Yup, kids, the facts are VERY apparent:

Capitalism = even the poorest eat bounifully
Socialism = 95% starve, while the top rulers gorge like feudal kings of old

https://fee.org/articles/food-prices...ared-to-today/

Food Prices in 1919 Compared to Today

Capitalism isn't as "irredeemable" as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would have you to believe.

Monday, April 01, 2019 by Marian L. Tupy

"Speaking to an enthusiastic crowd at the South by Southwest conference in Texas on March 9, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) stated that

'Capitalism is an ideology of capital€”the most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit... were reckoning with the consequences of putting profit above everything else in society. And what that means is people cant afford to live...'

€œCapitalism is irredeemable,€� she concluded.


The Cost of Eating, Then and Now

The cost of living isnt easy to calculate. A declining cost of home appliances, for example, needs to be juxtaposed with the growing cost of health care, etc. In the space of this short op-ed, I want to focus on an expense that is intimately tied up with the very survival of human beings€”the price of food. Throughout the history of our species, people lived in a state of undernourishment. In developed countries today, obesity is a growing problem and food is cheaper than ever.

In fact, basic food items in America have become almost eight times cheaper relative to unskilled labor over the last 100 years.

This analysis of the cost of food in America over the last century begins with Retail Prices, 1913 to December 1919: Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 270, which was published in 1921.

[ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/...?start_page=86 ]

On pages 176-183, we encounter nominal prices of 42 food items€”ranging from a pound of sirloin steak to a dozen oranges€”as registered in the city of Detroit in 1919. Those can be seen in the second column of the attached graphic.

Our second step was to express those nominal prices in terms of hours of human labor. Together with Gale Pooley, associate professor of business management, Brigham Young University-Hawaii, we took the index of hourly wages of unskilled laborers (i.e., workers at the bottom of the income ladder) between 1774 and 2016 from www.measuringworth.com [ https://www.measuringworth.com/ ] and re-indexed it to 1919. That gave us a nominal wage rate of unskilled laborers amounting to $0.25 per hour in 1919. The nominal prices of food relative to nominal wages in 1919 can be seen in column three.

Our third step was to find the nominal prices of the same goods (including, of course, the same quantity of those goods) on www.walmart.com, which is where most unskilled laborers shop in 2019. Those findings can be seen in column four. According to our calculations, the nominal wage rate of unskilled laborers amounts to about $12.70 per hour today. As such, the nominal prices of food relative to nominal wages in 2019 can be seen in column five.

The Results? Spoiler: Life Is Good

What did we find?

The time price (i.e. nominal price divided by nominal hourly wage) of our basket of commodities fell from 47 hours of work to ten (see the Totals line in column five).

The unweighted average time price fell by 79 percent (see the Totals line in column six).

Put differently, for the same amount of work that allowed an unskilled laborer to purchase one basket of the 42 commodities in 1919, he or she could buy 7.6 baskets in 2019 (see the Totals line in column seven).

The compounded rate of €œaffordability€� of our basket of commodities rose at 2.05 percent per year (see the Totals line in column eight).
Put differently, an unskilled laborer saw his or her purchasing power double every 34 years (see the Totals line in column nine).

Pay particular attention to column six and note that declining prices result in exponential, not linear, gains. Thus, a 75 percent decline in price allows a person to purchase four items; a 90 percent decline results in ten items; a 95 percent decline in 20 items; and a 96 percent decline in 25 items. A one percentage point change from 95 percent to 96 percent, in other words, enhances the gain by 25 percent.

Thus eggs, which declined by 96 percent in terms of time price between 1919 and 2019, allow the unskilled laborer today to purchase 24 times as many eggs as an unskilled laborer was able to purchase for the same amount of work a century ago. Thats a massive improvement€”even if we ignore the likelihood that an unskilled laborer today performs work that is less physically strenuous and less dangerous than it was in 1919.

Far from being irredeemable, therefore, a market thats allowed to function relatively freely and competitively has delivered and can continue to deliver enormous benefits to all people, especially those at the bottom of the income ladder.

Joseph Schumpeter, the famous economist who served as Austrian minister of finance in 1919, observed that the

'...capitalist engine is first and last an engine of mass production which unavoidably also means production for the masses €¦ It is the cheap cloth, the cheap cotton and rayon fabric, boots, motorcars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist production, and not as a rule improvements that would mean much to the rich man. Queen Elizabeth owned silk stockings. The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within reach of factory girls...'

To those silk stockings we can now add food..."

This article is republished with permission from Human Progress.

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 15:23:37 -0700 (PDT), GM
> wrote:

>Yup, kids, the facts are VERY apparent:

What ISN'T ever included in these things is the wages then vs now.

On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-10, GM wrote:
> Yup, kids, the facts are VERY apparent:
>
> Capitalism = even the poorest eat bounifully
> Socialism = 95% starve, while the top rulers gorge like feudal kings of old
>
> https://fee.org/articles/food-prices...ared-to-today/
>
> Food Prices in 1919 Compared to Today
>
> Capitalism isn't as "irredeemable" as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would have you to believe.
>
> Monday, April 01, 2019 by Marian L. Tupy
>
> "Speaking to an enthusiastic crowd at the South by Southwest conference in Texas on March 9, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) stated that
>
> 'Capitalism is an ideology of capital€”the most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit... were reckoning with the consequences of putting profit above everything else in society. And what that means is people cant afford to live....'
>
> €œCapitalism is irredeemable,€� she concluded.
>
>
> The Cost of Eating, Then and Now
>
> The cost of living isnt easy to calculate. A declining cost of home appliances, for example, needs to be juxtaposed with the growing cost of health care, etc. In the space of this short op-ed, I want to focus on an expense that is intimately tied up with the very survival of human beings€”the price of food. Throughout the history of our species, people lived in a state of undernourishment. In developed countries today, obesity is a growing problem and food is cheaper than ever.
>
> In fact, basic food items in America have become almost eight times cheaper relative to unskilled labor over the last 100 years.
>
> This analysis of the cost of food in America over the last century begins with Retail Prices, 1913 to December 1919: Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 270, which was published in 1921.
>
> [ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/...?start_page=86 ]
>
> On pages 176-183, we encounter nominal prices of 42 food items€”ranging from a pound of sirloin steak to a dozen oranges€”as registered in the city of Detroit in 1919. Those can be seen in the second column of the attached graphic.
>
> Our second step was to express those nominal prices in terms of hours of human labor. Together with Gale Pooley, associate professor of business management, Brigham Young University-Hawaii, we took the index of hourly wages of unskilled laborers (i.e., workers at the bottom of the income ladder) between 1774 and 2016 from www.measuringworth.com [ https://www.measuringworth.com/ ] and re-indexed it to 1919. That gave us a nominal wage rate of unskilled laborers amounting to $0.25 per hour in 1919. The nominal prices of food relative to nominal wages in 1919 can be seen in column three.
>
> Our third step was to find the nominal prices of the same goods (including, of course, the same quantity of those goods) on www.walmart.com, which is where most unskilled laborers shop in 2019. Those findings can be seen in column four. According to our calculations, the nominal wage rate of unskilled laborers amounts to about $12.70 per hour today. As such, the nominal prices of food relative to nominal wages in 2019 can be seen in column five..
>
> The Results? Spoiler: Life Is Good
>
> What did we find?
>
> The time price (i.e. nominal price divided by nominal hourly wage) of our basket of commodities fell from 47 hours of work to ten (see the Totals line in column five).
>
> The unweighted average time price fell by 79 percent (see the Totals line in column six).
>
> Put differently, for the same amount of work that allowed an unskilled laborer to purchase one basket of the 42 commodities in 1919, he or she could buy 7.6 baskets in 2019 (see the Totals line in column seven).
>
> The compounded rate of €œaffordability€� of our basket of commodities rose at 2.05 percent per year (see the Totals line in column eight).
> Put differently, an unskilled laborer saw his or her purchasing power double every 34 years (see the Totals line in column nine).
>
> Pay particular attention to column six and note that declining prices result in exponential, not linear, gains. Thus, a 75 percent decline in price allows a person to purchase four items; a 90 percent decline results in ten items; a 95 percent decline in 20 items; and a 96 percent decline in 25 items. A one percentage point change from 95 percent to 96 percent, in other words, enhances the gain by 25 percent.
>
> Thus eggs, which declined by 96 percent in terms of time price between 1919 and 2019, allow the unskilled laborer today to purchase 24 times as many eggs as an unskilled laborer was able to purchase for the same amount of work a century ago. Thats a massive improvement€”even if we ignore the likelihood that an unskilled laborer today performs work that is less physically strenuous and less dangerous than it was in 1919.
>
> Far from being irredeemable, therefore, a market thats allowed to function relatively freely and competitively has delivered and can continue to deliver enormous benefits to all people, especially those at the bottom of the income ladder.
>
> Joseph Schumpeter, the famous economist who served as Austrian minister of finance in 1919, observed that the
>
> '...capitalist engine is first and last an engine of mass production which unavoidably also means production for the masses €¦ It is the cheap cloth, the cheap cotton and rayon fabric, boots, motorcars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist production, and not as a rule improvements that would mean much to the rich man. Queen Elizabeth owned silk stockings. The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within reach of factory girls...'
>
> To those silk stockings we can now add food..."
>
> This article is republished with permission from Human Progress.

The 800 lb gorilla in the room is that man does not live by bread alone. The young folks can't afford housing, medical care, and a higher education, in modern America. I certainly could back in the 70's when I was a young man.. Those days are gone forever.

We have a generation that, for the most part, will live their days in poverty. They inherit a world from a generation that didn't give a shit about the future and the environment. While we merrily sit about idly passing the time, the young can feel the world collapsing on them. At the moment, they're distracted by their mobile toys and connected world but one day soon they will put down their devices and realize the state they're in. The world shall feel their wrath. I wouldn't be surprised if they gathered up all us boomers and burned us.

dsi1 wrote:

> On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-10, GM wrote:

> > [ SNIP ]

> The 800 lb gorilla in the room is that man does not live by bread alone. The young folks can't afford housing, medical care, and a higher education, in modern America. I certainly could back in the 70's when I was a young man. Those days are gone forever.
>


Utter nonsense, all young folks need to do is W - O - R - K diligently and make informed choices and they can live as well or even better than their elders...not every young 'un is a slacker, ya know...

You're like the old crank who used to say, "Outhouses were BETTER because we didn't have to pay taxe$ and utilitie$ to enable flush toilets to exist...."

--
Best
Greg

On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 1:06:13 PM UTC-10, GM wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>
> > On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-10, GM wrote:
>
> > > [ SNIP ]
>
> > The 800 lb gorilla in the room is that man does not live by bread alone.. The young folks can't afford housing, medical care, and a higher education, in modern America. I certainly could back in the 70's when I was a young man. Those days are gone forever.
> >
>
>
> Utter nonsense, all young folks need to do is W - O - R - K diligently and make informed choices and they can live as well or even better than their elders...not every young 'un is a slacker, ya know...
>
> You're like the old crank who used to say, "Outhouses were BETTER because we didn't have to pay taxe$ and utilitie$ to enable flush toilets to exist...."
>
> --
> Best
> Greg

I already know that not all young people are slackers. I certainly was a slacker as was a lot of kids in my generation. Even despite that, we could afford housing, medical care, and an education on a meager salary. Most oldsters are out of touch with economic conditions in 2019. All they can see is what they have. They believe that things are just the same as back in the 60's. Beats me why they think that. Are yoose guys totally blind?

https://www.aecf.org/blog/nearly-hal...r-than-age-25/

dsi1 wrote:

> On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 1:06:13 PM UTC-10, GM wrote:
> > dsi1 wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-10, GM wrote:
> >
> > > > [ SNIP ]
> >
> > > The 800 lb gorilla in the room is that man does not live by bread alone. The young folks can't afford housing, medical care, and a higher education, in modern America. I certainly could back in the 70's when I was a young man. Those days are gone forever.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Utter nonsense, all young folks need to do is W - O - R - K diligently and make informed choices and they can live as well or even better than their elders...not every young 'un is a slacker, ya know...
> >
> > You're like the old crank who used to say, "Outhouses were BETTER because we didn't have to pay taxe$ and utilitie$ to enable flush toilets to exist..."
> >
> > --
> > Best
> > Greg
>
> I already know that not all young people are slackers. I certainly was a slacker as was a lot of kids in my generation. Even despite that, we could afford housing, medical care, and an education on a meager salary. Most oldsters are out of touch with economic conditions in 2019.


THIS "oldster" sees young folks lifting themselves out of - sometimes dire - poverty and need EVERY day...


All they can see is what they have. They believe that things are just the same as back in the 60's. Beats me why they think that. Are yoose guys totally blind?
>
> https://www.aecf.org/blog/nearly-hal...r-than-age-25/


FISHY stats from a leftist snowflake outfit, natch...the US poverty rate is FAR lower when government/public benefits - SNAP/WIC, Section 8/subsidized housing, TANF, childcare benefits and the like - are factored in...

--
Best
Greg

Jes Me wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 15:23:37 -0700 (PDT), GM
> > wrote:
>
> >Yup, kids, the facts are VERY apparent:
>
> What ISN'T ever included in these things is the wages then vs now.


Easy enuf to GOOGLE, ya silly nit...

--
Best
Greg

On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 1:33:37 PM UTC-10, GM wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>
> > On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 1:06:13 PM UTC-10, GM wrote:
> > > dsi1 wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 12:23:41 PM UTC-10, GM wrote:
> > >
> > > > > [ SNIP ]
> > >
> > > > The 800 lb gorilla in the room is that man does not live by bread alone. The young folks can't afford housing, medical care, and a higher education, in modern America. I certainly could back in the 70's when I was a young man. Those days are gone forever.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Utter nonsense, all young folks need to do is W - O - R - K diligently and make informed choices and they can live as well or even better than their elders...not every young 'un is a slacker, ya know...
> > >
> > > You're like the old crank who used to say, "Outhouses were BETTER because we didn't have to pay taxe$ and utilitie$ to enable flush toilets to exist..."
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best
> > > Greg
> >
> > I already know that not all young people are slackers. I certainly was a slacker as was a lot of kids in my generation. Even despite that, we could afford housing, medical care, and an education on a meager salary. Most oldsters are out of touch with economic conditions in 2019.
>
>
> THIS "oldster" sees young folks lifting themselves out of - sometimes dire - poverty and need EVERY day...
>
>
> All they can see is what they have. They believe that things are just the same as back in the 60's. Beats me why they think that. Are yoose guys totally blind?
> >
> > https://www.aecf.org/blog/nearly-hal...r-than-age-25/
>
>
> FISHY stats from a leftist snowflake outfit, natch...the US poverty rate is FAR lower when government/public benefits - SNAP/WIC, Section 8/subsidized housing, TANF, childcare benefits and the like - are factored in...
>
> --
> Best
> Greg

It's going to be fairly evident which one of us was right about the state of the economy. I have said that we should appreciate our food supply while we can because it's probably the best it's ever going to be in human history. That said, it's silly to believe that man does indeed live by bread alone. I give you the last word.

GM wrote:
....
> In fact, basic food items in America have become almost eight times cheaper relative to unskilled labor over the last 100 years.
....

it is all propped up by cheap energy which eventually
comes to an end. if we make the transition to solar,
wind, etc in time it may end up ok, but the expense of
cleaning up the mess that the cheap energy produced may
be trillions of $ spent in trying to protect or rebuild
damaged infrastructure.

so, it just shifted expenses around.

not much of what is marketed today is actual food.
instead it is manufactured gunk overpackaged and causing
a lot of harm.


songbird

On 4/1/2019 6:29 PM, Jes Me wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 15:23:37 -0700 (PDT), GM
> > wrote:
>
>> Yup, kids, the facts are VERY apparent:
>
> What ISN'T ever included in these things is the wages then vs now.
>
>
>
>
Sure they did. READ the headings. They use a nominal wage of $12.70
today and the amount of hours work needed. They used .25 in 1919. Then
compared the number of hours worked You had to work 2.69 hours to buy a
pound of butter, now only 15 minutes.

songbird wrote:
> not much of what is marketed today is actual food.
> instead it is manufactured gunk overpackaged and causing
> a lot of harm.

Sounds like you need a McBurger or two (no cheese). ;-D

On Tue, 02 Apr 2019 09:12:55 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>songbird wrote:
>> not much of what is marketed today is actual food.
>> instead it is manufactured gunk overpackaged and causing
>> a lot of harm.
>
>Sounds like you need a McBurger or two (no cheese). ;-D

Gary's standard reaction to someone with a brain

Huh huh.

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 20:52:58 -0400, songbird >
wrote:

>GM wrote:
>...
>> In fact, basic food items in America have become almost eight times cheaper relative to unskilled labor over the last 100 years.
>...
>
> it is all propped up by cheap energy which eventually
>comes to an end. if we make the transition to solar,
>wind, etc in time it may end up ok, but the expense of
>cleaning up the mess that the cheap energy produced may
>be trillions of $ spent in trying to protect or rebuild
>damaged infrastructure.
>
> so, it just shifted expenses around.
>
> not much of what is marketed today is actual food.
>instead it is manufactured gunk overpackaged and causing
>a lot of harm.

I just had to check that I was still reading in RFC.

On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 06:23:02 +0700, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 20:52:58 -0400, songbird >
>wrote:
>
>>GM wrote:
>>...
>>> In fact, basic food items in America have become almost eight times cheaper relative to unskilled labor over the last 100 years.
>>...
>>
>> it is all propped up by cheap energy which eventually
>>comes to an end. if we make the transition to solar,
>>wind, etc in time it may end up ok, but the expense of
>>cleaning up the mess that the cheap energy produced may
>>be trillions of $ spent in trying to protect or rebuild
>>damaged infrastructure.
>>
>> so, it just shifted expenses around.
>>
>> not much of what is marketed today is actual food.
>>instead it is manufactured gunk overpackaged and causing
>>a lot of harm.
>
>I just had to check that I was still reading in RFC.

lol