News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by dimitar on Monday June 29, 2015 @04:24AM (#9796946)
Since the US dollar was fixed to gold there was little to no inflation, because the ratio of gold price to goods price is much more stable.

This is true only in some sense on average. There was in fact both very significant inflation and deflation, but they evened out over the long term. People thus could use gold-backed money for savings. It still was a worse asset than bonds to save in, even if you account for sovereign defaults in that era.

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by tosseraccount on Monday June 29, 2015 @12:26PM (#9799086)
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/econ/inflation_calculator...

Inflation 1900-1972 : 2.3%

Inflation 2000-2014 : 2.24%

Gold had nothing to do with it. The value of the US currency has always been a based on trust.

In practice the US government did not exchange gold for dollar bills anyway.

The Zerohedge theories of gold just doesn't work.

[dead]
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by tosseraccount on Monday June 29, 2015 @01:12PM (#9799404)
Keynesian?

You're projecting.

US currency is and always has been backed by the US economy and military.

Not gold.

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by jsprogrammer on Monday June 29, 2015 @01:59PM (#9799742)
US currency is mostly backed by oil.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by innguest on Monday June 29, 2015 @01:40PM (#9799599)
An Austrian "projecting"? Hah.

So you think after May 1971, Switzerland and France redeemed USD$50M and USD$191M, respectively, in US products and soldiers? Because my sources tell me they redeemed it in gold.

Has Germany been trying to redeem their US deposits in US products and soldiers? OR did they ask for gold?

So much for your "is and always has been". Seems like depositors don't really care about US products and soldiers, more like, just its gold.

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by tosseraccount on Monday June 29, 2015 @01:46PM (#9799633)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $376.58 today[4]) per troy ounce. Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 (equivalent to $182,185 today[4]) or up to ten years in prison, or both.

I think central banks still trade a little gold now and then, though , as you point out.

Gerald Ford allowed legalized gold in 1974.

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by branchless on Monday June 29, 2015 @10:48AM (#9798400)
Yep, money is not a store of value. They have us right where they want us.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by gnaritas on Monday June 29, 2015 @10:54AM (#9798441)
"They" don't have us anywhere, money is not supposed to be a store of value, it's a medium of exchange. Assets are stores of value.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by liopleurodon on Monday June 29, 2015 @01:49PM (#9799651)
then what's the point of a savings account? to get screwed over?
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by dragonwriter on Monday June 29, 2015 @05:57PM (#9801438)
> then what's the point of a savings account?

A savings account isn't cash, its an immediately-callable loan from the account holder to a financial institution; for the account holder, it provides an asset with very good liquidity (but perhaps marginally worse than that provided by a checking account), essentially zero risk, but poor returns (but perhaps marginally better than that provided by a checking account). Its a way of meeting short-term spending needs (but perhaps slightly longer term than that met by a checking account).

Demand deposit accounts (both checking and savings) in general are, like cash, basically for short-term spending, but where the bank provides some benefits (actual storage, along with access mechanisms more convenient for many uses than pulling physical bills out of a storage locker).

Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by gnaritas on Monday June 29, 2015 @05:37PM (#9801307)
Savings accounts are for short term liquidity, not long term stores of value. Long term, look to bonds, stocks, and other asset classes. Money is for spending, not storing.
Re:Why Coke Cost a Nickel for 70 Years (2012) by pionar on Monday June 29, 2015 @05:36PM (#9801296)
A savings account is nothing more than a loan from you to the bank.