quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Fuckin 'specie' arguements are asswipe period.  Just look at 1862 on your fucking charts and it shows the arguments for the asswipe that they are.  Prima Facie evidence against all your far flung webs of deceit.

Truth has a much simpler reality.

Your windy trivialities attributing cause and effect to disparate and flawed premises not withstanding, you have yet to be even serendipitously correct about anything here ever.

once again you completely miss the point.

if you look at the chart you can see that it came right back from an 18% inflation to a -30% deflation with a net of zero inflation.

That means you lost nothing on your money as a result of devaluation.




what they have done to this economy and why the so called founders except rothschilds henchman "hamilton" were against the national bank and paper, because as we have or should have now figured out that it is impossible to keep banking from corrupting the lawmakers and created gubafia deMOBcracy.

Once that money hit the ceiling it had no choice but to come right back down and willfull mismanagement lead to the shit we have for a monetary system today and our asses being raped..

simple, pimple.

the algonquins traded for fur, feather and beads.  by the time they became ojibwe they were trading for tomahawk, rifle, and whiskey.

now, as I said life isn't static, and if you are going to make such a stupid fucking argument as that, you will demonstrate that they were paid less in beads for minnesota than manhattan, so that there was a non-inflationary correspondence.

And even in your fantasy world it wasnt one horse one woman for centuries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

The spreadsheet makes no sense. Explain what its supposed to be showing and the underlying inflation data.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

again no amount of creative writing to replace hard data will work here.

This is not a leftee rightee who can piss the highest contest

This is data and as you can see what I said stands true no matter how much you dance around.

and again you took my point and mischaracterized it then claim I am living in a fantasy world.   Why would you do that? 


And no amount of creative writing (which is all you do) will replace hard data that indian tribes had no inflation pressure when trading.  nor will the 14th amendment asswipe you wrote, nor will the cause and effect of the English banking system asswipe, and you point to some kindergarden childs inflation spreadsheet, to say it proves your points?

Not hardly.  Everyone knows that inflation eats at increase, that is not some shit comes out of a wizard, it is shit that is taught by the time you are in 2nd grade.  

yeh but how many people know that with the criteria in the spreadsheet that after 100 years you only make 100 fucking dollars?   Cant even fill you gas tank on it.

Now, all other things aside, and anyone who made a 4% straightline profit a year paid 20% straightline tax a year and suffered 3% straightline inflation a year does not live in this world on in this galaxy. 

doesnt matter.  that is how this stuff works.  if you have a different data set fine hand it over and the result will be the same.  or way worse if you go by todays 1% bank payout, in fact many banks have no interest accounts LOL. 

You see, you have a theoretical idiots arguement there in that spreadsheet. Precisely and especially when compared  to the chart at the top of your post.

Fine then give me your data that you "trust" and I will plug it in, as I have said it will turn out the same or worse.

They have nothing to do with each other, and they have nothing to do with reality if they have nothing to do with each other, one spreadsheet, I should be able to go to the box, and by god it looks like the graph, and corresponds to it. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

lost 55c potential, and gained 220c profit is what it is showing against nothing in the real world.  damn fine spreadsheet, bet the calcs are killers in that. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

lost 55c potential, and gained 220c profit is what it is showing against nothing in the real world.  damn fine spreadsheet, bet the calcs are killers in that. 

which world is the real world in your mind?  calcs for this? simple.  Why do you think I should be running black sholes to demonstrate a fundamental system.....LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

Sorry RO but the math on the sheet is wrong----You are over estimating the effect of the cap gains tax. This is a differencial equation not simple math. The net value of the dollars on the right (inflation adjusted) would mean the left hand side would have to be $1,214. In 100 years you would have outpaced inflation by 20% on your 1000$ investment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

It is nearly more stupid than the washers and paper rings demonstration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

It is nearly more stupid than the washers and paper rings demonstration.

that guy did a great job on that, and I laughed my ass off how it proved the point and none of the lame arguments stood a snowballs chance in hell of defeating it, because its the way real physics works  LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

Sorry RO but the math on the sheet is wrong----You are over estimating the effect of the cap gains tax. This is a differencial equation not simple math. The net value of the dollars on the right (inflation adjusted) would mean the left hand side would have to be $1,214. In 100 years you would have outpaced inflation by 20% on your 1000$ investment.

So then its 214 dollars in 100 years, and you missed the point of how inflation works because a difference of, that is to say even if I were off by 3000 bucks its does nothing to negate the point I am driving at.

Like I said the numbers are right in front of everyone, lets say for the sake of an argument you made 3000 dollars after 100 years, the no inflation still made 20 grand more!