The value of money has dropped by two thirds in 30 years

**mashman** · 26th February 2013, 07:43

"A three-fold increase in prices has seen the spending power of money fall by two-thirds over the past 30 years, meaning a pound today can only buy as much as 33p could in 1982."

Wonder what the average salary increase has been. It'd be interesting to see similar stats for NZ. Although to be fair, I'm sure the economists of this world have got it covered... even if the employers won't have the money to pay those types of wages. Hey ho... come onnnnnnnnnn system, shiteth thyself.

**spookytooth** · 26th February 2013, 08:20

i know gib stoppers are working for 1980 rates in Tauranga due to ass holes under cutting in a big way

**Zedder** · 26th February 2013, 09:04

Originally Posted by mashman

"A three-fold increase in prices has seen the spending power of money fall by two-thirds over the past 30 years, meaning a pound today can only buy as much as 33p could in 1982."

Wonder what the average salary increase has been. It'd be interesting to see similar stats for NZ. Although to be fair, I'm sure the economists of this world have got it covered... even if the employers won't have the money to pay those types of wages. Hey ho... come onnnnnnnnnn system, shiteth thyself.

It's little wonder a growing number of economists are calling for a return to the Gold Standard.

**ducatilover** · 26th February 2013, 09:49

Nah it's okay because the average wage in NZ has gone up so much since...

Fuck.

**Road kill** · 26th February 2013, 17:19

A tinnie was $20 in 1980,,,it's still $20 today.

So what's the fringin' problem,,,,,,,oh yeah drug dealers are the dishonest ones,,,right

**Danzano** · 26th February 2013, 17:24

Originally Posted by Road kill

A tinnie was $20 in 1980,,,it's still $20 today.

So what's the fringin' problem,,,,,,,oh yeah drug dealers are the dishonest ones,,,right

I'm pretty sure that used to be a very vague measurement eg hand full or mates rates or feeling generous

Today if it's out by a gram is half an ounce!!!!!! :-P

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

**Ocean1** · 26th February 2013, 17:27

So, pretty much in line with inflation, then?

And not a single mention of comparitive incomes.

**Akzle** · 26th February 2013, 18:14

the "value of money" has been exactly fuckall since newton overvalued gold.

the "value of money" is the gauge by which you can work out how hooked on bank an person is.

"inflation" and "quantative easing" are fucking scams in which the only people profiting are the people printing the currency.

a tinny in 1980 was the width of my thumb and lasted at least until saturday arvo, a tinny today is a small joint and hardly gets through breakfast.

the problem with "going back to gold" is the premise that scarcity creates value.
it doesn't
the same as, evidently, backing "money" by the "faith of the sheep" ("GDP") doesn't.

**Akzle** · 26th February 2013, 18:18

Originally Posted by spookytooth

i know gib stoppers are working for 1980 rates in Tauranga due to ass holes under cutting in a big way

chinese assholes. cos 50 of them are happy living in an apartment, and 50 of them will get the job done faster than you and your bro, and for about the same rate.
it's all about profit mate. if you're not profitable, then GTFO the planet. modern democratic capitalistic socialist consumeristic society doesn't need your whinging kind round here.

**davereid** · 26th February 2013, 18:59

Originally Posted by mashman

"A three-fold increase in prices has seen the spending power of money fall by two-thirds over the past 30 years, meaning a pound today can only buy as much as 33p could in 1982."

Quantitative easing, printing money, social credit, whatever you call it, it is the cause.

Its a pretty simple concept. Money merely measures output - it is not on its own production or the storage of wealth.

So when I plant potatoes and grow potatoes I produce new wealth.

The potatoes have a value that reflects the cost of seed, land, fertiliser, irrigation and my skill and effort.

But when I sell my spuds, the tax man will arrive.

Say I get $100 profit for my spuds. The tax man wants a share. He usually, or at least what we see is he does it by taking a lump sum, say 50%.

So now my $100 gives me $50 of spending power.

But social credit, Quantitative easing, printing money, gives government another tool. Its sees I made $100. It simply prints $100 to match.

Sane result, my spending power is halved. But great for the government. Its takes a while, sometimes decades for people to notice, and ask more (inflation) for their efforts.

Its suits the rich as its a tax on the poor - its doesn't affect those who control assets as much as those who do not.

Its a tax on labour based income - its lowers its value, but it doesn't hurt those whos income is based on asset value, like large companies, who can simply ask for a rate of return on burgeoning asset value.

Governments were all quick to write social credit off as a system. And then to implement it without saying so !

Quantitative easing is the new school. Its a tax on the poor. And as usual, it will do its stuff.

**Oblivion** · 26th February 2013, 19:00

Originally Posted by Akzle

"inflation" and "quantitative easing" are fucking scams in which the only people profiting are the people printing the currency.

Speaking of people profiting on printing money, Thats exactly what is happening in the USA right now and why the debt just keep increasing. The US government has to pay the federal reserve to print money. Effectively they pay money to get money, increasing inflation even more. All because the American Government does not have the power to print its own money. Little tidbit there.

The USA would be better off if they didnt have to have the permission of the Federal reserve to print money.

Also

**puddytat** · 26th February 2013, 19:43

And what the fucks up with provisional Tax,wanting money off ya before you even make any....

**Akzle** · 26th February 2013, 20:57

the problem that the us has, is that the fed never print the interest, only the capital. I'll leave it to you to work out how well it goes.

**mashman** · 26th February 2013, 21:15

Originally Posted by davereid

Yup

If the money that was "printed" wasn't interest bearing, there would be no need for inflation... but alas, the printers need their money. Essentially that's all QE/CE are, just another mechanism to create an interest bearing debt from thin air. After all, the bonds that QE/CE buys are merely interest bearing promises. Interest, in my eyes, is what drives inflation. If there's not enough being paid back, up inflation goes, and if there's too much being paid back, down it goes. However, $1 is still $1 and it's the inflation that forces the price of goods/services up. To that end the value of money is bound to look as though it has changed, even though it hasn't really. Tis just the way I look at it though.