A Study In the Value of Silver

Many people state that Silver is undervalued and will often cite the Silver to Gold Ratio. Other people will say that one ounce once bought you a suit. I will attempt to gain an understanding into the value of Silver by examining historical labor prices versus the price of Silver. Let us start with minimum wage statistics. I will be using values from a table available on Wikipedia which you can review here. The United States didn't start a minimum wage until 1938, so those are the most historical numbers we can start with using this method.

Beginning with 1939, the minimum wage was 30 cents an hour. This means that at minimum, a person could earn 3 Silver Dimes or .217 Troy ounces per hour. Now let's look at the last year that Silver appeared in coinage. In 1964 the minimum wage was $1.00, 10 Silver Dimes, or .723 Troy ounces. This shows that compared to Labor, Silver was hugely undervalued in 1964. Looking at today's minimum wage which is now $8.25 an hour a person can now earn .591 Troy ounces per hour (Based on Silver @ 13.95/Troy Ounce). Please note that we didn't use Silver Dimes in this example as Silver Dimes are no longer being paid out.

This represents a steep drop in the value of Silver over the last 70 years in comparison to labor in 1939. To bring the ratios back in line, the value of Silver would need to roughly double! To further exemplify the point, would you believe today's minimum wage labor to be more skilled or less skilled than the labor in 1939 when America still had its manufacturing? Opinions may be mixed on this question, but due to the manual nature, I would argue that labor in 1939 was more skilled than today's labor.

Depending on your interest, we may expand upon these ideas in future posts. Have a wonderful day, and happy stacking.

A Fresh Perspective on Obamacare

We hear President Obama blaming healthcare as one of the contributors to our economic problems, and this is a fairly lofty claim to make. I hardly doubt that a hospital visit has caused the surges in foreclosures (maybe a handful) that broke many banks, I believe it was giving loans to people that couldn't afford them. And I highly doubt that a hospital visit had insurance companies writing CDS's. What I have been thinking, however, is that maybe this proposed Obamacare is to help quell a future issue.

What happens when record level unemployment exists, and people can't go to the hospital because of the bureaucracy? People take what they need, people revolt. What I'm postulating is that perhaps Obamacare has been proposed to ease the unemployed's contempt for the government to help stave off a healthcare related revolution. I know this sounds like a lofty idea, but so does blaming the current economic crisis on healthcare. I think they realize that all it takes is one person to throw a rock to get an angry mob in the street.

Does this make me support Obamacare? No, he can keep that socialism. I LOVE America, I LOVE freedom, and I HATE Socialism. The ideas being proposed right now are a direct slap in the face to the principles that this country was founded on. Everyone has the right to get out there and work hard to make their money. After all, more than 2/3 of the current millionaires are first generation (Cite: The Millionaire Next Door) millionaires. The American dream is alive and kicking, but people lack the motivation and the enterprising minds that have made the current 2/3 of the American millionaires.

Am I a millionaire? NO! Will I be a millionaire? I hope. Will I try to become a millionaire? Most definitely. Will I succeed? God, and myself are the only people that have control over that. It is my job to come up with the product, or the service that people need to get to that point! Long Live America! Long Live The Constitution! And Here's To The People Waking Up!

EPA Revision + Cash For Clunkers = Bait & Switch

Consumers are finding out that their cars that were considered "clunkers" under the Cash for Clunkers Program last week, aren't bad enough to qualify this week because of an EPA revision. This sounds like a bait and switch to get people looking for cars and get them into the dealerships, just to be pressured into buying a vehicle without the government promise backing them.

If this isn't a vanilla bait and switch I don't know what is! Anyone Heading the Cash for Clunkers Program has an obligation to contact the EPA to revoke this revision. This revision only rewards the people who chose the worst kinds of vehicles for the roads. The Cash for Clunkers Program was a somewhat decent idea, but as usual good things get tangled in the Washington bureaucracy! I feel bad for the people that aren't finding out until they are sitting down with the high pressure salesman as he tells them "Sorry, your car doesn't qualify for Cash for Clunkers."


GM Hearts eBay

That's right, GM is out of bankruptcy and full of cool and hip new ideas. GM will be selling their cars on a popular auction website. The pilot program is initially targeted towards California. When asked what they were thinking GM responded:

CEO: Well, GM is not a Dinosaur as many companies suggest. We're Hip, Rad, and Down With It like Toyota, Honda, and Datsun. We plan on selling these hot new pimped out rides to all of our homies representing the GM Company. We will now fill warranty claims via twitter, which should be neat. We are already following 10 people on twitter which appears to be slightly successful, and we have a new commercial coming out which features rap music.

We felt California was an ideal spot to test out because of how destitute they currently are. GM has balls and we plan on showing our Balls by going into the toughest market in America! Wuddup Wit It Fat Cat, Boo Yah!


Free Checking Is A Perk?

I found this to be quite entertaining. In this day and age, banks are still trying to cart around the same old, tired products as perks. Earth to banks: It's our money in those accounts, and Credit Unions understand that. My credit union does not pedal their free checking around as a perk, they consider it a standard. The archaic banking institutions cannot seem to grasp this concept because they think in terms of fees. Here's my message to the banks: If you want to charge money for checking, then I'll take the money out of the account and get it where it needs to be myself. I do not NEED a bank to move my money for me, and if they feel they NEED to be paid for this service, then I feel my money NEEDS to be elsewhere.


Banks Aren't Insolvent... Right?

If a bank needs to borrow money at 7% then I imagine that bank isn't in grand shape. I can get money cheaper than 7%! Luckily Karl Denninger is keeping his eyes open and caught this. There is absolutely no reason why a bank should need to borrow money at that kind of rate! I'm including a link to his article below.