rights......is to demand chance in Nicaragua and Salvador and be the change and never give up and keep fighting.

Support and understanding are two different things. And immigration today is entirely different than immigration over the centuries from other places. There was no welfare check waiting for the immigrants in the 18th and 19th centuries, no food stamps, no free healthcare programs, no rent subsidies, no free education. The immigrants of centuries past had to do it by themselves, and do it they did.

Yes, with a healthy dose of theft from the people who were already living on the land, plus a healthy dose of free labor from people whose skin color was different from theirs.

That's why it became so common for an immigrant to work 2 crap jobs most of their lives, but their American born children became doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs, those were the family owned businesses that offered good full time jobs and contribute to the community and become part of the economy. They earned the shit out of that. Today, there isn't much to earn, which means there can be no gratitude. And as you know, I think we should have a safety net and all, but I draw the line easily at extending the freebies to foreigners who don't respect our laws and don't respect our country. Sure, they respect money of course. But let's not be dishonest about that. That's why the immigrants of the past were proud to become American, and work for it and do it the right way and be proud and hold their head up high. It's a shining example of everything America used to be about, and why our system worked so well and has been able to benefit million of immigrants from all corners of the world. but 'benefit' today has a totally different meaning. Mets I'm sure you are aware all those benefits come out of my pockets and yours (once to get into the real world anyways) and I'm sure you are aware we pay out far more than we put in to the point we have to borrow billions just to tread water and keep the status quo.

So do you think that now that Americans have achieved a high standard of living, we should close our doors and turn people away? Finally, when we've achieved the dreams of our ancestors, we should deny that dream to everyone else? Isn't that making a mockery of what they were fighting for to begin with?

Do you really not understand that Americans are severely pinched right now by ridiculous gas prices

Ridiculous compared to what? We pay lower prices for gasoline than every other major economy except Russia (which has state ownership of the industry).

and double digit energy price increases and higher food costs for crappier food?

Here is some interesting data that I just looked up. The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps a record of the price of various food items, along with their prices in dollars per unit for both 1913 and 2013:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/av ... entury.htm

Using their CPI inflation calculator (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm), I find that $1 in 1913 is equivalent to $23.53 in 2013. Therefore we can find out how the real price of various essential food items has changed in the last 100 years:

Bread: +8%
Flour: -33%
Milk: -58%
Cheese: +12%
Butter: -64%
Coffee: -16%
Potatoes: +66%
Rice: -65%
Eggs: -78%
Sugar: -50%

Many of these essential food items have actually sharply fallen in real terms over the last century. So I think it's important to keep a broader perspective when we talk about "rising food prices."

Which touches on a general theme in all these issues, a major reason why food prices and energy prices and healthcare prices and education prices rise every year, sometimes rise in double digits...because we have to borrow so much and print so much (for Hondurans and Nicaraguans?) our currency is more and more worth less so it takes more worth less currency to buy the same thing next year than it did this year.

Do you have evidence to demonstrate how significantly immigration contributes to rising food, energy, healthcare or education prices?

Do you agree Mets that there is a certain pride and sense of accomplishment and power that you obtain when you do things for yourself, rather than false guilt everyone else into doing it for you?

Almost all of my success in my life has been due to factors outside my control -- the efforts of my ancestors and of others in my country, and the fact that I was born into a middle class white family, with moderate talent for scientific problem solving. I cannot take any credit for any of that luck, and so refusing to share that luck with others just seems plain selfish.

Duh? It's a 100% fact. I've heard it a million times. "I'm not waking up early every morning for a crappy job that pays less than the benefits I'm currently receiving for doing nothing"

Surely there is influence here from the fact that if someone gets laid off from a white collar job doing software design, they're not going to want to take a job working on a farm? I think that would be true even if farm laborers in their area earned twice minimum wage.

Anyway, my point was more that the reason unemployment exists in general is a lack of supply compared to the demand of jobs (I think). So if we have 10 million people applying for jobs at the local public trash collector, that's going to drive down wage prices either way.

[Phatscotty]

Yes, with a healthy dose of theft from the people who were already living on the land, plus a healthy dose of free labor from people whose skin color was different from theirs.

A healthy dose? really? WOW! I would say a healthy dose, speaking in the 21st century and not the 16th and 17th, would be what you are saying and doing. Near free labor from people whose skin color is different than yours.

Theft? HAHA! Well I can see no mater what is said, it will always all come back to that bullshit for you. As if a tribe of 30 Indians owned all the land as far as the eye could see in all directions....that's what I never get about you people.

As if either of those ridiculous cop outs is a reason to not have borders? Ever stop to think you are in a sense saying the Native Americans should have protected their borders?????????????????????? I find that highly hypocritical squared with your current argument there should be no borders and anyone who wants to come just come in. As if that wasn't what happened with the Spanish and the English and the French concerning coming to America?

Sorry, I'm having trouble taking you seriously.

[Metsfanmax]

As if either of those ridiculous cop outs is a reason to not have borders? Ever stop to think you are in a sense saying the Native Americans should have protected their borders??????????????????????

We came and intentionally murdered an entire population to take the land that they were happy to reasonably share with us, and your argument is that they should have protected their borders? How exactly does that paint us in a good light? If that's really your standard then your position should surely be that it's fair game for anyone in Mexico to come over and just start killing Americans and looting their homes, and that we should respond by shooting them as they come over. Is that the world you would like to live in?

Sorry, I'm having trouble taking you seriously.

Yeah, well you're the one advocating that we should take poor starving children who just want to have a better life here and give them blankets carrying smallpox, so apologies if return the favor.

[Dukasaur]

And immigration today is entirely different than immigration over the centuries from other places. There was no welfare check waiting for the immigrants in the 18th and 19th centuries, no food stamps, no free healthcare programs, no rent subsidies, no free education. The immigrants of centuries past had to do it by themselves, and do it they did. That's why it became so common for an immigrant to work 2 crap jobs most of their lives, but their American born children became doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs, those were the family owned businesses that offered good full time jobs and contribute to the community and become part of the economy. They earned the shit out of that. Today, there isn't much to earn, which means there can be no gratitude. And as you know, I think we should have a safety net and all, but I draw the line easily at extending the freebies to foreigners who don't respect our laws and don't respect our country.

Have you met any immigrants? Hardest working people I know. Yeah, there may be welfare and stuff that eases the transition, gives them a little break at the beginning, but ultimately these people aren't coming because they want to live on welfare. They are out there, working as you said two and three jobs in some cases.

The people who make a carreer out of collecting welfare are not new arrivals. They are 3rd and 4th generation welfare hemorrhoids who were born and raised here and grew up thinking that way is the normal way to live. The new arrivals expect to work for a living.

[Phatscotty]

and double digit energy price increases and higher food costs for crappier food?

Here is some interesting data that I just looked up. The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps a record of the price of various food items, along with their prices in dollars per unit for both 1913 and 2013:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/av ... entury.htm

Using their CPI inflation calculator (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm), I find that $1 in 1913 is equivalent to $23.53 in 2013. Therefore we can find out how the real price of various essential food items has changed in the last 100 years:

1913-2013
Bread: +8%
Flour: -33%
Milk: -58%
Cheese: +12%
Butter: -64%
Coffee: -16%
Potatoes: +66%
Rice: -65%
Eggs: -78%
Sugar: -50%

Many of these essential food items have actually sharply fallen in real terms over the last century. So I think it's important to keep a broader perspective when we talk about "rising food prices."

Whoa. Talk about out of touch. I'm guessing you don't grocery shop much. I would guess you spend about 30$ a week on stuff you need, one and a half paper bags full, and that you do not grocery shop for the month, and that you do not have a large kitchen where you live, and you probably don't cook too often and likely nothing elaborate, if I had to guess, and if you are still in college right? I understand you were not alive in 1972 or 1982, and as I have noted in previous posts 'in the real world' College is not part of that. Not taking anything away from the education you must certainly be receiving, but in many ways college is the theater of the absurd compared to life after school. Compare knowing and experiencing and testing what is happening in the world around you to learning hearing and repeating and writing 'the way it should be'.



Everything you listed: subsidized, subsidized, SUBSIDIZED! Even the demand for the products is artificial through foodstamps and WIC and Snap and Boost and welfare. Your cherry picking of numbers that suit your most obtuse case is one thing, but the experience middle age adults have known on this earth concerning going to the grocery store and what you come out with and for how much along with gained knowledge and wisdom from that routine is another thing, while the impact of subsidies on 'real' prices in certain markets is another yet. Gotta throw in the virtually stagnated wage nationally over the last decades as another. And do not for a second discount the rest of my statement that went along with 'rising food prices' Have to account for, just as we debase our currency and borrow to the hilt to fund twice as much as we can afford year after year, so too are we debasing our food products. In an effort to keep their dollars menus from being inflated into oblivion, Taco Bell, Mcdonalds and Burger King, along with others, have been adding wood pulp to their beef and chicken to keep prices low.

And yet another type of hidden inflation numbers do not adjust for is reduced quantities. I always bought some kind of Carl Buddig lunch meat along with 2 buns from the bakery for under a buck. When I made my two sandwiches, I used to count up the slices so they were evenly distributed as well as not all stuck together. at first I counted 18 slices, or 9 to each sandwich. After a bit of time I noticed there were only 17 slices. Then the price went up a dime, then there were 16, then another dime increase in price. I think it's down to 14-15 with water added now, so really it's not just that the price rose 30%, gotta factor that in with 30% more money for 25% less product and I would bet today's product is much more processed than it was 20 years ago as well and more fat and added edible molecules and fillers.

How to beat inflation in the fast food biz? Add wood pulp to your burgers. Mmmm.

I challenge your fudge. It's pretty clear on it's face, but let's let things play out. Whose information reflects reality more or most accurately concerning rising food prices in America?

Bread: +8%
Flour: -33%
Milk: -58%
Cheese: +12%
Butter: -64%
Coffee: -16%
Potatoes: +66%
Rice: -65%
Eggs: -78%
Sugar: -50%

or

edit: btw I was just finishing up an complete response to your post and my pad got glitchy and I lost the entire response, probably the ads? While admitting that I am likely wasting my time with you, your argument is so biased and whack I simply cannot resist 3-upping it at every turn along the way. so I have to break it down to smaller posts and then edit things. I lost over an hour into that response, so I'll have to finish tomorrow.

[patches70]

Bread: +8%
Flour: -33%
Milk: -58%
Cheese: +12%
Butter: -64%
Coffee: -16%
Potatoes: +66%
Rice: -65%
Eggs: -78%
Sugar: -50%

Many of these essential food items have actually sharply fallen in real terms over the last century. So I think it's important to keep a broader perspective when we talk about "rising food prices."

Haha! While it is quite true that everything is cheaper now than ever before in the history of mankind, it's only cheaper when it's priced in anything other than fiat currency, namely the US dollar.

When priced in gold, silver, copper, or virtually any commodity under the sun, then absolutely, prices have decreased.

The only problem is, what does the vast majority of Americans use to purchase said items? Do they use such commodities as gold and silver at the grocery store or do they use dollars?

In 1913, even with the creation of The Fed, the dollar was pegged to gold. The dollar was redeemable for gold. That is each dollar was worth a specific amount of gold. That price was I believe $30 for an ounce of gold, which was raised to $35 sometime later, I think in the 30's or so. Something like that.

This is what gave the dollar it's value. It's interesting to note, after FDR confiscated all the gold held by US citizens and made it illegal for US citizens to possess gold, dollars were only redeemable for gold to foreign holders.

But that doesn't matter. This stable influence of a real value to the currency kept inflation in check quite well. It also put a hamstring on government spending.

Fast forward to the end of WWII and the creation of the Bretton Woods system. For that system, the US dollar was pegged to gold and every currency in the world floated to the US dollar. It is a slightly different version than pre Bretton Woods but it still worked to make the currencies stable though it had one very serious flaw, the Triffin dilemma. Bretton Woods was doomed to fail.

And it did, because everything changed in the early 70's when Nixon slammed the Gold window. I could really go into what happened, and how devastating it was to the value of the US dollar, but here is a very good graphic to how bad it was. Suffice it to say, that is when the US dollar turned into a completely fiat currency.

Mets, our current monetary system is only 43 years old or so. That's how old our currency is. Anyway, the practical effect of this is that the money we are using is worth less and less and thus it takes more and more of it to buy things even though those things are going down in price in real terms.

It only goes down in price if one is using real money, something a fiat currency is not. As you can see, you said that a 1913 $1 is worth $23.53 today (which I'm not going to argue with you about that, it's fine to just use your number), the vast majority of that loss in worth happened after the currency became a fiat currency. That loss of purchase value didn't happen from 1913 to 2014, it happened from 1971 to 2014. That is a different animal than you tried to make it in your post, doesn't it?



As you can see, the US dollar remained pretty darn stable in terms of purchasing power all the way up until Nixon closed the Gold window and the US dollar became a fiat currency.

Fiat currencies have been used for a very long time, and every single time fiat currencies are used the exact same thing happens. Fiat currencies are unstable, short lived and have a 100% failure rate. Fiat currencies are unsustainable. In terms of our current currency, it's a very long lived fiat currency, 43 years or so. Though it's not the record for the longest lasting fiat currency, it is right up there as one of the top ten longest lived fiat currencies in history. Maybe the top five even.

It is ridiculous of you to talk about "real" prices when we don't even use "real" money to purchase these things. Well, the vast majority of us at least.

So in terms of fiat currency, everything is way more expensive than ever before, and since pretty much everyone gets paid in fiat currency, the effect is that everyone has to work more, sacrifice more just to get the same things they used to be able to just 50 years ago.

So when you say-

So I think it's important to keep a broader perspective when we talk about "rising food prices."

then I reply that it is important to keep in perspective what we are actually using to purchase those food products.

Because even though this is true-

Many of these essential food items have actually sharply fallen in real terms over the last century.

doesn't make a hill of beans difference when using these to buy those essential food items-




Because that is worth less and less every day. As is to be expected with any fiat currency. Fiat currency has it's strengths and it's weaknesses like most things in life. The thing is, the weaknesses of any fiat currency system hurts those who can least afford to be harmed.

And you, sir, are attempting to downplay it's weaknesses. And for that I say to you-

tsk tsk tsk.


People always forget. Or try to convince themselves "This time will be different" when it never is. Not with fiat currencies. The end result is always the same and the people who suffer the most are the poor and the so called "middle class". They suffer until the time comes when they decide they are tired of suffering. Then things get interesting.....

[Phatscotty]

And immigration today is entirely different than immigration over the centuries from other places. There was no welfare check waiting for the immigrants in the 18th and 19th centuries, no food stamps, no free healthcare programs, no rent subsidies, no free education. The immigrants of centuries past had to do it by themselves, and do it they did. That's why it became so common for an immigrant to work 2 crap jobs most of their lives, but their American born children became doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs, those were the family owned businesses that offered good full time jobs and contribute to the community and become part of the economy. They earned the shit out of that. Today, there isn't much to earn, which means there can be no gratitude. And as you know, I think we should have a safety net and all, but I draw the line easily at extending the freebies to foreigners who don't respect our laws and don't respect our country.

Have you met any immigrants? Hardest working people I know. Yeah, there may be welfare and stuff that eases the transition, gives them a little break at the beginning, but ultimately these people aren't coming because they want to live on welfare. They are out there, working as you said two and three jobs in some cases.

The people who make a carreer out of collecting welfare are not new arrivals. They are 3rd and 4th generation welfare hemorrhoids who were born and raised here and grew up thinking that way is the normal way to live. The new arrivals expect to work for a living.

Yes, I have met thousands over the years and become great friends with a couple of them, went to their wedding and family functions and we have been going to the state fair for a few years now. That's the one Hispanic I know that proudly flies the American flag at his house that he and his wife own. That's also how I know how prevalent it is for Mexican immigrants to have their Mexican flag on their American car, and how I know who is writing racist gringo shit in the bathrooms and F the USA, and how I know some of them are so disrespectful of America and love nothing more than to sit patiently and try to communicate in separate languages knowing they are about to make the other person explode and they are happy inside to cause problems over nothing. Thankfully justice was righteous when him and a couple of the other illegals got pulled over and their status was found out. The younger brother of my better friend who is also a great guy got to stay, but the Mexican who liked to cause problems got deported. That's also how I know when he came back into the country the next season, he had a different name and a new fraudulent social security number.

But anyway we Obamacare'd all those 'immigrant' jobs and give the one employee an extra 50$ a day to do what that employee and a 'helper' used to do. Company milks extra millions every year on that move alone, granted it's 2 health insurance policies vs one, and we cut to get under the 50 employee line as well so we are a 'smaller business' We didn't even mention Obamacare though, we just announced that we were starting the ID Verify program with background checks, 90% of them left voluntarily. Guess you have missed all or most of my various posts over the years along these lines. I happen to agree 100% they are the hardest working. After we started 'verify' we finally hired some American 'helpers' these guys for the most part are tatted up in weird places like the neck and face and knuckles, couple strikes against them criminally, and if they had any marketable skills whatsoever besides speaking the native tongue, then I don't know why the hell they are working here for minimum wage as a 100% physical labor 'helper'. Not sure if this is odd or not, but almost every single one of them seems to have unpaid traffic violations and needs anywhere from $800 to $1,500 they would need to pay to clear their drivers license situation up. Just a side point, I can't believe how much traffic fines and court fees and probation fees and library fees and one time fees you can't even begin to afford holds so many people back from earning a higher wage and being able to own and maintain and insure an automobile consistently. I suppose even these Americans respect the law and follow it, unlike way too many of our guests. My X was hit by an African immigrant, he was not held accountable and it might have even made him smile to know that she had to take the entire cost up the arse. Anyways, the joke about the difference between the American's who do minimum wage zero skill jobs compared to the immigrants work ethic which ranges from phenomenal and amazing to 'even the 60 year old with the hunchback and heart problems puts the Americans to shame when it comes chop chop time. The joke around the office is "No American helpers for me" but we have virtually eliminated all 'helper' positions at the beginning of the year. Some of the immigrants drug problems though, almost all of them had a drinking issue theyy missed a lot of work, and I know one of the warehouse guys was with the cartel and he told me all the stories his tats and showed me and everyone else whenever their cartal beheaded someone, and that he took in 10-12 illegals at all times into his house and employed them with our company and kept their paychecks and giving them peanuts in return. Lot of drugs going around that place, lots of crime and misery and basically slavery. Can't imagine what the girls who live there are treated like and subjected to.

I can also agree and understand most do not come here for the welfare, but once they are here they get it shoved in their face and are told they deserve it and America is a land of riches and this land was stolen from them anyways and they deserve it and everyone else is doing it. One way or the other though, money is still the bottom line, and understandably so by all means.

Say, what do you think about treating countries immigration wise in a way that directly resembles the way those countries treat us? You down with that?

[Phatscotty]

As if either of those ridiculous cop outs is a reason to not have borders? Ever stop to think you are in a sense saying the Native Americans should have protected their borders??????????????????????

We came and intentionally murdered an entire population to take the land that they were happy to reasonably share with us, and your argument is that they should have protected their borders? How exactly does that paint us in a good light? If that's really your standard then your position should surely be that it's fair game for anyone in Mexico to come over and just start killing Americans and looting their homes, and that we should respond by shooting them as they come over. Is that the world you would like to live in?

We? LOL! I didn't murder anybody. I guess that is just a guilt thing you have to carry around with you and let control everything in your life. Perhaps try forgiveness for all the people you murdered, idk.

And Native Americans came and intentionally murdered settlers as well. And while you completely leave out that an overwhelming absolute majority of native American died from disease because they had not built up civilizations basic immunity system or tolerance, yes, there were wars between Americans and Indians. Did you know Native Americans also went to war with other Native Americans? They 'intentionally murdered' not only the men of other tribes but also raped the women and threw babies off the cliff. Not trying to tit for tat you and match you atrocities, just showing you there is no point based on that. That is what humanity does in the 16th century, just like in the 16th century BC.

Now, a to slicing through your seemingly normal BS manipulation of information, saying the Indians should have protected their border was what I got from your previous response, your response basically saying Europeans came here to cleanse races, and I said it sounds like you are saying the Indians should have protected their borders. So, you are hell bent on the crimes made by Frenchmen and English and all sorts of different people all the way to the American government, so I do ask you, do you think, granted that if the native Americans could have repelled the unwelcome guests to all land in the entire hemisphere they would have survived and you wouldn't be going on about genocide, so what do you think about whether they should have protected their borders or not?

How does it paint us in a good light? IDK, it's not the 1700's anymore. What happened happened, and has all throughout the world and all throughout history. Be thankful for the peace and order we have some to expect for once? Why is not the light of truth and order and respect and law enough? I'm not worried about any other light, certainly not the least bit interested in your false guilt and shame light or the light that makes you feel compassionate.

If that's really your standard then your position should surely be that it's fair game for anyone in Mexico to come over and just start killing Americans and looting their homes, and that we should respond by shooting them as they come over. Is that the world you would like to live in?

I would like to say 'cmon Mets, you are better than that' but clearly you are not. I have no idea where the hell you make the leap to 'just let anyone in Mexico come over and just start killing Americans"? WUT? No response

"..and Americans should shoot the Mexicans"

Again, WUT? You are probably purposefully barking up the tree of bullshit. I have no response to your analogy in the unbelievably extreme

Sorry, I'm having trouble taking you seriously.

Yeah, well you're the one advocating that we should take poor starving children who just want to have a better life here and give them blankets carrying smallpox, so apologies if return the favor.

WUT???? LMAO! It's not possible to take you seriously, and that's 100% on you. I can see you didn't pay attention to a single word I said, and nothing I said has anything to do with forcing children to starve or giving smallpox blankets to the Indians. LMAO You really are a tool! All respect for you is lost. Don't know why you take the path of lies and dishonesty when you are a perfectly functioning human being with a brain. Don't sell yourself so short with those cop outs and false guilt and anyone who doesn't agree with you, then obviously the only other option is to starve babies. Stuff like that projects your empty tactics and nefarious purposes to those who know any better.


Why don't you stop pretending to not understand where I am coming from and trying to drastically and dramatically blow everything to 10x sensationalize and misrepresent every thing I say. You are at a truly low point as far as your goal not to deal with words or ideas, but just old fashioned demonize at all costs. Why do you ask the question if you don't listen to the response?

[KoolBak]

*thoroughly enjoying this thread*

[Metsfanmax]

Whoa. Talk about out of touch. I'm guessing you don't grocery shop much. I would guess you spend about 30$ a week on stuff you need, one and a half paper bags full, and that you do not grocery shop for the month, and that you do not have a large kitchen where you live, and you probably don't cook too often and likely nothing elaborate, if I had to guess, and if you are still in college right? I understand you were not alive in 1972 or 1982, and as I have noted in previous posts 'in the real world' College is not part of that. Not taking anything away from the education you must certainly be receiving, but in many ways college is the theater of the absurd compared to life after school. Compare knowing and experiencing and testing what is happening in the world around you to learning hearing and repeating and writing 'the way it should be'.

I'm not in college any more, and maybe you should ask about how I live if you are interested in it, instead of just guessing.

Everything you listed: subsidized, subsidized, SUBSIDIZED!

So? Whether or not they are subsidized is irrelevant to the point of whether food prices are actually rising. If your point is -- well, food prices would rise if only the government wasn't making it cheaper to buy food, then I'm not sure you're even making a point.

Your cherry picking of numbers that suit your most obtuse case is one thing,

I didn't cherry pick numbers, I just used the ones that were available on the BLS website. If you have other ones, please post them.

but the experience middle age adults have known on this earth concerning going to the grocery store and what you come out with and for how much along with gained knowledge and wisdom from that routine is another thing,

So basically your comment is that you know food prices are and have been rising in America because of your wisdom gained from going to the grocery store every week? You're really sure that you can make informed economic comments based on that?

And do not for a second discount the rest of my statement that went along with 'rising food prices' Have to account for, just as we debase our currency and borrow to the hilt to fund twice as much as we can afford year after year, so too are we debasing our food products. In an effort to keep their dollars menus from being inflated into oblivion, Taco Bell, Mcdonalds and Burger King, along with others, have been adding wood pulp to their beef and chicken to keep prices low.

Well, if you previously counted Taco Bell, McDonald's and Burger King as vendors of legitimate food, and only now that they're adding wood pulp to their food think that maybe there's something wrong with what they have to offer, then I feel bad for you.

And yet another type of hidden inflation numbers do not adjust for is reduced quantities. I always bought some kind of Carl Buddig lunch meat along with 2 buns from the bakery for under a buck. When I made my two sandwiches, I used to count up the slices so they were evenly distributed as well as not all stuck together. at first I counted 18 slices, or 9 to each sandwich. After a bit of time I noticed there were only 17 slices. Then the price went up a dime, then there were 16, then another dime increase in price. I think it's down to 14-15 with water added now, so really it's not just that the price rose 30%, gotta factor that in with 30% more money for 25% less product and I would bet today's product is much more processed than it was 20 years ago as well and more fat and added edible molecules and fillers.

Do you really think that meat was a wholesome product before, and only now they're making it less pure? I think Upton Sinclair would have some reasons to disagree with you. If you ate actually healthy products like fruits and vegetables, these are problems you would not have.

I challenge your fudge. It's pretty clear on it's face, but let's let things play out. Whose information reflects reality more or most accurately concerning rising food prices in America?

That is literally an absurd comparison to make. $20 in 1972 would fill a shopping cart with less of anything in 2012 than in 1972, due to the power of inflation. The only thing it proves is that a dollar has less buying power now than it used to, in nominal terms. It says nothing in particular about food prices. This is very simple economics.

It only goes down in price if one is using real money, something a fiat currency is not. As you can see, you said that a 1913 $1 is worth $23.53 today (which I'm not going to argue with you about that, it's fine to just use your number), the vast majority of that loss in worth happened after the currency became a fiat currency. That loss of purchase value didn't happen from 1913 to 2014, it happened from 1971 to 2014. That is a different animal than you tried to make it in your post, doesn't it?

I know that this is a tricky subject, and my point to Phatscotty wasn't going to be an argument about inflation in general -- I was just pointing out that making dollar-to-dollar comparisons for particular items across time isn't meaningful unless you account for inflation. If his point is just that the value of a dollar is worth less now -- which is not actually his point -- than he shouldn't have made a comment about rising food or energy prices.

I have no interest in getting into this debate in this thread. However, I'll just note that if I trust the CPI data, this argument you're making isn't that strong. Using their calculator, $1 in 1913 is the same as $3.92 in 1970 -- a ratio of about 4:1. And $1 in 1971 is the same as $5.75 in 2012. Yes, if you were to look at it in absolute dollar terms, then most of the increase happened in the latter period, but that's not the correct metric because inflation is compounded year to year -- it's an exponential type of quantity. So using this particular index, what we would say is that the buying power of money fell about 50% faster, on average, in the latter 40 years than in the previous 60 years.

[Metsfanmax]

Now, a to slicing through your seemingly normal BS manipulation of information, saying the Indians should have protected their border was what I got from your previous response, your response basically saying Europeans came here to cleanse races, and I said it sounds like you are saying the Indians should have protected their borders. So, you are hell bent on the crimes made by Frenchmen and English and all sorts of different people all the way to the American government, so I do ask you, do you think, granted that if the native Americans could have repelled the unwelcome guests to all land in the entire hemisphere they would have survived and you wouldn't be going on about genocide, so what do you think about whether they should have protected their borders or not?

My point wasn't that the Native Americans should have protected their borders -- it was that they had a relatively friendly open borders policy and that gesture was returned with virtual extermination. I think it's pretty clear who is to blame for that -- it is not a point about immigration policy, it is a point about not killing innocent people.

How does it paint us in a good light? IDK, it's not the 1700's anymore. What happened happened, and has all throughout the world and all throughout history. Be thankful for the peace and order we have some to expect for once? Why is not the light of truth and order and respect and law enough? I'm not worried about any other light, certainly not the least bit interested in your false guilt and shame light or the light that makes you feel compassionate.

I am also not interested in having a discussion about guilt over this. I am just making sure that this is in the correct historical perspective. If you think that we should do better than our ancestors did, than we should be welcoming and tolerant of people who are different than us but who want to share our culture and values.

I would like to say 'cmon Mets, you are better than that' but clearly you are not. I have no idea where the hell you make the leap to 'just let anyone in Mexico come over and just start killing Americans"? WUT? No response

If you are trying to draw lessons from what we did in the 1700s, then this would be a perfectly valid lesson to draw. Again, the point is that what we did then was horrifying, and we should learn from that and do better instead of saying that "well, they should have just protected their borders!"

Why don't you stop pretending to not understand where I am coming from

I don't understand where you are coming from. You talk all about how great America is and how great our values are, but seem unwilling to share those values with people who need it the most. It is a perspective that is so selfish that I simply cannot understand where you are coming from. You want to take absolutely zero responsibility for the mistakes our ancestors made -- the crimes they committed against blacks and Indians and women -- but feel like you have total entitlement to what they produced as a result of those crimes, and that you have zero responsibility to share that with anyone else. I am never going to understand that perspective.

[patches70]

Mets: Everything is cheaper if we use 1913 dollars.

patches: But we don't buy things with 1913 dollars!

Simple economics you call it, mets, but you fail to see how the 1913 dollar in no way shape or form is the same as a 2013 dollar.

The 1913 dollar was tied directly to something that has intrinsic value. The 2014 dollar has zero intrinsic value at all.

I know that this is a tricky subject, and my point to Phatscotty wasn't going to be an argument about inflation in general -- I was just pointing out that making dollar-to-dollar comparisons for particular items across time isn't meaningful unless you account for inflation.

It isn't meaningful to say things have gotten cheaper if you simply ignore inflation, which was the point you were making it seemed to me.

The CPI is bullshit, but that's another topic all together, you are completely ignoring how drastically different the systems were from Pre and Post 1971 dollars.

At least Bretton Woods kept the dollar pegged to something. It is the effect of one day everyone was using sea shells to buy everything, then the next day the sea shells were done away with and then everyone started using any old rock that could be picked up off the ground as currency.

That is how drastically different the systems were. Pre 1971 we used commodity money, post 1971 we use debt based money. They are so radically different I'm not convinced you are appreciating the difference.

[Metsfanmax]

Mets: Everything is cheaper if we use 1913 dollars.

It isn't meaningful to say things have gotten cheaper if you simply ignore inflation, which was the point you were making it seemed to me.

No, I was clearly making the opposite point. The dollar price of various items have all gone up -- a gallon of milk cost $0.36 in 1913 and $3.53 in 2013 -- but this says literally nothing about the actual cost of milk unless you compare it to the value of a dollar in those two times. Say what you will about the CPI -- Phatscotty's argument is that food prices are more expensive because he's only looking at the nominal price over time and not the real price. Even if I'm completely wrong and I can't prove the statement that many foods are cheaper in real terms than they were in the past by only appealing to the CPI, Phatscotty's argument is still wrong because he's ignoring the effects of inflation. (Hence the absurd infographic he posted of the shopping cart -- which, incidentally, only compares times in the post-1971 era you speak of.)

That being said, many foods are cheaper in real terms. Even if the CPI is off by a factor of two in measuring the effects of inflation, the argument would still hold for many food items. This is because the food industries really have gotten more efficient with time.

[patches70]

That being said, many foods are cheaper in real terms. Even if the CPI is off by a factor of two in measuring the effects of inflation, the argument would still hold for many food items. This is because the food industries really have gotten more efficient with time.

Yes, and that's why everything has gotten cheaper when you look at the price in terms other than fiat currency.

but this says literally nothing about the actual cost of milk unless you compare it to the value of a dollar in those two times

Why? The dollars you are comparing aren't even remotely the same. They are each completely different monetary systems. There is absolutely nothing alike between the two except in what they look like. They look similar but that's where the similarities end.
One is a commodity based currency, the other is a debt based currency. What is the difference? Well, just answer these two questions-


-Let's have a show of hands, who goes to the grocery store and buys those products with Federal Reserve Notes?
-And now, who goes to the grocery store and buys those products with a bag full of gold coins, stock certificates, barrels of oil or some other commodity or asset product?

You say "Take heart! It's not as bad as you think, because everything is actually cheaper!" But because we don't use those other alternatives in our purchasing, we use fiat dollars then the fact that things have gotten cheaper doesn't matter in the real world. So the comparison you are trying to make means exactly nothing.

. Even if I'm completely wrong and I can't prove the statement that many foods are cheaper in real terms than they were in the past by only appealing to the CPI

Oh, I can absolutely prove beyond any doubt that things have gotten cheaper and I don't even have to use the CPI to determine that.
Go ahead, mets, pick anything, anything at all that you would buy at a grocery store and I can prove that those items are cheaper when priced in commodity based currency.

I can also prove beyond any doubt that those very same items have increased in price, dramatically, using debt based currency.

Now, which example applies when we take into account that we buy all those things with exclusively debt based currency?

It's all fine and dandy that the real price of items has dropped when using something other than debt based currency to find that price, but since we all use debt based money, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

You are using smoke and mirrors to cover up the failings and flaws of debt based money. You are trying to argue against PS by using smoke and mirrors and ignoring what he is saying. You are ignoring reality and using illusion.

You'd make a good Fed chairman. You'd f*ck everything up, sure, but you'd be a very good Head of the Fed. So, kudos to that I guess.

[Metsfanmax]

Why? The dollars you are comparing aren't even remotely the same. They are each completely different monetary systems. There is absolutely nothing alike between the two except in what they look like. They look similar but that's where the similarities end.
One is a commodity based currency, the other is a debt based currency. What is the difference? Well, just answer these two questions-


-Let's have a show of hands, who goes to the grocery store and buys those products with Federal Reserve Notes?
-And now, who goes to the grocery store and buys those products with a bag full of gold coins, stock certificates, barrels of oil or some other commodity or asset product?

Your argument is irrelevant to the current discussion. For the entire time that Phatscotty has been aware of money in his life, this country has not been on the gold standard. At the very most, all it means is that my numbers from 1913 don't prove anything. However, Phatscotty's argument -- that a dollar buys less bread now that it used to in 1972, therefore the cost of food has gone up -- is still literally meaningless because a dollar buys less of basically anything now than it used to in 1972.

You are making a much more subtle argument, and it is a lot harder to piece together what the full effect of switching to a fiat currency means for the real prices of various food commodities, compared to the actual efficiency improvements that have changed the real costs of production. However, the whole point of the CPI is to bypass the discussion of what caused the inflation, and just answer the simple question, how much of various goods does a unit of currency buy in X time compared to Y time.

[PLAYER57832]

Here's the problem that illegal immigrants has on our job market (Player I would love a response from you on this if you would be so kind as to)

The idea in the job industry is that if people are not willing to work for a wage that is too low, the providers of those jobs are going to have to do it themselves. When wages are rejected in a free market, that means the companies need up pay more in order to get employees to do the job. Follow so far? So, there are many crap jobs that American's don't seem to want to do AT THE CURRENT WAGE. If the wages of those crappy jobs were to rise based on supply/demand forces, I guarantee you American would in fact take those jobs. Enter the illegal aliens. They will take the job at minimum wage, cancelling out the free market forces of Americans concerning wages.

THAT'S one of the ways wages are kept artificially low.

Agree?

You mention 2 ways.

The first is false. wages are and never have been truly subject to market forces. That is because money is a necessity in this world, this country. Some food is better than no food. Food and clothing without real shelter is better than no food and clothing.... etc. "The market" has no problem with slavery, and it DID very much exist for millennia because the market was OK with it. What stopped slavery AND what should place a minimum value on wages is that humans beings actually have an inherent value that is irrelevant of what an employer wants to pay.

If you want to buy sugar beets for less than it takes to grow them... tough! The "cost to grow" human beings is the cost of food, shelter and a few other basics. Only above that point does anything to do with the market have value.

The irony is that many companies get away with low wages because we have other supports. Anyone with kids, many even without kids can get free medical care, free and reduced price food, reduced price shelter, reduced utility costs... even gifts from Santa and memberships to the Y can be had in many communitees. Do the people need these things? YES! But, when the person needing those things is working 40 or even 30 hours a week, OR is given only 20 or less so the owner doesn't have to pay benefits... then the harm is caused by the employer who does not pay. This not only cuts out the overall tax bill by putting way, way too many people below the poverty line, below the point of paying taxes, BUT also means far more of other people's taxes have to go to support the hard working employees of these companies. There is a modicum of justification if the company is a small store owned by a single owner or small group of owners who are just making reasonable incomes themselves. There is NO justification when its a big corporation with executives making 6 figures and stockholders getting dividend checks. Paying employees, even the bottom employees comes BEFORE profit, BEFORE huge executive salaries, not only if there is "enough left over" after.

Illegal aliens, do not get those price supports. In some cases... women working as nannies notoriously, they do accept much lower wages than citizens might. But the irony is that they cannot accept a wage so low that they cannot eat or get shelter, because they generally cannot obtain the kinds of assistance that citizens can enjoy. Instead, you see illegal aliens more employed in high risk, dangerous jobs or "housed" in very poor conditions.. conditions that no citizen would even think of accepting, since they can get section 8 housing.

Illegal aliens then tend to take 2 different "slots" (3 with agriculture... but I will keep that out of this discussion for the moment because its unique). They will wind up working in what are essentially little better than slavery conditions, trapped by various means (sometimes actual physical threats and bars) from leaving. OR they will take the OK-paying jobs, taking just a tad bit less than the citizens who were already working there.. not making waves, not being obvious, just living like anyone else. They might have 2-3 families in a house together to save money and such, but mostly are not going to be that different from others. EXCEPT.. they won't take time off if they are sick, won't participate in revolts, etc, etc. Sometimes they are sending money home, sometimes they have family here.

Ironically, it is not that they truly keep the lowest wages down low, it is that they take out the opportunities to go up from citizens. AND, that is precisely what big business wants! Even many small business owners get drawn into that trap. They can hire a hard working, respectable illegal alien and not have the hassle or training requirements if they hire a "kid" or an adult who was not able to finish college.

Are you contending that out of the millions of Americans who are currently unemployed, there is a sizable fraction of people who are simply refusing to work because the wages for jobs are too low?

Its not a contention, its absolutely reality. Because of how aid is structured, many women in particular, make LESS by working than if they just stayed at home.

I do NOT blame that on illegal immigrants particularly. Ironically enough, many illegal immigrants make more than a low wage dollar General worker. Safety, poor conditions and skill levels are often more drivers of those wages. Illegal immigrants absolutely took over the construction trades out west, and the meat packing industry in other areas, for example. The reason was not so much straight wages as conditions and hours.

[patches70]

Your argument is irrelevant to the current discussion. For the entire time that Phatscotty has been aware of money in his life, this country has not been on the gold standard.

Exactly! Just like your entire life you have only known the debt based currency system.

At the very most, all it means is that my numbers from 1913 don't prove anything.

Exactly! And you are the one who brought it up to prove some point or something, which was a fail because you are comparing apples to oranges.

However, Phatscotty's argument -- that a dollar buys less bread now that it used to in 1972,

PS is exactly right isn't he! Even you should be able to admit that, right?

therefore the cost of food has gone up

It has! Because we use Federal Reserve notes, the very notes you've been using your entire life, buys less now than it did in 1970. There is absolutely zero way of denying that, right? So sure, you make the argument that the price hasn't gone up but is actually cheaper, which while true, in the real world using fiat dollars the cost has certainly gone up.

It's cheaper for us to produce these products now than in 1970, but all that savings is eaten away by inflation. It's like you are looking at the one side of the equation but ignoring the other side.

You can't even fathom in your mind that it just may be that you are both correct? Is that such a bad thing?

-- is still literally meaningless because a dollar buys less of basically anything now than it used to in 1972.

Which is the real crux of the problem, isn't it? The prices of things remained stable with very little inflation from 1913 to 1971 even though we changed the monetary system at least twice. But what changed in 1971?

You are making a much more subtle argument,

I'm making the only argument that matters. By the measure in which we use is the problem. And it's not subtle, it's flat in your face a scam. But that's for another discussion I guess.

and it is a lot harder to piece together what the full effect of switching to a fiat currency means for the real prices of various food commodities,

No it's not. How can you talk about real prices when we don't even use real money to buy things? You think it's real because it's the only thing you've ever known. You think inflation is just natural and ignore that inflation is caused by the currency one is using. Sure, supply and demand can explain some inflation, but you yourself know that we have a more bountiful basket now than ever in human history and yet prices people pay are more and more and more. Supply and demand does not explain that, not at all.

compared to the actual efficiency improvements that have changed the real costs of production.

The efficiency of the improvements we've made (on the one side of the equation) are negated by the inherent flaws of a fiat currency, which is what the costs of production and goods are priced in. See, the answer is right there in the other side of the equation. All that efficiency is stripped away by the medium in which we measure these things.
Don't you think we should be considering that in our discussions? If we ignore it then we'll never be able to fix a thing.

However, the whole point of the CPI

The CPI isn't going to answer the question you asked.

is to bypass the discussion of what caused the inflation,

Yes, everyone ignores that don't they?

and just answer the simple question, how much of various goods does a unit of currency buy in X time compared to Y time.

[/quote]

And PS said that unit currency X (the dollar) buys less now than in 1971. Is he wrong? You seem to think so, somehow.

What is the price of food, mets? By what metric do you measure that? And your measurement should reflect reality. Sure, food prices have decreased when measured in something other than dollars, but that's not reality, is it? Since we use fiat dollars to purchase that food. And we use fiat dollars to buy the equipment, the supplies, pay the wages and everything else to produce those things. And in all those terms, those costs have increased by the measure of the medium in which we call "costs". Are farmers buying their seed with barrels of oil? Are they paying the migrant workers in gold coins? Are the truck drivers who haul the product from here to there buying gas with silver bars?
No! They are using fiat dollars! And all those costs have increased! So you can't really say the price of these goods have decreased unless you apply an asterisk (*) followed by a disclaimer, which doesn't validate your contention at all.

So it's surely correct that PS can say food prices have risen, because they have. Like I said, it's hard to argue that real food prices are decreasing when we are not using real money to buy the food.
It's simple economics really. Well, more monetary policy than anything else. And the current monetary policy today in the US benefits the so called wealthy. Not the so called middle class. Our current monetary system is designed to siphon off productivity, real wealth and assets from the mass of people to a relatively small number of individuals.

That is the true problem from which most of our other problems stem. You can yell all you want about how things are cheaper and point to this or that index and you'll still be met with rolling eyes and scoffs by regular people who know better because they are the one's who are being robbed blind by the design flaw of our currency that you refer to as "inflation".

Believe me, our currency was designed specifically to do exactly what it does. And it does it's job well I admit, but it's unstable, it can't last and it wasn't designed to last for very long. Which is one of the great truths that many people just don't want to see.

But meh, whatever, you'll learn for yourself soon enough through some more real world experience.


And it is right and just for PS to speak up and say something. He is not incorrect. More people should be waking up to the scam that for most people is the only system they've ever known.

[PLAYER57832]

Let me insert some history here: (note.. I got off on a tangent in my above answer. Realized it was not pertinent to that response, but that it IS pertinent to the overall thread discussion, so am posting it as its "own" post)

Here is the thing. You have to separate the traditional, historic and somewhat justified use of sometimes illegal migrant labor in fields and a few other areas from the more recent waves (particularly in the past 40 years or so). First, historically, the term "illegal" often had more to do with race than anything else. Non-whites were often rounded up as "illegal", regardless of birth or length of residency. Those racist ideas persisted in the form of heavy limitations to Mexicans, in particular. Treatment of oakies and other internal migrants was not always all that much better. After WWII, though, better job opportunities opened up for most citizens and former migrants/field hands began to leave the fields in droves. THAT is when the move toward primarily Mexican workers, particularly out west, grew. Out East, teens and such filled in during the summer more, but out west, where the seasons were much longer, Mexican labor became very important. Still, for reasons that had a lot to do with racism, the numbers of Mexicans legally allowed to enter this country to work, never met the need. For a long time, this process served the US and Mexico somewhat well. Mexicans, mostly men, would come up here and work for a time, then go home and live well. Usually they earned enough to buy some nice land, a bit more in a couple of years. Some might continue to come up, but they kept their families back south.

Things changed in the 70's and 80's, for a LOT of reasons. I definitely blame the "war on drugs" for making the border far more violent than it ever was before. Suddenly, illegal workers began to get mixed up in people's minds with drug dealing cartels. Then, as the border tightened, it became necessary or expedient for workers to hire "experts" or "strong guys" to shepherd them across the border. THAT is when things began to get truly nasty! Suddenly, it became a lot harder to go back and forth, so some families just split and, in other cases, workers began bringing their families here.

On TOP of that was the issue of some civil wars in El Salvador and the like. in the 1970's and into the 80's. Violence there made many people far more willing to risk more to come here, usually with their families, again. (note, this is not a consecutive set of events, there is definite overlap). These war/violance refugees were not just farm workers, or did not just want to go work on the farms. They often settled in cities and found employment there. (Remember, the 80's was an economic boom brought on by the tech industry, so a lot of young people who might otherwise have worked in low wage jobs were no longer so available... women took jobs as maids. Men took jobs in construction, everyone took jobs in janitorial services and fast food/restaurants...etc.)

Its that last group which was part of the National Geographic article. Some (not all, of course) of the kids of these families grew up into the gang culture of Los Angeles. From there, they got into drugs and other types of crime. Arrested, they were deported... to a country that was barely emerging from a civil war and that was without the effective ability to deal with these criminals trained well in the streets of LA and our prisons.

[PLAYER57832]

What is the price of food, mets? By what metric do you measure that? And your measurement should reflect reality. Sure, food prices have decreased when measured in something other than dollars, but that's not reality, is it? Since we use fiat dollars to purchase that food. And we use fiat dollars to buy the equipment, the supplies, pay the wages and everything else to produce those things. And in all those terms, those costs have increased by the measure of the medium in which we call "costs". Are farmers buying their seed with barrels of oil? Are they paying the migrant workers in gold coins? Are the truck drivers who haul the product from here to there buying gas with silver bars?
No! They are using fiat dollars! And all those costs have increased! So you can't really say the price of these goods have decreased unless you apply an asterisk (*) followed by a disclaimer, which doesn't validate your contention at all.

Another way to look at it is the relative cost of buying food versus buying other goods/services.

The US began the food stamp program partly in response to hunger during remembered the depression. Kids, in particular, it was felt should not go hungry (note... I think most would agree on that point. Society gains little by having kids go hungry). Shelter, ironically enough, was not such an issue back then.

Fast forward to today and its shelter that is the issue, shelter and sometimes heat. On top of that, we have a lot of essentially intangible "goods" that have a heavy market, that in some cases are very cheap (TV, for example.. at least when free).

Anyway, the "price" of a loaf of bread is not just about the raw cost or the cost adjusted for inflation, its how it costs in comparison to the other goods one can buy. Today, we have food readily available in many areas, BUT we also have many other things available to buy. Oh, and the "food" that is available is of highly varied nutritional value as well.

So it's surely correct that PS can say food prices have risen, because they have. Like I said, it's hard to argue that real food prices are decreasing when we are not using real money to buy the food.

It's simple economics really. Well, more monetary policy than anything else. And the current monetary policy today in the US benefits the so called wealthy. Not the so called middle class. Our current monetary system is designed to siphon off productivity, real wealth and assets from the mass of people to a relatively small number of individuals.

Agree, but its not our monetary system that does that, its the tax system and the protections of stockholders that are heavily responsible.

Believe me, our currency was designed specifically to do exactly what it does. And it does it's job well I admit, but it's unstable, it can't last and it wasn't designed to last for very long. Which is one of the great truths that many people just don't want to see.

Hmm... then why has both China and Russia invested so heavily in the US dollar?

[patches70]

Hmm... then why has both China and Russia invested so heavily in the US dollar?

Because they can't invest their money on Mars yet.

I know, it's funny, but it's also true. Where else are they suppose to invest, player? It's got to be invested somewhere on Earth. And it's not like China invests in only the dollar.

With the way the Fed has been pumping, there aren't many places left where someone can get a decent return on their money. And of late China is becoming a net seller of US paper and Russia has already a net seller of US paper.

The dynamic is changing as the currency implodes and as with all currency implosions it happens slowly at first until it becomes quick.

The Chinese know as well as we do that this party isn't going to last forever. They are making plans, we are making plans and the vast majority of us are sitting in the middle arguing over the most inane shit that when it goes a lot of people are going to be- "What the hell happened?"

Same thing that always happens with unsound, debt based fiat currency. But it was a hell of a good run while it lasts! Cocaine and hookers for everyone!

[patches70]

Hey! Here is a fun tangent. In the last six months, who is the 2nd biggest buyer of US debt?

The number 1 buyer is Japan. Some of you will guess the #2 buyer is China, but you'd be wrong.

show

[Metsfanmax]

Exactly! And you are the one who brought it up to prove some point or something, which was a fail because you are comparing apples to oranges.

No, insofar as the CPI is a valid measure of what consumers purchase, it should be independent of the currency system in describing the purchasing power of a unit of currency.

However, Phatscotty's argument -- that a dollar buys less bread now that it used to in 1972,

PS is exactly right isn't he! Even you should be able to admit that, right?

If he was making the statement that food prices and energy prices are rising simply because the (nominal) prices of everything are rising, then I'm not interested and this discussion is pointless. However, I think he was simply forgetting that the prices of everything are rising with time due to inflation, and so thought his argument about the basic cost of living was meaningful. But, in fact, it's only meaningful if the buying power of a dollar goes down and we're not making enough more dollars to compensate. But this is not the case -- the purchasing power of a dollar has gone down by a factor of nearly 6 since 1971, but average household incomes have risen by at least that much (actually a bit more) since 1971, so the actual cost of food (by which I mean the fraction of a person's income spent on food) is going to be the most sensitive to changes in the real costs of producing the food, and not by the nominal prices.

It has! Because we use Federal Reserve notes, the very notes you've been using your entire life, buys less now than it did in 1970.

This is really not fundamental to fiat or debt-based currency. We had plenty of inflation in the era prior to the 1970s. That's why the CPI valued $1 in 1913 as being equivalent to nearly $4 in 1970. The rate of inflation has increased significantly if you compare the two time periods, and perhaps that's due to the change in currency, but that doesn't mean that nominal prices were flat before 1970. They were not. And since that point is so central to your thesis, the rest of your arguments are irrelevant unless you can explain how this could happen in an era where the value of a dollar was nominally related to gold stores. As you know, the 1920s and 1930s had net negative inflation rates (i.e. deflation) but every other decade since 1913 has had (significantly) net positive inflation rates. The inflation rate from that decade was actually higher than in the 1970s. The fact that we nominally have a debt-based currency now didn't stop previous administrations from literally printing money to finance various endeavors like the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War I. When we printed that money, it didn't increase our real wealth as measured in gold, and so the buying power of a dollar went down. That's inflation. It has happened for centuries. Increasing the money supply will always decrease the value of a unit of money (all other things being equal), and that's an economic truth that has nothing to do with what the real wealth of the nation is based on.

(Please don't be fooled by graphs that look like they were produced with Microsoft Paint. Any exponential curve looks a lot flatter at the beginning than at the end -- that's what exponential growth/decay is about. If you blew up the part from 1913 to 1970, assuming the data is accurate, you'd see the exact same trend -- except for a blip around the Great Depression. Things like this should always be plotted on a logarithmic axis, and it's easy to be tricked when they're not.)

It's cheaper for us to produce these products now than in 1970, but all that savings is eaten away by inflation. It's like you are looking at the one side of the equation but ignoring the other side.

The only person ignoring the other side is you -- and the side you are ignoring is that prices go up but so do earnings. So no, the savings aren't "eaten away" by inflation. (If you still think they are, explain how a desktop computer could cost $10,000 in early 1980s dollars and be purchased for $500 today.) This point is so simple that I'm struggling to understand why you're arguing it.