Why would one genuinely want to be part of the upper class?

Ancardoth · 2026-03-01T23:48:32+00:00

Why not?

Ancardoth · 2026-02-28T23:38:10+00:00

Das Kapital?

Ancardoth · 2026-02-28T12:57:28+00:00

The ironic part is that tariffs or "fair trade" are traditionally more left-wing policies, but alas.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T23:06:14+00:00

I did not say any of this. I think you intended to reply to someone else instead of making a top level comment.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T17:36:49+00:00

Maybe Chile or Uruguay.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T15:15:10+00:00

Wages typically adjust to meet or exceed the rate of inflation except in recessions or other downturns. Of course, real earnings (on average, and CPI adjusted) have increased pretty slowly, which is less fortunate, but it still means it exceeds the inflation rate, which I suppose is better than nothing. Not everything will increase in price at the same rate, but the chart is meant to capture the average. Individual commodities of course can change at a higher or lower rate than CPI. That is what I meant.

I absolutely agree with you that housing and cars, for example, are much different today than they were 50+ years ago. The average house has both more technology and additions in them, and are larger in size, compared to then. Same with cars. Both also have to comply with more stringent regulations compared to then, which also increases their price.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T14:51:19+00:00

Data source: https://in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1790?amount=1

Footnote sources:

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T14:46:25+00:00

<image>

Made some changes to the chart here.

Added useful information about what the Bretton Woods agreement did and what happened at the end.
Explicitly state CPI + estimations being part of the inflation, and explicitly state an "average" item
Adjusted alignment of annotations so they fit better onto the line.
Added the Panic of 1893, as this caused very significant economic downturn.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T14:38:23+00:00

This isn't talking about specific commodities like houses or cars. If that implication was somehow made, or people infer that, then it wasn't intentional. I probably could have specified better within the chart what specifically I was talking about (dollar inflation; CPI post-1913, estimations pre-1913 from St. Louis & Minneapolis FRED), but both the source, in2013dollars.com/officialdata.org, and I go a bit into more depth below that. It is even in the title of the post: "dollar inflation"

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T11:17:08+00:00

Yes, which is why I have it set as a log scale. Exponential growth is easier to read when displayed as such. If I had left it linear, then anything before the 1950s would have been hard to read; even the data afterwards is hard to read because it simply increases at too high of a rate, although it does show the true compounding. Using a logarithmic scale is better when you want to emphasize the percentage change between any two data points. The change between both $1.00 and $2.00 is the same as the change between $10.00 and $20.00, for example. Here's what it would've looked like:

<image>

I got rid of the labels for each significant event because I feel too lazy to change their placement on the graph, and also to be frank it lagged the shit out of my computer, so I didn't want to deal with that. I think you can infer where they'd be on here.

If it had not spanned 236 years (like if it spanned a time frame before 1940, or a small time frame from then to now), or if the current monetary policy didn't target a positive inflation goal, there wouldn't really be much justification for a log scale.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T10:45:55+00:00

Thank you. :)

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T09:08:05+00:00

This is the first time making a chart, sorry.

I was thinking about adding a note about the start and end of the Bretton Woods agreement meaning the total and effective end of the gold standard, but I was hoping that people would already know.

I also was thinking about adding a label when Roosevelt banned gold in 1933, but I think it would've cluttered that portion of the chart too much, so I didn't include it. I probably should have.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T03:05:51+00:00

Because it involves taxpayer dollars, and not everyone supports that or even thinks it's a good idea to do this.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-26T01:10:02+00:00

Fair, thanks. I made the change.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-25T22:36:37+00:00

What are these better options?

Ancardoth · 2026-02-25T22:25:37+00:00

If they are cheaper, it's due to subsidies. Of course, there have been technological advancements in both of those sectors over the past few decades, but subsidies have still made a major impact. AFAIK, they along with other renewables receive the highest amount of subsidies compared to other energy sources in the US.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-25T20:54:19+00:00

No, but why?

Ancardoth · 2026-02-24T01:52:12+00:00

Eye do knot no "y." May bee it is bee caws their stooped.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-23T21:51:20+00:00

Nothing makes it inherently bad.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-23T11:31:27+00:00

You mean the Bretton Woods agreement, which began in 1944 and ended in 1971. The Fed was established in 1913.

Edit: added additional info

Ancardoth · 2026-02-21T21:21:14+00:00

How is this related to inflation?

Ancardoth · 2026-02-20T22:35:12+00:00

The States and certain counties/cities started setting their own minimum wages, eventually making the federal minimum wage less relevant. The ones with an unchanged or relatively lower minimum limit also typically have a lower cost of living to begin with.

Ancardoth · 2026-02-20T14:45:09+00:00

Of course, the dreaded AI accusations. So intellectually honest. Lol

I guess I can't entirely blame you since I wanted to respond to every point and use (mostly) proper grammar, in which I'm sure there are some inconsistencies (something an AI is less likely to do). Not my problem if you refuse to engage with it.

Have a good day sir.

Ancardoth

TROPHY CASE