84 votes

The math of your slavery.

[Thanks again to all. The math is complete! I just need to plugin and hookup all the footnotes. I promise to do that as soon as I can. In the meantime, if you have any questions on a specific line, please ask. Also, if you think of any costs that I forgot, or have an issue with one of my figures, please let me know.]

Your slavery is well hidden. Not everyone understands it when I say that the government steals 70%+ of your life because they haven't seen the math. So I am going to break this down for everyone. I will try to reference sources where possible. Instead of going into long explanations for each item, I will foot note the explanations.

Before I go into it though, something which you need to understand is that no one up the food chain pays for anything. All extra costs and expenses are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, so you may not understand that $3 of that milk price is government theft, but it is.

Also, I am not going to differentiate between local, state, and federal taxation. It is all government theft and I see no reason to make a distinction.

Average Household Gross Income : $62,857.00+
Federal Income 25% Bracket (-----) : $ 6,876.00-
Estimated State Tax Bracket ( 5%) : $ 3,142.00-
Social Security Tax (12.4%) : $ 7,794.00-
Unemployment insurance, etc ( 2%) : $ 1,257.00-

---
So your estimated "net" is : $43,788.00+
Inflation*1 ( 10%) : $ 4,378.00-
Sales Tax ( 6%) : $ 2,364.54-
Compliance SOX* ( 0.1%) : $ 43.00-
Compliance General ( 0.5%) : $ 218.00-
---
Adjusted Spendable "wealth" : $36,784.00+
---

[Vehicle Ownership]
Gov Taxes Vehicle Ownership : $ 200.00-
Gov Extortion(1 ticket/y) : $ 300.00-
Gov Mandate (Insurance $150/m) : $ 1800.00-
Fed Fuel Tax ($.495/g, 15g/w) : $ 386.00-

After Vehicle Taxes/Theft : $34,098.00+

[Housing Costs]
Property Taxes ($150k@1.5%) : $ 2250.00-
Ordinance Compliance*2 ($5k/y@2%) : $ 100.00-
Trash/Water Service (used or not) : $ 480.00-

After Housing Taxes/Theft : $31,529.00+

Wow, we haven't even fed ourselves and the government has already looted around 50% in DIRECT and easy to understand costs. Just wait until we get to the indirect costs!

[General Living]
Food Price Controls* ($300/m@10%) : $ 360.00-
1 Week Vacation (Hotel $100/n@15%) : $ 105.00-
School Supplies (2 Children $100/c) : $ 200.00-
Utility Taxes ($300/m@10%) : $ 360.00-

Which brings our total wealth to : $30,504.00+

Whew... That's it right? It's been rough but we seem to still have some left. First, you have to remember that the above is JUST what government takes, forces, or controls. That doesn't include ANYTHING tangible, just the taxes on tangible goods and services! And unfortunately, we aren't done.

[More pain]
Healthcare Mandate (Family Plan) : $14,700.00-
(Or if you opt for the fee, it can be considerable but somewhat cheaper!)

Government taxation and compliance however is not a "specific" cost. It, in fact, has would I call a 10% life. At each stage, it has an impact. For instance, when you buy a stereo, you are also paying for fuel taxes in transportation, tariffs on import, regulation and compliance overhead for that company. Who in turn, is paying the same costs for their suppliers, etc. The ability to calculate this 10% life in the form of higher prices is almost impossible in complexity. But given the number of hands that these things pass through before you ever see it, I think it is more than fair to take off about 10% of our initial "Adjusted Spendable Income" of 36,784.00 creating a cost of $3,678.00.

Actual wealth after gov interference to : $12,126.00

In closing, I want to say this. What prompted me to do the math is that when I started to do well ($60k range), my friends who were still making 15-20k looked at me like I was rich, but for some reason, I always seemed to be just as bad or worse off than them. Some of the math is impossible to know, and so where there is no clear answer, I made a conservative guess.

So in actuality, you are only circulating about $12k if you make/spend 60. The rest belongs to our masters. And don't even get me started on the corporate masters which take away what little is left.

I have no clear way to correctly estimate what the cost of goods and services would be without this interference but what I can say is that they leave you with only 19.2% of your initial "wealth".

This is why we can't have nice things. :)

Various Sources:

http://fairmark.com/reference/index.htm

http://budgeting.thenest.com/average-american-household-budg...

http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-individual-income-tax...

http://www.ehow.com/how_4828711_calculate-social-security-ta...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax#United_States

http://www.auditnet.org/articles/Sarbanes-Oxley_Implementati...

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/falling-prices-why-is-...

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-24/health/health.care.penalt...

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/15/business/fi-hiltzik15

Edit:
Thanks to Dr.No for pointing out that I had left off an inflation chart from the references:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Interesting. Needs Clarity.

Well, standard of living, like all economics, is qualitative, not quantitative, thus calculations can't really reveal anything extra about reality, the attempt can surely getthe reader to imagine all sorts of cool stuff he could have bought if there were no gov't!

Having said that, taxes can't be "passed" on to consumers directly. To prove it, I offer the following thought: If a business could reap a larger total income by raising its price, it is NOT going to wait for a tax to be levied.

I get what you're saying, though. The loss in income to the entity paying the tax, like all other "costs" gets imputed "backwards" to the original factors of production(ie:ground rent, interest, and wages).

I think you might need a little more detailed explanation of the concept, else a reader might get the idea that a company can recoup the tax money simply by raising it's price. It might be best to state that taxes decrease your REAL wages, and avoid the whole "passing taxes to the customer" chimera.

It's always worthwhile to remind people that Prices Determine Costs, not the other way around.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Incomplete Calculations?

1.
Calling that which criminals do...

2.
Failing to add the relative cost of what can be done in cases where criminals are not making crime pay so well.

To say that government does this or that, to me, is the most destructive tax paid by the wallowing, helpless, and powerless victims.

The criminals claim that their thoughts and actions constitute government and so the victims keep on investing into crime made legal with smiles on their faces?

Supposing that the criminals who invent, produce, and maintain this false government are accurately accounted in precise numerical values and to do so it is understood that the standard unit of purchasing power is agreed upon, voluntarily, then that net cost to those who produce anything worth stealing is like an stainless steel rod driven into the ground to mark that well earned victory over falsehood.

Here lies the number that represents the accurate, true, honest, factual cost paid by the victims to the criminals who took over government.

How about a starting point?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The obvious problems there are such that those people who claim to be the authorities are known liars. Not only that the actual numbers are categorically false, to a point of insanity. Not only that the standard of value is not a standard of value and instead of a standard of value the unit of measure is a demonstrable crime of fraud combined with a demonstrable crime of extortion that is minute by minute, day by day, year by year, demonstrated by the criminals who took over the Power of money and the Power of government whereby both powers can be offered in a Free Market, and instead both Powers are monopolized by those criminals perpetrated those crimes they define as they perpetrate those crimes.

So...what may be the final, irrefutable, known, realized, understood, actual, real, precise, accurate, cost of sending everything worth stealing to the criminals who then use that stolen loot to steal more, that number, once known, is not even half of the story.

The other half of the story is the story that is defined by honest, productive, people working, trading equitably, in Liberty.

Instead of FUNDING World War, what could be invested in, to get more bang for the buck, if free people are no longer slaves?

So, supposing that the apologists for criminal government were to agree upon a actual cost, a number, as if admitting, yes, your failure to stop paying the criminals better for their ability to injure you, cost you this much, supposing that the apologists for criminal government did that, saying yes, here is the number, that is still merely scratching the surfaces as to the true cost, since each kilo/watt hour of POWER taken from productive employment, whereby that POWER is used to destroy, is 1 more unit of POWER that could increase the standard of living, and lower the cost of living for anyone caring to do so in Liberty.

Joe

wolfe's picture

Yes.

The numbers are incomplete because I limited myself to what I could reasonably explain. I also ignored the "purpose" of the expense and only reviewed the cost side to avoid "double dipping" my numbers.

Basically, I wanted it to be on the conservative side of everything.

But generally I don't disagree with your statements at all.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

In the footsteps of TP

Tom Paine?

On that note there is another angle of accounting whereby the effort adds up the collective cost, and again that is the dark side of things, having no mirror reflection to the other side, which is not half the measure, since one side is merely destructive, and therefore limited to all that can be destroyed, while the other side is unlimited as being that which can be done with that which is available.

Dealing with 300 million people, the actual total cost is measurable with 13 zeros.

So, in an abstract way, if I use the word abstract correctly, the cost to an average standard of living is in the trillions over time.

How much time?

The point is that it costs trillions to buy wars, persecute wars, world wide.

If those same trillions were employed productively, it seems to me, I could be vacationing on Mars by now.

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_FD...
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

Buying wars with Stolen Loot is routine at this point.

Failing to see that which is routine is a bad habit?

Joe

actuallly

most families pay no income tax on the first $30k if you make $60k you pay $20k so your taxed at %60 on the second half of the earnings.

R3ovlUTION charles walker 8322474577

wolfe's picture

Please review the income tax tables.

That data came straight from the IRS.

They admittedly try to make it complex and confusing to keep people from figuring out all of the details. I don't recall whether I used 2010 or 2011 tables. The link will probably show which I used.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Could not find the IRS links

Could not find the IRS links in your post.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Hey thanks wolfe!

That was awesome.
I always estimated it at 65% without breaking down.
One thing you perhaps left out. The interest that we pay is on loans made out of nothing by a branch of the government - the bank. If the bank actually had the money and had to part with it I could see paying interest, but when banks pull it from their butts with the government's permission I have an issue with it.

thank you for enlightening

and depressing me in one fell swoop, dude
I had more cabbage as a preteen cutting yards than I do today
The old addage - You brought nothing into this life and you'll take nothing when you leave - oh and by the way, we'll take what you think you have and leave you destitute. who changed this and when?

tasmlab's picture

Nice analysis - but

When I started earning over $200K my accountant and (then) lawyer came up with the standard plan that draws federal income tax down to 14% of income.

And then if you actually get like Mitt Romney rich, the sales tax and property tax become more marginal compared to income.

But I agree if you make more than $35K and less than $250k or so, you really get brutalized. Everyone gets brutalized (poor and rich alike), but the middle of the pack (most people) gets it stuck to them HARD.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

wolfe's picture

You are absolutely correct...

When I jumped from $80K to $100K, my lifestyle didn't go up 20%, it doubled. Because general living (today), requires around 60 minimum, and 80 to enjoy life, but that extra $20 on top made it feel like I doubled my income in terms of the possibilities it opened up, and ability to make my bills, etc.

These numbers (20, 60, 80, 100) etc are all historic for me and so may have also been associated with specific "bubbles" and things. That is purely anecdotal.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

And it's gone.

And it's gone.

And It's Gone!

Cyril's picture

If you think that's bad...

If you think that's bad, I can tell you two things, numbered #1 and #2, along with an accessory clue #3, from my own experience and point of view:

1. yes, it is quite bad, agreed;

2. I'be got bad news for you : you ain't seen nothing yet, "they" can "do" (read: plunder) a lot more before people ever get to realize and complain about the fraud seriously;

3. accessory clue:

move to France, open a business, or just become a skilled employee, and try to make a decent living out of it, in good mood, and some sense of fulfillment...

You'll be back here...

In NO time.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

wolfe's picture

Agreed on all counts...

As far as France. I don't have personal experience with it, but I have caught enough news stories here and there to get an idea.

People will tolerate just about anything up to the point of threatening their very survival, and even then will sometimes allow it to continue.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

You are grossly overstating

You are grossly overstating the effects of inflation. Also, I don't quite consider Social Security or Medicare the same as the income tax, as your literally, with few exceptions, get your social security benefit based on how much you paid into the system.

It is a forced savings plan because people do not take care of themselves. And when they don't, better they rely on the savings government forced them to make rather than on the public dime.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

wolfe's picture

Incorrect.

The government grossly understates inflation. You are more than welcome to review my sources and comments on that.

As far as SS. It is not a "savings" plan. If you saved money at the rate of SS, you would die a multimillionaire. Instead, you are handed a few scraps to eek out life if you manage to live long enough, with no direct access to it. That is NOT a savings plan.

Further, if you adjust for inflation on the money paid in, vs what you receive at the end, it isn't even but the tiniest fraction. So I get 2 cents back from every dollar and you think that is a valid savings plan?

The point wasn't that no services were made available via this extortion, as in some cases, there are (car insurance). It was to document how little control you have over your own money, and are allowed to spent as you see fit.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

It was a bad day when I

It was a bad day when I calculated how much money I would have for retirement if I put all the money I have stolen from me for SS and put it into an interest bearing savings account.

Not that it really matters, I am 25 and will consider myself lucky if there is even still an America much less anything left in the SS fund by the time I am 65...

And they wonder why nobody in my generation saves for the future when we barely have enough to enjoy today.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

I looked at the many sources

I looked at the many sources you published; I could find nothing that shows that inflation is 10%/year.

In fact, look at how much things cost today vs. a year ago, or ten years ago, or 50 years ago. Then, look at how much wages/household income/GDP-per-capita have gone up in that same time.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I have to disagree here

I don't look at big government numbers when looking at cost vs income - I just look at my life and experiences.

My first "on the books" job came when I was 14(1987 give or take) - bagging at a super market - getting paid just under 5 bucks and hour - once moved to cashier I was in the 6-7 dollar range(and funny as it may seem-it was an afl-cio union store - so I got paid time and a half on Sundays when I was 15). Gas in 87 was under a buck. A NEW car was under 10,000.00 - average - so economy car would be 7000 or so). And on and on.

My dad made "decent" money in the early 80's - somewhere in the 50's range - maybe 60000 with a bonus. He bought our brand new house in a suburb in 73 for something like 60000 thousand dollars. We were a low middle class family in a low middle class neighborhood - cops, teachers, blue collar workers, truck drivers etc.

Lets look at today.
Gas - 4 plus today in CT
My parents house could sell for high 200's
I just leased a Hyundai - not exactly luxury here - sticker was around 25000

That is quadruple the cost.

Go be a cashier today in the market - you get minimum wage of 8.50 - barely more than I made in 87- by market standard - baggers should start at 16 an hour - then get moved to 24 as a cashier. Good luck.
How many people out their would LOVE to make 60000.00 today??

If income was keeping up - people would look at 50,000 dollars as starting pay for a dead end job- not "maybe someday" pay.

I don't know much about gdp and cpi and all that - I just know people today are not making a lot more than they were 20 years ago but the everyday things like gas and housing have gone WAY up.

My guess is this - the cpi and income numbers are skewed. My guess is that milk is the same price as 1987(2.28 per gallon vs 2.50) - but it is only that price because I am paying for the inflation through tax subsidies instead of at the market. I am also guessing that the average income is higher because those million dollar salaries REALLY bring up those averages. The top earners make such disproportionate amounts - it just appears the regular worker is making more.

Maybe the keyword is "things" - Walmart gadgets are probably cheap relatively speaking - but I will go back to my parents house:

The tax bill ALONE now is MORE than the original piti payment.

You realize that 60,000 in

You realize that 60,000 in 1980 would put you at around times the national median household income? Today, 60,000 is just 10,000 more than the median. 60,000 is actually in a tax bracket that confiscated, just at the federal level, more than 22% in taxes effectively (not even including social security) assuming, your parents filed jointly. Today, at 60,000 of taxable income, you will get taxed at ~8-9%, for just the income tax, again assuming you jointly file.

"Lets look at today.
Gas - 4 plus today in CT
My parents house could sell for high 200's
I just leased a Hyundai - not exactly luxury here - sticker was around 25000

That is quadruple the cost"

Yet Median income has gone up around 4-5x since 1980. In fact, the main asset you list, your house, woudl only cost ~3x as much today.

The Hyndai you leased is also a much, much better car, technically, than a car purchased in the 1980s.

"Go be a cashier today in the market - you get minimum wage of 8.50 - barely more than I made in 87- by market standard - baggers should start at 16 an hour - then get moved to 24 as a cashier. Good luck.
How many people out their would LOVE to make 60000.00 today??"

This is something you have touched on, that is true. In general, over the past 30 years, the lower-middle class has been squeezed very toughly. That is because the government used to help the lower middle class by helping them cheat the market. Now, they don't. That is why federal minimum wage was flat for the longest time, why the government helped bust unions, etc.

The other issue, is that the labor market has changed. It has become much more competitive. A college degree is no longer exclusive. The least skilled workers in America, used to still be amongst the top 5%, give or take, of all workers in the world. Today, they are probably easily out of the top 10%. A lot of that is simply due to everyone else getting better.

"My guess is this - the cpi and income numbers are skewed. My guess is that milk is the same price as 1987(2.28 per gallon vs 2.50) - but it is only that price because I am paying for the inflation through tax subsidies instead of at the market."

I pointed the other poster to the MIT billion prices project, which largely agrees with the CPI numbers.

The federal goverment (just the federal government) paid 265 billion in food subsidies between 1980 and 1989. In comparison, between 1995 and 2009, they spent 245 billion. So in terms of dollars, the feds gave more in the 80s. In terms of dollars/GDP, they gave way, way more in the 80s. In terms of dollar/income, constant dollars, etc., they gave way, way, more in the 980s.

"I am also guessing that the average income is higher because those million dollar salaries REALLY bring up those averages. The top earners make such disproportionate amounts - it just appears the regular worker is making more. "

Well, the Median salary is around 50,000 while average is around 40,000, IIRC. Median salary tends to iron out the extremes. I would argue that it is a lot of bototm-feeders who are dragging the average down.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

wolfe's picture

Sure...

How much has gas gone up in a year? How much has food gone up in a year? CPI ignores those data elements. And yes, unless the links are broken, one in there does cover the 10% figure.

The comparison between metals average and the dollar gives an accurate reflection of "inflation". Inflation is no more or less than the devaluation of the dollar.

Convert dollars to silver today, then that silver back to dollars 60 years ago, and you will find that it will buy approximately the same amount of food. The difference between the number of dollars is inflation since the food/silver ratio is virtually one to one.

If your $5.00 meal has only gone up $.50 in the last year, then you are lucky.

Inflation is NOT the measure of "price" though, it is the measure of the value of the dollar. The use of the CPI is to confuse that issue.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Gas prices have been stable

Gas prices have been stable this year, at least where I live.

No, the comparison between metals and the dollar does not give an accurate reflection of inflation. Because gold and silver do not rise and fall based on the value of the dollar/price/money supply alone. They fall and rise based on many things.

For example, gold between 1808 and 2000 was up about 15x. You are a fool if you think that the money supply was only up 15x since that time, or that inflation was only 15x since that time.

Conversely, gold has gone up about 4x since 2000. You are a fool if you think that the money supply (M3) has quadrupled over that time, or if the value of your money has been chopped to a quarter.

Lastly, the price of gold has fallen about 400 dollars in the past year. Has the money supply shrunk? No. Has there been deflation? No.

The problem with the CPI, is that it gauges inflation by looking at how the market buys a product. In some ways, this minimizes inflation, and in other ways, it makes it looks worse than it really is. For example, a jumbo jet, let us say, costs 100 million. 10 people buy them each year, again, let us say. So the CPI would sya that the cost of jumbo jets on the econommy this year was 1 billion. Next year, there is a great technological invention that brings the cost of the jet to 1 million. With the reduced cost, 10,000 are purchased. The CPI would say that the total cost of jets on the economy was 10 billion, and that there was a price inflation of 900% on the price of jets to the overall economy. The CPI ignores the fact that the price/jet is actually down; that is what causes the increased economy cost since more people can buy it.

Conversely, look at food. According to CPI, the price of a single weight of orange has stayed same from 1980 to 2010. But crtics will rightfully point out that today's orange is not the same. It has less nutrients, tastes much worse, and is loaded with pesticides and poisions. The CPI would argue that the consumer-base has accepted the mass-produced orange as the equivalent of the 1980 orange, as judged by their purchasing habits. Even though, we know that it is a practically different product.

Also, inflation is the measure of the change in the value of the dollar, whose value is determined by the price of things. That tells you the actual value of the dollar.

I would like to see this food/silver ratio (and why ignore the food/gold ratio, whatever that may be?)

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

wolfe's picture

There are external fluctuations in metals.

Associated with supply and demand, however, historically, silver has remained the most stable measure. Gold markets have been cornered and have a more fluctuating history due to panics, supply/shortage spikes, etc.

Clearly you did not do the conversion that I suggested you do. I have done for multiple time periods, using averaged out prices and is solid.

Stating the CPI as your reference immediately disqualifies you from credibility. The CPI excludes all high turnover items, which are the first/primary indications of inflation and effect the average person more than any other cost, such as food and fuel.

Further, your statement about "Oranges" is dramatically misleading. You are inferring that food is used in the Core CPI for inflationary calcs which is not true. The prices of oranges are irrelevant to the CPI as are other food items.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Consumer_Price_I...

You act as if the CPI isn't effected by other measures (such as falling electronics prices due to improved efficiency in the market, etc).

You can do the math on the Silver/Dollar/Food yourself pretty easily.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I never said that the CPI is

I never said that the CPI is my reference, although I would put much more faith in its calculations in your made-up numbers.

What is your mesaure of "food prices"?

Hell, the price of silver has fallen since 1980 in absolute terms. Are you arguing that the price of food has fallen and the value of the dollar has increased since 1980?

Hell, silver has lost half its value in the past two years. I guess we've had 50% deflation since then?

The price of silver was incredibly stable between 1985 and 2005, IIRC. Was there no inflation in that time? Was the value of the dollar stable?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

wolfe's picture

So the government's bullshit number...

is better than, you say "my bullshit" number?

My metals approach is best averaged over the years to account for weird spikes, and it is not always accurate due to other factors, as we have covered, but is far more accurate than the Core CPI will ever be.

In 1930 $0.12 purchased a loaf of bread. Calculated against it's silver content (90%), that was worth about $2.00 in today's silver market.

Not sure about you, but that is about what I pay for my bread. Give or take based on coupons, etc.

Here are some prices to look at.
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/70yearsofpricechange.html

Is it always accurate? No. Is it better working with a softened average to account for spikes/dips. Yes. Is it more accurate than what the government tells us, yes.

Silver has a fixed value that is effected by supply/demand principles only that are fairly flat. The USD is what loses value via inflation.

And for the record, if you looked, I didn't even pull 10% from my metals approach. I pulled it from a site that included food/fuel and came to around a 12% inflation rate. I rounded down to by conservative.

You point to the CPI to say that my figure is wrong, and provide no alternative calculation to support that my figure is wrong. The only way you can possibly come up with such a low number IS to use the CPI, which you have repeatedly referenced as your source for inflation numbers.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

"And for the record, if you

"And for the record, if you looked, I didn't even pull 10% from my metals approach. I pulled it from a site that included food/fuel and came to around a 12% inflation rate. I rounded down to by conservative."

Which link? I looked at all the links in your opening post and couldn't find it. Instead of saying you had posted it, why don't you post a link right here?

"You point to the CPI to say that my figure is wrong, and provide no alternative calculation to support that my figure is wrong."

I provided plenty. I showed you how the in many years there was no correlatoin between price, money supply, gold, and silver.

"The only way you can possibly come up with such a low number IS to use the CPI, which you have repeatedly referenced as your source for inflation numbers."

I have actually never stated a single inflation number. But the CPI generally notes mild inflation year after year. That, I believe, because that is what the facts tell me. Price level and CPI's inflation correlate very well because the CPI bases its inflation statistics on price level. Have you ever read a report from the BLS? It is incredibly well done and thorough. Even Shadow Stats's inflation calculations basically mirror the CPI's, with a raise on the y-axis....and shadow stats freely admits that they don't factor in hedonic models....you know, because math is HARD.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

wolfe's picture

"I provided plenty. I showed

"I provided plenty. I showed you how the in many years there was no correlatoin between price, money supply, gold, and silver."

No, that is actually fuzzy/feelings based math you provided in the sense that you only provide one half of a number, overly generalized without following through to show inaccuracy.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

Calculating inflation according to the OLD standard (prior to 1980), prior to removing "items that make the government look bad", clearly shows a 12% increase in 2011.

I added that link to the top because you were right, I had forgotten to post it originally. I had a lot of material that I went through to come up with math, and never got a chance to finish posting it all.

So, despite the fact that you call 10% insane, it's exactly the way it was calculated until 1980, and then changed again in 1990 in an effort to further minimize the appearance of inflation until we now have a "mild inflation" every year according to the numbers regardless of actual cost of living.

And that is the number I used and stand by it as the best compromise data available. My metals approach, I find interesting and has won more than a few converts as they go through the process themselves (including a mathematician friend of mine) but I did not use it for this article.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

"Calculating inflation

"Calculating inflation according to the OLD standard (prior to 1980), prior to removing "items that make the government look bad", clearly shows a 12% increase in 2011."

First of all, shadow stats is utter bunk. All they do is add a pre-determine value to every CPI-derived value. Literally. Why do you think the grahpos can practically be laid on top of each other?

And it isn't the items that make the government look bad. It is using advanced statistical modeling to adjust for standard of living.

Here, look at the Billion Prices Project at MIT:
http://bpp.mit.edu/usa/

That number matches closely with the CPI number.

"So, despite the fact that you call 10% insane, it's exactly the way it was calculated until 1980, and then changed again in 1990 in an effort to further minimize the appearance of inflation until we now have a "mild inflation" every year according to the numbers regardless of actual cost of living."

Again, shadowstats doesn't even bother calculating the number for each year. They just add a value to the CPI-calculated value and churn something out:

http://azizonomics.com/2013/06/01/the-trouble-with-shadowstats/

Literally, here is what Shadowstats does: "I’m not going back and recalculating the CPI. All I’m doing is going back to the government’s estimates of what the effect would be and using that as an ad factor to the reported statistics.”"

"My metals approach, I find interesting and has won more than a few converts as they go through the process themselves (including a mathematician friend of mine) but I did not use it for this article."

Good for the mathematician. Again, it doesn't make any sense. The correlation is too weak; there are too many outliers. After all, gold and silver are not legally tied to the dollar

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

wolfe's picture

That's the point.

"Good for the mathematician. Again, it doesn't make any sense. The correlation is too weak; there are too many outliers. After all, gold and silver are not legally tied to the dollar."

It removes the dollar from both sides so that it can be seen independently. You do see why that matters? So long as the value of the dollar in relation to itself is what you are attempting to calculate, then you must find a reasonable mechanism to isolate it. The CPI does this by averaging pieces of data that make it look favorable. The old system, did it in a more honest fashion.

The metals approach eliminates more variables than even the old CPI does. If you want to prove it wrong, do the math, and prove me wrong, but simply saying you "think" I am wrong is not good enough. In fact, the data you have put out there, claiming it debunks my metals approach, actually prove it, if you took the time to go do it.

Shadowstats mechanism is -not- throwing on some random number. Your quote doesn't even come close to saying that, but once again you attempt to infer something without out right lying about it.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/