A GAMA document on the historical price of airplanes

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 01:01:17 -0000, wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Sep 12, 7:54*pm, wrote:

Actually, your data has nothing to do with buying power, that is measured
by the CPI, not wages.

No matter. I've proven my point and there are other
sources to corroberate it.

In terms of 1971 dollars versus 2010 dollars, the 2010 Skyhawk costs 3.5
times what the 1971 model cost.

Um, why are you flip-flopping now? I'm the one asserting that the
ratio has changed to a rip-off price. You're the one asserting that
dollar per dollar the value is constant. Remember?

Ummm, no, I never said constant.

The closes thing to "constant" I said was that a decent used airplanes
still costs about the same as a good car.

Of course in the 1971 Skyhawk the engine was smaller, didn't have fuel
injection, and just about all the standard avionics in the 2010 model
was an option in the 1971 model, and some didn't even exist.

Well then, that must explain ( along with inflation ) why they've gone
from $15,000 to $300,000. Better radios.

Actually, from just under $85k to just under $300k in terms of CPI adjusted
dollar value.

And yes, about $100k of that increase is easily the better standard
equipment, which isn't just radios. Hell, even the paint is better.

So now you are down to about 1.5 times as expensive when you do an apples
to apples comparison.

Hardly the "ripoff" you keep ranting about.

*larf*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

Oh, I didn't mean the lucrative opportunites in alternative
energy right now are from investment in fledgling companies.
I believe it's from government grants and subsidies to
explore this field, or from receiving investment money.

IOW, my welfare checks.

oooooooK