http://www.europac.net/externalframeset.asp?id=18125

From the article, "There isn't an American alive whose parents or grandparents haven't remarked at current price levels and gone on to say, "When I was your age, I only paid a dime for that." As unbelievable as it might seem, that conversation would have been exactly the opposite in 1890. Grandpa would instead be saying, "When I was your age, I had to pay a lot more for that." Today, Americans resign themselves to constantly rising prices as a fact of life. However, that is a phenomenon that has only occurred since the creation of the Fed."

Central banking has destroyed the wealth of Americans. Hopefully Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill will be passed soon.

 

Ron Paul had better get it done quick. He, along with the millions of ordinary Americans who, untill now, haven't said a word about where our government is headed, are being mowed down by the rapidly advancing progressive agenda.

Common sense tells us that it's absolutely necessary to audit the Fed. Radicals see that they have to knock common sense to the ground before too many people notice it.

I think that we'd all learn a lot if the Fed were audited. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

 

Frank - that's a "glittering generality". It may be true in some instances, but it's certainly not true in others.

I recall paying close to $1000.00 for our first microwave oven.

When telephones were first made available, I certainly paid a lot more than the $10 or $15 (or maybe less) that I've been able to get them for in recent times.

TV sets seemed to continually drop in price, until the new flat screens came out and now they're dropping in price too.

DVD players are cheaper and cheaper.

How about computers, computer memory, disk drives, etc. etc.?

And, digital cameras?

Cell phones?

Oh sure, gasoline is more expensive, since it's edging closer to its true cost, and, that effects other items in the transportation chain like food. But don't we expect that?

So please - I doubt there's the simple "cause and effect" relationship you'd like us to swallow here. Things are much more complex.

- Jack

 

Take $100 in 1967.

In 2009, you would need $638.20 to buy the same stuff.

To compare what $100 in 1967 would buy from 1800 on, and to see the annual rate of inflation on a year to year basis, check out the link below

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/commun...c/hist1800.cfm

FWIW, they recently changed the base CPI year from 1967 to 1982-1984. What $100 would buy in 1982-1984 would cost you $220+- in 2009.

 

If you read the complete article, it's a price stability chart. The numbers are from the Federal Reserve. Click on the links at the bottom of the article for the pdf.

Actually, they're not more complex. The Federal Reserve has inflated the currency of the United States since 1914. Were you aware that the Fed even purchased domestic equities and sold them in 1929? They had a hand in causing the stock market crash of 1929. All fiat currencies eventually result in worthless paper bills. There has not been one exception.

As far as gasoline, that all goes back to the environmental reasons why we rarely drill for our own oil, yet the environmentalists keep silent about drilling in other countries. (Yet China is currently drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico) Economists estimate that if we produced our own oil, the price of gasoline would be between 10-20 cents before gas taxes. If you study the issue, you will find that "Peak Oil" is also a myth.

As far as the other products you mentioned. Imagine paying about $100 for that microwave when the technology was new, and then the price dropping from there. That is what the inflationary policies of the Fed have done to the dollars in your pocket. Prices of all products would continually fall from their introduction until they reach a point of equilibrium. Not increasing continually, which is what "central planning" and "central banking" has given us with fiat (paper) currencies.

 

Sneaky sneaky, huh? Gotta love the government's deceptions. Pity some eat it up like candy and ask for more.

 

http://arcticcompass.blogspot.com/20...overnment.html

 

This just goes to show how little the economists know. Not all oil is created equal. There are differing grades, at differing depths, in differing rock formations, with differing drive mechanisms found all over the world; which results in differing (in both cost and method) recovery. Simply put, oil in Saudi flows almost perfect and is in relatively shallow fields. Not to mention there is a ton of it there, so we drill there. Lift all the domestic and foreign regulations on drilling and we'd still be importing most of our oil, its just easier and cheaper. We have a bunch of oil, much of which was "unrecoverable" not too long ago. The oil is either too thick to flow well or so well trapped by the rock formation that we must employ unconventional recovery methods. All this adds up in the price. All in all, if we say we have X barrels of oil and Saudi has Y barrels of oil (still in the ground) we can't always directly compare, which is what I believe your economists were doing.

 

First of all, they're not 'my' economists. Secondly, you attempt to make it sound as if U.S. oil is unrecoverable. It is not true that "if we lift all the domestic and foreign regulations" we'd still be importing "most of our oil". Let me ask you this: Why is China drilling for oil off of our coasts and buying future production from around the world? Do you honestly think that they wouldn't drill on American soil if they could get by with it? They are still making deals with Russia, Iran, and yes, even Iraq to supply more oil for the future. In fact, they are the largest buyer of Iraqi oil. (Foreign Affairs magazine)

North Dakota alone has up to 500 billion barrels of oil, on top of what ANWR has in Alaska and what is in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct...fi-china-oil22

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...news2.13s.html

http://www.anwr.org/features/akeval.htm

 

Do you actually know anything about oil recovery, I am talking first hand experience? I grew up around it and continue to work in the industry today. Oil doesn't just flow from the ground usually, it has to be pumped and that goes for wherever you get it, here or the UAE. All oil is traped in rock formations, thats why the oil is there its in permiable rock. When you drill into the rock you then do a process called "fraking" where you pump down a mixture of sand and water under pressure the rock gets broken up and the sand is left in the void, this allows the oil to flow into the area around the pump. This is not an uncoventional recovery method it is done daily, it is very simple and works well. I am trying to figure what you are talking about but nothing is coming to mind. There is plenty of oil in this country to supply ourselves, if the environuts would let us drill we could drop the price by a ton. I am not saying don't import some oil, because we should however we should produce 75% of what we use ourselves.

 

Well I too have worked in the industry for years. I'm 4th generation oil field worker and am currently finishing my degree in Petroleum Engineering. So I'd say, yes I know what I'm talking about. I know fully well how oil is trapped in the pores in rocks and never said anything to the contrary. I was saying some rocks trap better than others. I've personally been on several fracs, one of which I helped design.
Fracing is not a recovery method, its a completion technique. I was talking about unconventional recovery such as waterflooding, sagd, in-situ, etc. That is required to get the same types of recovery as they do in high perm/strong water drive reservoirs such as those in the Mid East.

 

Well I too have worked in the industry for years. I'm 4th generation oil field worker and am currently finishing my degree in Petroleum Engineering. So I'd say, yes I know what I'm talking about. I know fully well how oil is trapped in the pores in rocks and never said anything to the contrary. I was saying some rocks trap better than others. I've personally been on several fracs, one of which I helped design.
Fracing is not a recovery method, its a completion technique. Do you know the difference between the two? I was talking about unconventional recovery such as waterflooding, sagd, in-situ, etc. That is required to get the same types of recovery as they do in high perm/strong water drive reservoirs such as those in the Mid East.

 

Well its nice to finaly run into someone on here that actually knows anything about the oil field, usually people that post in the threads like this have no idea how the industry works. It is true that some rock traps oil better than others, however there is enough oil in relativly easily accesable locations to greatly lower the cost of our gasoline. We are years away from having to deal with the oil that is very difficult to recover and requires techniques such as waterflooding, however the techniques for recovering this type of oil are improving all the time and will continue to get cheaper and easier to do, not to mention new and easier ways will be found.

BTW yes I know the difference in a recovery method and a completion technique, I was assuming you had no idea what you were talking about and just thought because the oil is in rock that it can't be utilized. I guess I should listen to the old saying about assumptions.

 

Yeah, things might cost more in actual dollars but only a redneck would store money in their mattress for 42 years. I invested my cash and did a lot better than that. It was more than enough to keep up with inflation and build some serious wealth. At least until George Bush took office. During the Bush years I felt lucky if I could break even.

And wages have risen faster than inflation too (until Bush took office).

 

Who is talking about storing money in a mattress? I guess I missed that.

What exactly is a "redneck"? Could you enlighten us?

For someone with your wisdom, you'd think that you would have prospered during the Bush years. That is if you had listened to the people who were warning us about the bursting of the housing bubble.

I don't know a ton about the stock market, but from what I can see, the .com bubble burst at the end of the '90s. The stock market dropped off for a couple of years after that. It then climbed for years, up around four thousand points from the low of the .com bust. Up around two thousand points from the previous high. There has been the potential to make some serious money in the stock market over the past decade. Like I said, I don't know too much about the stock market but I'd think that someone who does would have done pretty well while Bush was president.

During the later years of Bush, we were all talking about how much the value of our houses had increased over the past few years. Anyone using common sense should have been able to tell that the prices were inflated. Our humble home did not more than double in value since we bought it in '01, but many people belived that their houses had doubled in value. I don't know much about the stock market but I could see that the inflated value of our homes had to come to an end, even though politicians were telling us that the market was sound. We were warned well in advance about what did eventually happen.

How are you doing now, under Obama? Better than the Bush years?