Jim Rogers of Texas A&M disputes the analysis of the decline of the value of the dollar that I posted from the Economist a week or two ago. The remainder of this is from Jim:
The Economist is a good magazine with very broad coverage hard to find in U.S. magazines. Its one error is to sound more certain (and often more convincing) than it is.
So measured by gold, the dollar has lost 97 percent of its purchasing power. Really? Do the math: If the dollar has really lost 97 percent of its purchasing power, then a person who earned $10,000 in 1970 would be just as well off as a person who earns $333,333 today. But recalling what my dad earned in 1970, I think not.
Gold is subject to the laws of supply and demand as much as any commodity. It’s not purchased simply as a store of value, therefore it should not be treated, by itself, as a measure of purchasing power of the dollar (besides for how much gold you can purchase).
Let’s choose a different commodity measure of wealth: How about denominating purchasing power in terms of calculators? My father purchased a calculator for $100 in 1970 that could only add, subtract, divide and multiple. Companies now give calculators that perform those functions away for free. But let’s say that they cost $10 today (even though even a $10 calculator will have twenty or more functions than that calculator in 1970). Just comparing nominal categories, a person today is ten times more affluent than the person in 1970. So the person earning $10,000 today is as affluent as someone earning $100,000 in 1970. Indeed, multiples of that given the improvement in terms of quality.
Again, I think not. But anyone can play the Economist ‘s game by choosing whichever commodity it is that you want to prove your point.
The point is not that there is no answer. But rather that you want to compare baskets of commodities rather than a single commodity, And then it’s going to be tough to compare given quality changes.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
