re: Printed money seems to coincide with cultural rot

quote:

---

quote:
Calculate the rise in median family income relative to the rise in money supply from earliest measured date to 1990. Then apply that same multiplier to the total rise in money supply from 1990 to today and give me what the median household income would be

What? The median household income is not supposed to be proportionate to the money supply. You should ask Grok to tell you what it would be had it grown at the rate of your rose bush.

---

The first obvious question is "why not"

But I didnt ask Grok to calculate it based of money supply. I asked it to determine how much median household income grew relative to money supply from 1957(earliest record of M2) to 1990...then apply that multiplier to the change in M2(money supply) from 1990 to current day

quote:

---

You couldnt even understand the simple metric I used. You are a simpleton

---

I understood it and proposed one equally valid.

Ya don't remember who was sitting upfront during the Trump's inauguration.. A bunch of oligarchs.

It makes me think of the parallels with the cultural rot and scandals amongst the elite of ancient Rome and how they debased silver currency. Right around the time Nero played the fiddle to a burning city, Rome began watering down the denarius, mixing cheaper copper into the silver just to keep the checks cleared for the military and all the bread/circus distractions and in order to keep the public quiet. Silver debasement went from nearly pure silver to being more copper than silver over many decades of debasement. Basically devaluing it slowly, not unlike how the dollar has been hollowed out since the early 1900s. We even doubled down on Rome’s symbols by choosing the eagle. It’s a proud bird, sure, but there is a lot of decent Biblical speculation that we became like Rome. Sometimes I think maybe we should have listened to Franklin and gone with the turkey, as something a bit more grounded bird that actually stands on its own ground.

And yet, the median household income went up from $55,000 in 1960 to $80,000 today (in inflation adjusted dollars), Americans are still the richest people on the planet except for citizens of small boutique financial countries like Switzerland.

And poor people today live better than the lower half of the middle class in 1960...meaning that today they have more material comfort and more access to luxury items and services, live longer due to better health care, have access to technology that even financial elites didn't have access to in 1960, and the quality of housing and transportation and appliances are much better now.

And the people at the top of that wealth gap pyramid are the people who have been responsible for that increase in quality of life. Not all of the in that category contributed, but everyone who contributed is in that category.

The wailing and crying and whining of populists never ends, but I wonder how many would take having a median income of $230,000 instead of $80,000, but the tradeoff is that the only cars that were available were 1960s spec vehicles, houses were 50% smaller and not nearly as well appointed like they were back then, cell phones didn't exist, the internet didn't exist, computers still took up an entire small room and had the capability of a tiny fraction of a smart phone, central AC was rare, everybody typed with an actual typewriter, there were no answering machines, DVD players, streaming, social media, GPS, heart caths, hip replacements, advanced cancer treatments, etc., etc., etc.

My kids when they were toddlers didn't whine like bitch-arse populists.

quote:

---

Well you are a marxist, so lying is basically your forte

---

Ahh, the longtime Reagan Republican is a Marxist. There is a certain logic to that.

quote:

---

My kids when they were toddlers didn't whine like bitch-arse populists.

---

Hopefully they wont support generational theft like their welfare queen father