Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Is there truth to the dollar not losing 95% of it's value?

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 4 Replies | 2 Followers

Not Ranked
19 Posts
Points 395
SortOfAmish posted on Wed, Feb 29 2012 10:38 PM

I was browsing reddit and came across this: http://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughPaulSpam/comments/qby0h/no_ron_paul_the_dollar_did_not_really_lose_95_of/

 

http://realfactbias.blogspot.com/2012/02/no-dollar-did-not-really-lose-95-of-its.html


Let us take at the period from 1913-2006, where we have complete data. So what do they mean, when they say the dollar lost 95.1% of its value in those 93 years? Essentially, an average good/service that cost $1 in 2006,  used to be priced at 4.9 cents in 1913. In other words, the average price level of goods/services increased by 1930% since 1913.  True, but guess what, average earned income increased by 6560% during the same time period. Anyone who says the dollar lost value, is really trying to sell the false point of view, that somehow things were better off in 1913.

 

http://www.hyperinflation-us.com/Ron_Paul_crazy_end_the_fed_and_inflation.html

 

Who has lost 95 cents on the dollar? Virtually nobody. Ron Paul misleadingly suggests that if a family had stashed some cash back in 1913, by 2009 it would have in fact lost 95% of its value.

 

  • | Post Points: 35

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
349 Posts
Points 5,915
Mtn Dew replied on Wed, Feb 29 2012 10:53 PM

The first quote has it right in tha tthe dollar did lose value, but the quote pretends its not a big issue because income went up by a bigger margin. The  second quote is flat out false - a dollar has indeed lost 95% of its value since 1913. 

The dollar has lost value, but no one that says that means our society has lost 95% of its value. The point is that we've had a large degree of inflation, which is A) robbed people of their savings and made it much harder to save money and B) screwed up business calculation. Another point is that The Fed is a faliure in terms of keeping the dollar stable. Losing 95% of its value ain't stability.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
659 Posts
Points 13,305
Gero replied on Wed, Feb 29 2012 10:59 PM

I have repeatedly seen the 95% statistic, but have never seen how it was calculated. Still, the dollar’s value has crashed over time. Although the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a poor measurement for inflation, even it shows massive dollar devaluation. $1 in 1913 has the same buying power as $22.90 in 2012, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI inflation calculator.

Using basic math, hypothetically, if $1 in 1913 has the same buying power as $2 dollars in 1914, that should mean the dollar devalued by 100%. So, if I am mathematically correct, according to the CPI, the dollar has devalued by about 2,200%.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
1,133 Posts
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Wed, Feb 29 2012 11:20 PM

Dunno if this answers but:

Oz Gold 1913: $18.92

Oz Gold 2012: $1725

1725/18.92 = %91

 

Are the markets perfectly accurate, now or then? No. But I find this better than swamping through CPI and correcting it.

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
6,885 Posts
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Feb 29 2012 11:56 PM

The rise in the price of labor proves our point. A dollar buys fewer hours of labor than it used to.

</thread>

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (5 items) | RSS