more do you know what it is - yes or no?
-
4 of 7 respondents knew what "fractional reserve banking is"! IMO, this is pretty good for software developers. I've asked about 30 people up here in Canada, most with university educations (and even one titled senior bank business consultant) and not a single person knew what it means. So here are a few more questions. Up here in Canada, I draw a blank face when I ask them. Yes/No Question #2: Each generation in Canada and the US sees a large decrease in the buying power of its currency (i.e. inflation). In 1963 the average price of a home in the US was $30,000. In 2010 the average prices was #221,800. Is this inflation largely caused by fractional reserve banking? Yes/No Question #3: Is fractional reserve banking one of the primary causes/drivers of the US national debt? Yes/No Question #4: Is the Federal Reserve in the US a government institution? These are the last of the questions
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
In 1963 the average price of a home in the US was $30,000.
Your link says $19,500 In the UK: House Prices Data Download | Nationwide[^] It was £3,000 in '63, £231,000 in 2017. Seems like the £ devalued a lot!
-
4 of 7 respondents knew what "fractional reserve banking is"! IMO, this is pretty good for software developers. I've asked about 30 people up here in Canada, most with university educations (and even one titled senior bank business consultant) and not a single person knew what it means. So here are a few more questions. Up here in Canada, I draw a blank face when I ask them. Yes/No Question #2: Each generation in Canada and the US sees a large decrease in the buying power of its currency (i.e. inflation). In 1963 the average price of a home in the US was $30,000. In 2010 the average prices was #221,800. Is this inflation largely caused by fractional reserve banking? Yes/No Question #3: Is fractional reserve banking one of the primary causes/drivers of the US national debt? Yes/No Question #4: Is the Federal Reserve in the US a government institution? These are the last of the questions
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
I didn't actually 'know' the answer to #1, but made an educated guess that turned out to be correct. #2 - no, there are far too many other factors that affect inflation. #3 - sometimes, but again there are far too many factors. #4 - yes, but semi-independent.
-
4 of 7 respondents knew what "fractional reserve banking is"! IMO, this is pretty good for software developers. I've asked about 30 people up here in Canada, most with university educations (and even one titled senior bank business consultant) and not a single person knew what it means. So here are a few more questions. Up here in Canada, I draw a blank face when I ask them. Yes/No Question #2: Each generation in Canada and the US sees a large decrease in the buying power of its currency (i.e. inflation). In 1963 the average price of a home in the US was $30,000. In 2010 the average prices was #221,800. Is this inflation largely caused by fractional reserve banking? Yes/No Question #3: Is fractional reserve banking one of the primary causes/drivers of the US national debt? Yes/No Question #4: Is the Federal Reserve in the US a government institution? These are the last of the questions
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
es/No Question #2: Each generation in Canada and the US sees a large decrease in the buying power of its currency (i.e. inflation). In 1963 the average price of a home in the US was $30,000. In 2010 the average prices was #221,800.
This data does not mean anything unless you also include average incomes. And then, it still does not mean too much as averages often don't tell the story very well. It's easier to buy a home now than it was in the 60s.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
es/No Question #2: Each generation in Canada and the US sees a large decrease in the buying power of its currency (i.e. inflation). In 1963 the average price of a home in the US was $30,000. In 2010 the average prices was #221,800.
This data does not mean anything unless you also include average incomes. And then, it still does not mean too much as averages often don't tell the story very well. It's easier to buy a home now than it was in the 60s.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
:thumbsup:
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
es/No Question #2: Each generation in Canada and the US sees a large decrease in the buying power of its currency (i.e. inflation). In 1963 the average price of a home in the US was $30,000. In 2010 the average prices was #221,800.
This data does not mean anything unless you also include average incomes. And then, it still does not mean too much as averages often don't tell the story very well. It's easier to buy a home now than it was in the 60s.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
The question is not about the ease of purchasing homes in different decades. The question is asking you if there is a relationship between inflation and fractional reserve banking, where the latter largely accounts for the former. Regardless of what you argue, $100 today does not buy what $100 bought in 1963.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
The question is not about the ease of purchasing homes in different decades. The question is asking you if there is a relationship between inflation and fractional reserve banking, where the latter largely accounts for the former. Regardless of what you argue, $100 today does not buy what $100 bought in 1963.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
The question is not about the ease of purchasing homes in different decades.
You wrote:
Quote:
the US sees a large decrease in the buying power of its currency
and then gave stats on home prices. I was addressing that statement, not the question that followed it.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
The question is not about the ease of purchasing homes in different decades. The question is asking you if there is a relationship between inflation and fractional reserve banking, where the latter largely accounts for the former. Regardless of what you argue, $100 today does not buy what $100 bought in 1963.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Regardless of what you argue, $100 today does not buy what $100 bought in 1963.
Of course that is true. One can get a moderately decent cell phone now for $100. In 1963, not so much. In 2013 there were 300,000+ books published in the US. And some claim it is 1 million now. It 1966 it was 30,000. Presumably a lot less Manga and D&D serializations could be had for $100 in 1963. The State of Publishing: U.S. Book Production - McSweeney’s Internet Tendency[^] I bet cigarettes were really low priced and I think kids could even buy them (if the shop keepers allowed it.) Course the survival rate for lung cancer was dismal but live and learn right?
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
The question is asking you if there is a relationship between inflation and fractional reserve banking, where the latter largely accounts for the former.
The answer is that simplistic explanations for human endeavors is always, 100% of the time, wrong.
-
4 of 7 respondents knew what "fractional reserve banking is"! IMO, this is pretty good for software developers. I've asked about 30 people up here in Canada, most with university educations (and even one titled senior bank business consultant) and not a single person knew what it means. So here are a few more questions. Up here in Canada, I draw a blank face when I ask them. Yes/No Question #2: Each generation in Canada and the US sees a large decrease in the buying power of its currency (i.e. inflation). In 1963 the average price of a home in the US was $30,000. In 2010 the average prices was #221,800. Is this inflation largely caused by fractional reserve banking? Yes/No Question #3: Is fractional reserve banking one of the primary causes/drivers of the US national debt? Yes/No Question #4: Is the Federal Reserve in the US a government institution? These are the last of the questions
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Yes/No Question #2: Each generation in Canada and the US sees a large decrease in the buying power of its currency (i.e. inflation). In 1963 the average price of a home in the US was $30,000. In 2010 the average prices was #221,800. Is this inflation largely caused by fractional reserve banking?
Yes/no. Fractional reserve banking has been in use for a longer time, and it causes prosperity. The housing-market has been rallying because there is a large amount of money looking for something that gives a decent return on investment. Housing has always been touted a great investment, even for the average citizen, who is now bidding in the housing-market next to a pension-fund looking for gains.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Yes/No Question #3: Is fractional reserve banking one of the primary causes/drivers of the US national debt?
No, the petrodollar is, together with China. The entire world wanted dollars, because that was used in international trade - and China has been collecting dollars for a long time. As long as people accept the IOU's, the debt will grow, even if you pay with more IOU's.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Yes/No Question #4: Is the Federal Reserve in the US a government institution?
Haha, no, no central bank is part nor owned by the government, for a good reason :D If you gave Trump the keys to the dollar-printing-press then he'd be buying China with freshly minted dollars, causing wild inflation. Or my government would try to pay the states' debt by minting new money, just to win the elections. By making a private entity of the central bank that has no ties to government, these scenario's are theoretically impossible, and prevents political abuse.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
I didn't actually 'know' the answer to #1, but made an educated guess that turned out to be correct. #2 - no, there are far too many other factors that affect inflation. #3 - sometimes, but again there are far too many factors. #4 - yes, but semi-independent.
#2: Inflation is primarily driven by fractional reserve banking (FRB). FRB is a questionable and highly contentious method by which banks essentially counterfeit currency with the effect that they flood the markets with excessive amounts of money. The net effect is what we see as a huge decrease in purchasing power of our currency in our lifetimes. #3) No, FRB is not the cause of national debts. As mentioned above, FRB is a questionable banking method (I argue it is fraudulent) that allows banks to lend the same money many times over. #4) The Federal Reserve is a private bank that is not owned or controlled by the US government. When the US government needs money, it borrows from this private bank. Originally, all interest that the US owed on this debt was paid to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserves makes relatively little money from the interest and now returns most of the interest to the government. The real money and influence of the Federal Reserves comes from FRB. --- FRB is one of the cornerstones of our banking system. Few are aware of it, understand its true inflationary effect and that this in turn amounts to a huge, perpetual and hidden tax on the public.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
#2: Inflation is primarily driven by fractional reserve banking (FRB). FRB is a questionable and highly contentious method by which banks essentially counterfeit currency with the effect that they flood the markets with excessive amounts of money. The net effect is what we see as a huge decrease in purchasing power of our currency in our lifetimes. #3) No, FRB is not the cause of national debts. As mentioned above, FRB is a questionable banking method (I argue it is fraudulent) that allows banks to lend the same money many times over. #4) The Federal Reserve is a private bank that is not owned or controlled by the US government. When the US government needs money, it borrows from this private bank. Originally, all interest that the US owed on this debt was paid to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserves makes relatively little money from the interest and now returns most of the interest to the government. The real money and influence of the Federal Reserves comes from FRB. --- FRB is one of the cornerstones of our banking system. Few are aware of it, understand its true inflationary effect and that this in turn amounts to a huge, perpetual and hidden tax on the public.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
#2. That is not true. Inflation has existed since man first started using tokens to buy goods rather than simple bartering. And look at the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, Venezuela etc. #3. I didn't say it was the cause of national debts, only that it is a factor.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Yes/No Question #2: Each generation in Canada and the US sees a large decrease in the buying power of its currency (i.e. inflation). In 1963 the average price of a home in the US was $30,000. In 2010 the average prices was #221,800. Is this inflation largely caused by fractional reserve banking?
Yes/no. Fractional reserve banking has been in use for a longer time, and it causes prosperity. The housing-market has been rallying because there is a large amount of money looking for something that gives a decent return on investment. Housing has always been touted a great investment, even for the average citizen, who is now bidding in the housing-market next to a pension-fund looking for gains.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Yes/No Question #3: Is fractional reserve banking one of the primary causes/drivers of the US national debt?
No, the petrodollar is, together with China. The entire world wanted dollars, because that was used in international trade - and China has been collecting dollars for a long time. As long as people accept the IOU's, the debt will grow, even if you pay with more IOU's.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Yes/No Question #4: Is the Federal Reserve in the US a government institution?
Haha, no, no central bank is part nor owned by the government, for a good reason :D If you gave Trump the keys to the dollar-printing-press then he'd be buying China with freshly minted dollars, causing wild inflation. Or my government would try to pay the states' debt by minting new money, just to win the elections. By making a private entity of the central bank that has no ties to government, these scenario's are theoretically impossible, and prevents political abuse.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
To say fractional reserve banking (FRB) 'causes prosperity' is a vague statement that is consistent and typical with 'political bank speak'. It fails to even acknowledge the many pernicious effects that it has had and continues to have on our economies. Many have argued that fiat money imposed by a private banking cartel has given us a predatory monetary system. FRB is but one of the tools the private cartel uses to manipulate the money supply with the understood effect that, time and again, it literally impoverishes and leaves destitute hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people around the world. You are correct is saying FRB is not a cause of the national debt. However, to imply China as the primary owner of the US debt is wrong. China is simply the foreign country that holds the largest amount of US debt. A large part of the US debt is owed to a private bank, the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve buys US securities (e.g. Treasury bonds) using fiat money. To be clear on this point, the Federal Reserve literally pays with money it had printed (at no cost to itself) - it monetizes debt.
If you gave Trump the keys to the dollar-printing-press...
The entire point behind FRB is that the keys to the dollar-printing-press have been given to a private banking cartel and that has used its money monopoly for over a century manipulate the market, eliminate competition, fund itself - all on the backs of public. It is interesting you focus on what Trump 'might do' and yet ignore this is exactly what the banking cartel has been doing over the past century. The primary reason for our massive debt and the fact it can never be paid off is only because we gave the keys to the printing press to a predatory private banking cartel. In fact, it is readily argued this private banking system is largely responsible for most conflicts/wars/strife of the past few centuries. But that is another discussion all together. I simply bring up these points, without references or substantiating them, to counter what you wrote. There is a very interesting history behind the Federal Reserve and learning it offers a great deal of insight into the true nature of US local and foreign policy.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
#2. That is not true. Inflation has existed since man first started using tokens to buy goods rather than simple bartering. And look at the Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, Venezuela etc. #3. I didn't say it was the cause of national debts, only that it is a factor.
#2) The Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, Venezula are classic examples where run away inflation occurred primarily because of large debt financed by fiat money from private central banks and subsequent foreign currency manipulations. This is what Ellen Brown refers to this as the 'Tequila Trap'. The hyper inflation in these examples is very different beast from the large inflation that we see over our lifetimes due to fractional reserve banking. In both cases, the private banks play a leading role in intentionally causing and sustaining the inflation. #3) I have yet to come across any articles or books that suggest there is any relationship between fractional reserve banking and national debts. If you have such references then I would be very interested in reading them.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Regardless of what you argue, $100 today does not buy what $100 bought in 1963.
Of course that is true. One can get a moderately decent cell phone now for $100. In 1963, not so much. In 2013 there were 300,000+ books published in the US. And some claim it is 1 million now. It 1966 it was 30,000. Presumably a lot less Manga and D&D serializations could be had for $100 in 1963. The State of Publishing: U.S. Book Production - McSweeney’s Internet Tendency[^] I bet cigarettes were really low priced and I think kids could even buy them (if the shop keepers allowed it.) Course the survival rate for lung cancer was dismal but live and learn right?
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
The question is asking you if there is a relationship between inflation and fractional reserve banking, where the latter largely accounts for the former.
The answer is that simplistic explanations for human endeavors is always, 100% of the time, wrong.
Continuously pumping money into the economy, decade after decade, without a corresponding increase in supply leads to only one result - inflation. That is exactly the nature of fractional reserve banking. This is an easily understood process and the effects which are readily confirmed. So in this case, I am reasonably certain most economists will agree to disagree with you 100% of the time.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
To say fractional reserve banking (FRB) 'causes prosperity' is a vague statement that is consistent and typical with 'political bank speak'. It fails to even acknowledge the many pernicious effects that it has had and continues to have on our economies. Many have argued that fiat money imposed by a private banking cartel has given us a predatory monetary system. FRB is but one of the tools the private cartel uses to manipulate the money supply with the understood effect that, time and again, it literally impoverishes and leaves destitute hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people around the world. You are correct is saying FRB is not a cause of the national debt. However, to imply China as the primary owner of the US debt is wrong. China is simply the foreign country that holds the largest amount of US debt. A large part of the US debt is owed to a private bank, the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve buys US securities (e.g. Treasury bonds) using fiat money. To be clear on this point, the Federal Reserve literally pays with money it had printed (at no cost to itself) - it monetizes debt.
If you gave Trump the keys to the dollar-printing-press...
The entire point behind FRB is that the keys to the dollar-printing-press have been given to a private banking cartel and that has used its money monopoly for over a century manipulate the market, eliminate competition, fund itself - all on the backs of public. It is interesting you focus on what Trump 'might do' and yet ignore this is exactly what the banking cartel has been doing over the past century. The primary reason for our massive debt and the fact it can never be paid off is only because we gave the keys to the printing press to a predatory private banking cartel. In fact, it is readily argued this private banking system is largely responsible for most conflicts/wars/strife of the past few centuries. But that is another discussion all together. I simply bring up these points, without references or substantiating them, to counter what you wrote. There is a very interesting history behind the Federal Reserve and learning it offers a great deal of insight into the true nature of US local and foreign policy.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
To say fractional reserve banking (FRB) 'causes prosperity' is a vague statement that is consistent and typical with 'political bank speak'.
No, there is a rather large difference; I can explain how and why, and will acknowledge that it doesn't bring "just" prosperity. Having lots of money means lots of economic activity, as it is easy to come by, cheap to borrow, and hence, easy to invest.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Many have argued that fiat money imposed by a private banking cartel has given us a predatory monetary system.
We are a predatory species; in the time when fiat was an experiment and pieces of eight ruled the world money was a bit harder to come by, and poverty was the default.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
FRB is but one of the tools the private cartel uses to manipulate the money supply with the understood effect that, time and again, it literally impoverishes and leaves destitute hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people around the world.
The wealth it provides comes at the cost of debasing the value of the money, yes. The dollar is a long way from being Zimbabwean, but we are patient here :)
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
It is interesting you focus on what Trump 'might do' and yet ignore this is exactly what the banking cartel has been doing over the past century
The only problem is that they have a (state-guaranteed) monopoly; if more banks (or other entities) could create money then the market would drive out the bad money. You're right that it is a messed up idea, but it is still preferred to the alternatives.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
In fact, it is readily argued this private banking system is largely responsible for most conflicts/wars/strife of the past few centuries
As much as I dislike bankers, that would be a bit unfair. Hitler wasn't motivated by having a central bank, and the Vietnam-war is not yet linked to banking. Yes, war is often about money; the Dutch revolted due to heavy Spanish taxes and expanded their religious differences into a full war. After that, we went for their ships and the worlds' most succesfull company, the VOC. No, not about banking, but about money. Because we are predators and prey. Money stands for safety, in the same way that a squirrel hoards
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Regardless of what you argue, $100 today does not buy what $100 bought in 1963.
Of course that is true. One can get a moderately decent cell phone now for $100. In 1963, not so much. In 2013 there were 300,000+ books published in the US. And some claim it is 1 million now. It 1966 it was 30,000. Presumably a lot less Manga and D&D serializations could be had for $100 in 1963. The State of Publishing: U.S. Book Production - McSweeney’s Internet Tendency[^] I bet cigarettes were really low priced and I think kids could even buy them (if the shop keepers allowed it.) Course the survival rate for lung cancer was dismal but live and learn right?
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
The question is asking you if there is a relationship between inflation and fractional reserve banking, where the latter largely accounts for the former.
The answer is that simplistic explanations for human endeavors is always, 100% of the time, wrong.
jschell wrote:
One can get a moderately decent cell phone now for $100. In 1963, not so much.
That's due to the fact they did not exist back then. Has little to do with the actual worth of a 100$ bill.
jschell wrote:
In 2013 there were 300,000+ books published in the US. And some claim it is 1 million now. It 1966 it was 30,000. Presumably a lot less Manga and D&D serializations could be had for $100 in 1963.
Yes, and a lot less 64-bit CPU's. Again, you're comparing apples with peares. The value of money varies. To get an indication how much, you look at previous rates. The debasement of the money can be easily seen in raw resources, and that's how it is measured - by comparing it to the most valuable resource we know off, not by looking at how many tesla's you could buy in 1920.
jschell wrote:
The answer is that simplistic explanations
That's what we call irony :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
To say fractional reserve banking (FRB) 'causes prosperity' is a vague statement that is consistent and typical with 'political bank speak'.
No, there is a rather large difference; I can explain how and why, and will acknowledge that it doesn't bring "just" prosperity. Having lots of money means lots of economic activity, as it is easy to come by, cheap to borrow, and hence, easy to invest.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
Many have argued that fiat money imposed by a private banking cartel has given us a predatory monetary system.
We are a predatory species; in the time when fiat was an experiment and pieces of eight ruled the world money was a bit harder to come by, and poverty was the default.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
FRB is but one of the tools the private cartel uses to manipulate the money supply with the understood effect that, time and again, it literally impoverishes and leaves destitute hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people around the world.
The wealth it provides comes at the cost of debasing the value of the money, yes. The dollar is a long way from being Zimbabwean, but we are patient here :)
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
It is interesting you focus on what Trump 'might do' and yet ignore this is exactly what the banking cartel has been doing over the past century
The only problem is that they have a (state-guaranteed) monopoly; if more banks (or other entities) could create money then the market would drive out the bad money. You're right that it is a messed up idea, but it is still preferred to the alternatives.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
In fact, it is readily argued this private banking system is largely responsible for most conflicts/wars/strife of the past few centuries
As much as I dislike bankers, that would be a bit unfair. Hitler wasn't motivated by having a central bank, and the Vietnam-war is not yet linked to banking. Yes, war is often about money; the Dutch revolted due to heavy Spanish taxes and expanded their religious differences into a full war. After that, we went for their ships and the worlds' most succesfull company, the VOC. No, not about banking, but about money. Because we are predators and prey. Money stands for safety, in the same way that a squirrel hoards
My OP was not intended to start a lengthy point-by-point exchange which is of little value to anyone but the pair of us. My intention was to spark an interest into the real and many problems behind our banking system and that might lead others to read about these problems for themselves. Before terminating this thread, I recommend to those who might be interested that they start by researching the problems of central banks (I started with the Federal Reserve). This will allow the reader to initially form an opinion on whether our central banks really were specifically designed for predatory and control purposes (i.e. against the interest of the public). If they conclude there are indeed real problems then I believe this is likely to provide the incentive to continue reading and to delve deeper. I enjoyed our exchange but I will stop this thread here. Cheers, Ian
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
My OP was not intended to start a lengthy point-by-point exchange which is of little value to anyone but the pair of us. My intention was to spark an interest into the real and many problems behind our banking system and that might lead others to read about these problems for themselves. Before terminating this thread, I recommend to those who might be interested that they start by researching the problems of central banks (I started with the Federal Reserve). This will allow the reader to initially form an opinion on whether our central banks really were specifically designed for predatory and control purposes (i.e. against the interest of the public). If they conclude there are indeed real problems then I believe this is likely to provide the incentive to continue reading and to delve deeper. I enjoyed our exchange but I will stop this thread here. Cheers, Ian
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
My intention was to spark an interest into the real and many problems behind our banking system and that might lead others to read about these problems for themselves.
I hope it worked; never understood why people aren't interested in their own money.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
If they conclude there are indeed real problems then I believe this is likely to provide the incentive to continue reading and to delve deeper.
Yup :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
One can get a moderately decent cell phone now for $100. In 1963, not so much.
That's due to the fact they did not exist back then. Has little to do with the actual worth of a 100$ bill.
jschell wrote:
In 2013 there were 300,000+ books published in the US. And some claim it is 1 million now. It 1966 it was 30,000. Presumably a lot less Manga and D&D serializations could be had for $100 in 1963.
Yes, and a lot less 64-bit CPU's. Again, you're comparing apples with peares. The value of money varies. To get an indication how much, you look at previous rates. The debasement of the money can be easily seen in raw resources, and that's how it is measured - by comparing it to the most valuable resource we know off, not by looking at how many tesla's you could buy in 1920.
jschell wrote:
The answer is that simplistic explanations
That's what we call irony :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That's due to the fact they did not exist back then. Has little to do with the actual worth of a 100$ bill.
Does however have quite a bit to do with the gist of the thread and the response that I was replying to.
-