NEClimbs.com forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: the next couple of weeks......  (Read 3052 times)

JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Doing God's work
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2012, 08:00:20 PM »

$1 in goods in 1949 adjusted for inflation would now cost $9.31 which would purchase 2.66 gallons at $3.50 per gallon. So at first glance it looks like gas is outpacing inflation, but I wonder what percentage of the cost for 1949 versus today was taxes and fees. There may be a higher percent of tax and fees today meaning the cost may not have risen at all.
Logged
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1929
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2012, 08:10:48 PM »

OPEC certainly had and has an effect on the price at gas pumps in the US.
Logged

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

DWT

  • Guest
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2012, 08:14:56 PM »

"adjusted for inflation"

 


Exactly.   Inflation: the process by which the dollar is robbed of purchasing power.

I don't know anybody making 3.5 times what they were making in 1996 when gas was $1.00 per gallon. :'(
Logged

sneoh

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1929
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2012, 08:31:11 PM »

I am not quite sure gas (regular) price ever dipped to $1/gal back in 1996.  But I do recall briefly paying $1.50~1.70/gal back in 2003.  Amazing isn't it?

Ironically, Department of Energy forecasts US production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons, which includes biofuels, will average 11.4 million barrels per day next year (2013). That would be just shy of the amount Saudi Arabia produces.
Logged

"You have to decide to do a flag, where you can broke your vertebrae or a barn door depending of your pro" - the poster formerly known as Champ

JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Doing God's work
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2012, 08:32:30 PM »

"adjusted for inflation"

 


Exactly.   Inflation: the process by which the dollar is robbed of purchasing power.

I don't know anybody making 3.5 times what they were making in 1996 when gas was $1.00 per gallon. :'(


Check out how much of total wealth is in control of the top few percent now versus then and we'll probably find at least a modest part of the problem.

But inflation in and of itself is not only not bad but absolutely necessary unless I misunderstood a lot of what I learned about economics, business, and capitalism in school.
Logged
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Doing God's work
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2012, 08:37:02 PM »

OPEC certainly had and has an effect on the price at gas pumps in the US.

I wouldn't think it's had too much of an effect unless you think the price was artificially low in 1949 or unless my hypothesis about taxes and fees as a percentage being lower back then is wrong. Honesty I don't know for certain, but I do know that Saudi Arabia pretty much pumps the amount we tell them to. (That's kind of simplistic but not far from reality imo.)
Logged
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Doing God's work
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2012, 08:47:05 PM »

Found some good info relevant to this discussion:


Quote
Although nominal wages have tripled from $6.57 to nearly $20 per hour since 1980, the negative effects of inflation have reduced that 200% gain to a measly 1.51% real wage increase -- in 32 years! Compare this 1.51% real pay raise to gasoline's 40% bump, and there's your answer to why gas feels like it costs more.



Quote
But I hope this presents the other side of the argument -- that neither OPEC nor oil companies are the direct cause of your pain at the pump. It's really a combination of poor wage growth and a disassociation with the effects of inflation that have people on edge about gas prices.


source: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06/26/quit-griping-about-gas-prices----its-all-in-your-/


It doesn't say where the 40% increase in real dollars actually comes from but I guess it's demand outstripping supply but supply not really being controlled by OPEC.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 08:49:43 PM by JBrochu »
Logged
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

DWT

  • Guest
Logged

eyebolter

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 589
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2012, 08:59:53 PM »

Bear in mind that the published inflation figures are from the government, and are bullshit.  Shadowstats has inflation numbers using the same criteria the government used to use, and it is much higher than officially admitted.  They don"t use such things as food and energy in their "core" inflation calculations, for example, making the figure garbage.  I mean, who uses energy and eats food?

The standard of living for most Americans has been declining for years.  Higher taxes, inflation, and stagnant wages.

My father was a starting high school teacher in the early 60"s and bought a house on four acres in southern Rhode island, owned two cars with a wife that didn't work and four kids.  Try that today.
Logged

eyebolter

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 589
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2012, 09:09:07 PM »

Funny, just looked up the gas price in 1964 and it was .30 a gallon.   Of course the three dimes were silver, which are worth $2.30 each in silver now, for a total cost of $6.90 a gallon.

It does show you how much our money hasn been debased just in my lifetime.

Logged

JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Doing God's work
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2012, 09:10:14 PM »

Bear in mind that the published inflation figures are from the government, and are bullshit.  Shadowstats has inflation numbers using the same criteria the government used to use, and it is much higher than officially admitted.  They don"t use such things as food and energy in their "core" inflation calculations, for example, making the figure garbage.  I mean, who uses energy and eats food?

The standard of living for most Americans has been declining for years.  Higher taxes, inflation, and stagnant wages.

My father was a starting high school teacher in the early 60"s and bought a house on four acres in southern Rhode island, owned two cars with a wife that didn't work and four kids.  Try that today.

Actually the fact that they don't count energy in the inflation figure yet we're looking at the rising price of gas versus inflation probably accounts for most of the 40% discrepancy.

I don't dispute your other points except for maybe taxes. Are taxes actually higher now than in the early 60's? I know the federal income tax rates are relatively low compared to historical rates. I also know my property tax has gone up an insane amount since I bought my house 10 years ago.

Logged
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

DWT

  • Guest
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2012, 09:24:59 PM »

One things for sure, I will be planning trips to Colorado and Washington immediately. ;D  At least this election cycle was good for something.
Logged

eyebolter

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 589
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2012, 09:42:19 PM »

Bear in mind that the published inflation figures are from the government, and are bullshit.  Shadowstats has inflation numbers using the same criteria the government used to use, and it is much higher than officially admitted.  They don"t use such things as food and energy in their "core" inflation calculations, for example, making the figure garbage.  I mean, who uses energy and eats food?

The standard of living for most Americans has been declining for years.  Higher taxes, inflation, and stagnant wages.

My father was a starting high school teacher in the early 60"s and bought a house on four acres in southern Rhode island, owned two cars with a wife that didn't work and four kids.  Try that today.

Actually the fact that they don't count energy in the inflation figure yet we're looking at the rising price of gas versus inflation probably accounts for most of the 40% discrepancy.

I don't dispute your other points except for maybe taxes. Are taxes actually higher now than in the early 60's? I know the federal income tax rates are relatively low compared to historical rates. I also know my property tax has gone up an insane amount since I bought my house 10 years ago.

Income tax rates were higher, at least for the rich, but that is only one tax out of many.  Social security tax was much lower, gasoline tax was much lower, property tax was much lower, sales tax was much lower, there was no Medicare tax.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2012, 09:52:37 PM by eyebolter »
Logged

Flotsam

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #43 on: November 09, 2012, 11:14:16 AM »

Eyebolter, from most of what you complained about you should have written "I can't believe anyone in their right mind would have voted for either Rumney or O-man".  Because if you think that Rumney would have stopped the trashing of the constitution (which by the way is favorite presidential past time nearly all them) you may not be paying attention.  Rumney agreed with most of what has been done foreign policy wise, although I think he would have liked it better if he'd done it. 

We have all been tolerating these specific constitutional trashings since GW started the land war in Asia.  I dislike them but in retro spec it appears to have been a good political calculation because we all complain about it but few voted based on it (GaryJ only got 1%).

He has a "kill list" that has executed American citizens, including a 16 year old, without any charges or trial.  He swore to uphold the Constitution, and is allegedly a "Constitutional scholar," but apparently is unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights.
Pretty sure GW started the dead or alive list... If O-man didn't keep it going he'd be labeled a weak liberal and would have gotten trounced on the issue in the election... turned out security was a non-issue in the election.

He signed into law the extension of the so-called "Patriot Act," which allows the NSA to spy on us without a warrant, another clear violation of the Constitution.
Extending the 2001 GW law that was extended in 2005.  Another likely political calculation because security was a non-issue in the election.  I'm hopefully this will get gutted when renewal comes up in 2015 but I doubt it because democrats are scared of their own shadow when it comes to security issues because they have been labeled weak for so long.

He has started additional undeclared wars by bombing and killing people in Yemen and Pakistan.
Started by GW, again another likely political calculation....

I'm still waiting for the war in Afghanistan to end.  Why are we there again?
yup most of us I think would agree, however long term it is prolly in our best interests to have some sort of stability there because the last round of instability lead to the military mess we are in now.

Logged

eyebolter

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 589
Re: the next couple of weeks......
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2012, 01:19:11 PM »

Flotsam, I was responding to Mark S.  I agree, I didn't vote for Romney either.

Many of the things you say were "non issues" in the campaign were non-sissues because they were deliberately avoided by the corporate media and the Democrat/Republican controlled "debates."   Most Americans have no idea that Obama signed the Patriot Act extension, nor that he is killing Americans without a trial. 

I do think that Obama's election will hasten the decline faster than Romney's would have.  Lots of businesses will be doing things in order to avoid having to pay healthcare including: not hiring new workers to stay below the threshold; firing workers to get below the threshold; and cutting worker's hours to part-time-they will hire additional part-timers, get the same amount of work, and avoid Obama care.   The stock market will likely continue to sell off as investors would rather pay the lower tax rate this year that the tax increases that are coming.   

As a Libertarian, I am not in favor of a single payer system, but I do see how it would reduce costs.  Obamacare will not reduce costs at all; what it will reduce is employment.   


« Last Edit: November 09, 2012, 01:25:38 PM by eyebolter »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.217 seconds with 23 queries.