On 10/2/2010 7:21 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
On Oct 2, 8:06 pm, John wrote:
On 10/2/2010 5:32 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:

...
who is ignoring that. wages have risen along with prices. gold goes
up in price, gold falls in price. suckers who bought gold in the early
80's, still have not recouped their losses. its a poor investment,
pays no dividends, makes no income, and is only valuable for
electronics and jewelery.

Regards,
JS

Wrong, again ... up until the 1960's, or around there, it was
universally known in America, the rule, "A fair days pay for a fair days
work." This is no longer so ...



what does that have to do with the price of gold.


Minimum wage, still in 1970, would buy you about 10 gallons of gas--it
was $1.65 p/hr; Gas is now 10x as much. A fair 1 bedroom apartment
would run you ~$80.00 a month--utilities included; Today, it would cost
you in excess of 10x as much. A nice new car would run you
$1,800-$2,000; Today, a car of "equal" value would be 10x as much.


yes wages have fallen, it has nothing to do with fiat currency, or
gold. it has to do with a rising economic aristocracy.


The point to all the above? For minimum wage to have kept up with
inflation, minimum would have to be ~$16.50 p/hr.



so. that still does not mean a thing about fiat currencies and gold.


Now, I believe minimum wage is less than 1/2 of that ... only a fool
would attempt to sell, as fact, that wages have kept any where near the
rate of inflation. Sell that chit to some fool ... real wages have even
suffered worse!



wages are a problem. demand is wage driven, deflation is a lack of
demand. as long as wages are not addressed, assets and prices will
fall, including gold. gold has nothing to do with wages. i think this
stuff is way over your head. no wonder the gold bugs are plundering
you.


Regards,
JS


It is thinking like yours that got us here ... you go on ahead. I think
enough know what to do now ...

Regards,
JS