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

[mashman]

No, by and large they don't.

Oh, there's quite a few that try to manipulate markets to their advantage, mostly by attempting to restrict access. If they're successful they're what I call a monopoly, there's no access to a free, value-driven market.

But as I've said before the vast majority of NZ business are SME's, fewer than a dozen workers. I know of a couple who use semi-dodgy standards compliance claims in an attempt to limit customers access to fair markets, but it's tolerably rare in NZ, more a feature of corrupt eastern European government contract arrangements.

Although I note in passing that the commerce commission has just agreed that Hire Pool can buy out Projects. If that's not creating a monopoly I don't know what is.

Semantics. Stop shooting your mouth off for a bit and find some reliable numbers to hang off this:

1982 and 2012.

There seem to be more and more people manipulating the market/commodity prices which is skewing "real productivity"... but that's the power of money for ya. Banks be the kings of such a past-time.

You're right... tis bloody tricky/nigh on impossible to get historical data for salary's, lecky, education (although we know that was free once upon a time), food etc... however I did find this which whilst it covers the overview, we know that prices and according to this wages have fallen. It doesn't not list source, and don't balk when you see who wrote it, if you can that is... 1982 - 2009

[mashman]

August the 15th 1971 to be exact

Stephen

Decimalisation eh? The day the UK to an involuntary pay cut wiping a small fortune off of the UK economy.

no but there is a basic living standard of which telephones , TV and Ipads aren’t included

Stephen

That image was so wrong, so so wrong. Bedtime reading?

[Brian d marge]

Decimalisation eh? The day the UK to an involuntary pay cut wiping a small fortune off of the UK economy.



That image was so wrong, so so wrong. Bedtime reading?

Nixon shock

pissed the french right off . Nail in the coffin for the old gold standard

Stephen

[Brian d marge]

There seem to be more and more people manipulating the market/commodity prices which is skewing "real productivity"... but that's the power of money for ya. Banks be the kings of such a past-time.

You're right... tis bloody tricky/nigh on impossible to get historical data for salary's, lecky, education (although we know that was free once upon a time), food etc... however I did find this which whilst it covers the overview, we know that prices and according to this wages have fallen. It doesn't not list source, and don't balk when you see who wrote it, if you can that is... 1982 - 2009

Also that was POST rogernomics

Stephen

[husaberg]

Also that was POST rogernomics

Stephen

Rodgernomics wasn't that more post 84 really kicking in 88?

[Ocean1]

Some where to live is an essential of life isn't it i choose it because it is impossible to cherry pick.It is true like for like comparison, barring of course changes in transport routes and technology bridges etc........It is like for like. Using the dwelling is problematic fue to improved features etc building standards.
Food is too problematic as the changes in transport technology fertiliser economies of scale etc.

One things i see as for certain is both my parents still work and they are past the retirement age, most people my age have little savings and huge mortgages My parents didn't. Two incomes were not required to provide for a family and a new car every few years out of savings. Yes I realise people today have a want it right now philosophy. But i don't think it is the complete story.

As I said, the price of land now includes parasitic compliance costs that didn't exist then, they wouldn't appear on a list of stuff our parents had to pay for, so the comparison isn't really like for like. Still, I guess we have to pay for them nowadays whether we see any value in the "product" or not. The same goes for food, though, the lawn mower, the family car. The markets for pretty much everything have changed.

I did say it wasn't easy, and you're right, people's expectations of life have changed dramatically over that 30 years. But it seems to me the only honest comparison would be to list all of the items our parents paid for each month and to then price the closest approximation available today. A desktop instead of a Philips vidtronic, etc etc.

Can be done, though. My contention was simply that it takes no more hours work today for your average guy to earn enough to live as our parents did. The fact that today's generation spend a great deal more on non-essentials, some of which weren't even available to our parents simply reinforces the theory that this generation has it easier.

As for your parents working beyond retirement age, there's another cultural change affecting that. A generation ago they would have had a much smaller chance of actually living beyond that age. If they did their day to day costs would have been somewhat subsidised by the local comunity, at least more so than is the case now. Also, having lived that long they'd have been more likely to be living with their children.

[Ocean1]

There seem to be more and more people manipulating the market/commodity prices which is skewing "real productivity"... but that's the power of money for ya.

There's no more shysters per town now than there ever was, just more idiots prepared to buy shit for more than it's worth. Disparity of value, fuck all to do with the money itself.

You're right... tis bloody tricky/nigh on impossible to get historical data for salary's, lecky, education (although we know that was free once upon a time), food etc... however I did find this which whilst it covers the overview, we know that prices and according to this wages have fallen. It doesn't not list source, and don't balk when you see who wrote it, if you can that is... 1982 - 2009

Will look later.

[mashman]

Mr Meacher asked: “Is it reasonable to pressurise seriously disabled persons into work so ruthlessly when there are already 2.5 million people unemployed and, on average, eight persons chasing every vacancy, unless they are also provided with the active and extensive support they obviously need in order to get and to hold down work, which is certainly not the case at present?”... people v money. Money wins everytime... and yet the politicians still don't understand that that is the case. Very disappointing.

There's no more shysters per town now than there ever was, just more idiots prepared to buy shit for more than it's worth. Disparity of value, fuck all to do with the money itself.

Maybe. Although where there are more people taking the piss, unfortunately there are more "normal" people deciding that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I guess it's not something you can really survey for is it . Disparity of value has everything to do with money as that's the mechanism used to quantify and obtain goods/services along with the primary driver for setting the value.

[Ocean1]

Will look later.

Is very selective of data, without the full set they're quoting from it's impossible to say but where pro and con data is from different periods where the full set is available you've got to be suspicious that there's some distortion going on. Once the numbers stop the report devolves into a dense wall of union platitudes, hard to read and basically unsubstantiated opinion.

people v money. Money wins everytime... and yet the politicians still don't understand that that is the case. Very disappointing.

You're confused again, mony is a unit of value, the economy has a finite value, therefore there is not a limitless supply of money. The fact that there's an unlimited number of people who want more money than they have in no way increases either the size of the economy or the quantity of money available to them. Some of those people are going to be dissapointed. Live with it, it's not going to change.

Disparity of value has everything to do with money as that's the mechanism used to quantify and obtain goods/services along with the primary driver for setting the value.

The value of anything for sale has a value expressed in dollars. Revaluing or removing the currency altogether changes the value of the goods not a jot, and if fuckwits insist on paying more for the goods than they're worth there's bugger all you can do about it. And it's the value of a product that dictates the quantity of currency required to purchace it, not the other way around.

On the other hand, if you feel some goods you're interested in are overpriced then by all means choose not to buy them, your money; your choice.

[mashman]

Is very selective of data, without the full set they're quoting from it's impossible to say but where pro and con data is from different periods where the full set is available you've got to be suspicious that there's some distortion going on. Once the numbers stop the report devolves into a dense wall of union platitudes, hard to read and basically unsubstantiated opinion.

I know. I was in two minds as to whether to post it or not. There were a few other docs floating around in regards to NZ's history that made comparisons to the value of the $ back in the day and now, ya know, the usual $150 then is $900 now type thing, but again no sources to back it up. T'was much harder than I thought trying to find comparison docs and my tin foil hat twitches as I would imagine that if it were a positive state of affairs i.e. better cost of living today, it would be plastered everywhere as it usually is when "good results" are posted. Til then I guess it'll have to be the reporting of numbers by family trust etc... that we'll have to go with, and they aren't positive.

You're confused again, mony is a unit of value, the economy has a finite value, therefore there is not a limitless supply of money. The fact that there's an unlimited number of people who want more money than they have in no way increases either the size of the economy or the quantity of money available to them. Some of those people are going to be dissapointed. Live with it, it's not going to change.

I'm confused? Money is much more than a unit of value and it is infinite. As is the value of the economy. Else we'd all be trying to share $20, but we're not, the economy has supposedly grown for decades and we keep coming up with more money... so they are both infinite. As you have noted there's not a consistent correlation between financial value and good/service value and because of that prices can rise to whatever levels are needed to allow TPTB to pump more money into the economy. Lots of people are already disappointed with the price of things, food and power being causes for concern for an ever dwindling buying power.

The value of anything for sale has a value expressed in dollars. Revaluing or removing the currency altogether changes the value of the goods not a jot, and if fuckwits insist on paying more for the goods than they're worth there's bugger all you can do about it. And it's the value of a product that dictates the quantity of currency required to purchace it, not the other way around.

On the other hand, if you feel some goods you're interested in are overpriced then by all means choose not to buy them, your money; your choice.

Of course the value of the goods changes value. The high street has sales to shift as many units as possible before the new stuff comes in at a higher price. Notice many cheap Overseas flights these days? Inflation causes prices to rise and therefore the value of the good changes. No doubt there are many more instances of the value of a good changing in response to supply and demand, just look at our housing situation. As for the value dictating the price, I'll give you a half point for that, because the production value draws the break even line, everything else after that is gravy and the amount of gravy all depends on which way the wind is blowing, see the afore mentioned sales. So both measures are used, but the final price is not dictated by the value of the good... although yeah, the final value does dictate how much $ is required to buy it.

[Brian d marge]

Rodgernomics wasn't that more post 84 really kicking in 88?

they say the modern economy is fromm1985 onwards ... but the seeds were planted back in the 70s

Stephen

[Ocean1]

I know. I was in two minds as to whether to post it or not. There were a few other docs floating around in regards to NZ's history that made comparisons to the value of the $ back in the day and now, ya know, the usual $150 then is $900 now type thing, but again no sources to back it up. T'was much harder than I thought trying to find comparison docs and my tin foil hat twitches as I would imagine that if it were a positive state of affairs i.e. better cost of living today, it would be plastered everywhere as it usually is when "good results" are posted. Til then I guess it'll have to be the reporting of numbers by family trust etc... that we'll have to go with, and they aren't positive.

Aren’t positive for what? Income maybe but do family trusts record the price of groceries?
Seems likely the official govt conservator would have the numbers, I just don’t know where his shit is.

I'm confused? Money is much more than a unit of value and it is infinite. As is the value of the economy. Else we'd all be trying to share $20, but we're not, the economy has supposedly grown for decades and we keep coming up with more money... so they are both infinite. As you have noted there's not a consistent correlation between financial value and good/service value and because of that prices can rise to whatever levels are needed to allow TPTB to pump more money into the economy. Lots of people are already disappointed with the price of things, food and power being causes for concern for an ever dwindling buying power. .

Infinite? Fuck off, the value of the economy is the total of what the various markets will pay for the product of our economy. That’s it. It’s value increases if and when additional product of some value is added, and only then. If GDP increases year by year then the economy grows in value, if external markets decide they don’t want a bunch of our product then it shrinks. Exactly the same as any other business.

The value of a dollar is essentially the value of the economy divided by the total number of dollars in circulation. If the govt prints more money and circulates it then the value of each dollar is diminished accordingly. And they do print more, supposedly to match growth in the economy, but also to match anticipated growth. The second sort isn’t in circulation, as such, it’s tied up in your mortgage.

As for the disparity between product value and price, it’s common enough, and becoming more common, it’s caused by arseholes circumventing a free market, and yes tptb are as guilty of that as some big businesses. Such distortions have nothing to do with prices rising to “allow the pumping of money into the economy”. The solution is really simple, require the commerce commission to do it’s fucking job and remove the barriers to free trade.

Of course the value of the goods changes value. The high street has sales to shift as many units as possible before the new stuff comes in at a higher price. Notice many cheap Overseas flights these days? Inflation causes prices to rise and therefore the value of the good changes. No doubt there are many more instances of the value of a good changing in response to supply and demand, just look at our housing situation. As for the value dictating the price, I'll give you a half point for that, because the production value draws the break even line, everything else after that is gravy and the amount of gravy all depends on which way the wind is blowing, see the afore mentioned sales. So both measures are used, but the final price is not dictated by the value of the good... although yeah, the final value does dictate how much $ is required to buy it.

Yeah? Then why are later models of pretty much everything priced lower than their predecessors? And I didn’t deny that the value of product changes, it’s synonymous with a free market. As you said, supply and demand should dictate price. What I said is that suddenly changing the value of the dollar doesn’t alter the intrinsic value of a product. The only time you’ll ever find that the final price of a product isn’t dictated by the it’s value is when the market’s being distorted.

Example: my audiologist wants to sell me hearing aids for $5k, yet the cost of manufacture is about $30. Why can’t I simply go and buy a $30 set? Because he has to tune them to suit me, and the way he chooses to cover his costs is to massively overprice the product. What should happen? I should be able to buy that $30 hearing aid, perhaps from him, and he should then charge me for his services honestly. The overall cost might well end up the same, but with the costs itemised properly I can see what I’m paying for. If don’t like it I can go somewhere else.

The value of the product should always dictate the price.

Lets talk about the value I’m getting from my tax dollars, eh?

[husaberg]

okay how about the value of a big Mac compared to the minimum wage for an hours work........

[Ocean1]

okay how about the value of a big Mac compared to the minimum wage for an hours work........

Now that actuall is a semi-serious economic measure in moderately widespread use, you've talked to Mr google about the relative historic price of Maca's?

Not sure how indicitive of the real world it is.

Edit: I can remember that a trip to the first 'Donalds in town, in Porirua was something to be saved up for...

[husaberg]

Now that actuall is a semi-serious economic measure in moderately widespread use, you've talked to Mr google about the relative historic price of Maca's?

Not sure how indicitive of the real world it is.

Edit: I can remember that a trip to the first 'Donalds in town, in Porirua was something to be saved up for...

No i haven't, but i do know it is a reasonable indication of prosperity. Macca's can't afford to get it wrong.LOL