4 ms·
13$ in 1944 adjusted for inflations would be 180.38$ in 2017. Still a small payment for the DoD.
by esturk 9y ago
13$ in 1944 adjusted for inflations would be 180.38$ in 2017. Still a small payment for the DoD.
- Digit-Al 9y agoHow about the 73 years interest? :-)
- pimmen 9y agoWith the somewhat generous annual interest of 6%, it would be around $1000. Not exactly back breaking for the DoD (or the VA, for that matter, whatever department has this issue on their table).
- foota 9y agoYou're off by a factor of ten. Assuming monthly compounding: (1 + .06/12)^(12 * (2017-1944)) = 78.97 78.97 * 180 = 14214 However the final amount is highly sensitive to interest rate assumed, for different interest rates: .02 774.13 .04 3,321.26 .06 14,214.86 .08 60,692.55 .10 258,514.77 .12 1,098,489.57 However it's unlikely that the money would have been invested anyways.
- thomasz 9y agoYou are wrongly calculating with $180 instead of $13. The $180 figure is $13 adjusted by inflation.
- Retric 9y agoWhile true using 6% during periods where inflation was > 6% is a poor interest rate. IMO, inflation +4% is reasonable.
- ars 9y agoCan't include both interest and inflation. It's one or the other, not both.
- Sumaso 9y agoYou can certainly include both interest and inflation.
- libeclipse 9y agoHow so?
- LyndsySimon 9y agoI'm not a mathematician by any means, but I would think that (interest rate) - (rate of inflation) = (effective interest rate)
- pc86 9y agoNo
- smallnamespace 9y agoYou've just defined the real interest rate, as opposed to the nominal rate
- oliwarner 9y agoSay you put £100 in the bank 50 years ago. Compound interest tells us how much money we have. If we assume an improbably static 2% every year, today we have ~£270 in our account. Inflation doesn't work on top of that because £270 is what it's already worth today. Inflation tells us what our original £100 is worth in terms of buying power. If a loaf of bread cost £0.10 in 1967 but costs £1.50 today, we can say over 50 years there has been 150% inflation. These sorts of price index comparisons allow us to compare worth back then. Or in reverse, you can see this in very real terms. You could look at your £270 and see that would only buy you 180 loaves of bread. In 1967, your £100 would have garnered 1000 loaves. Interest has not kept up with inflation. You have lost money —in this example— by "saving" it. On a shorter timescale, RPI and CPI allow central banks to see inflation and —to a point— alter their base rates to help influence the balance of savers-vs-spenders, lessening the popular disposable cash, and lessening inflation. That's the theory, anyway.
- emn13 9y agoHe might have spent the money in ways that later benefited him - even if he bought a house that was 13$ more expensive, given the housing boom during his lifetime in many locations he would have made more than a 6% return. You're never going to be able to really figure that what-if game anyhow... I think interest is an appropriate simplification (certainly more appropriate than inflation).
- kobeya 9y agoPlus all the other cases that would now have to be granted based on precedent.
- emn13 9y agoAll those other cases of escaped prisoners of war?
- kobeya 9y agoFrom WW2? Probably quite a few.
- emn13 9y agoThat were captured and escaped? In which pay actually was docked? In which they can remember and document this? That are still alive today? That can't be more than a handful.
- pimmen 9y agoIf they're not alive today, I believe their families will get the money. The Baby Boomers came to be immediately after WW2, so that will be quite the collection of families waiting for their money.