What $100 Could Buy: Purchasing Power Across Assets Since 1913

By Daniel Okafor

In 1913, $100 anchors a TradingView comparison of the dollar against six major assets.

Bittek's chart, titled “THE GREAT DEVALUATION OF MONEY,” follows that benchmark against the US Dollar and six comparison assets. The post frames the central financial risk as holding money rather than losing it. Bittek argues that dollar purchasing power has eroded steadily while scarce assets and productive businesses have compounded wealth, in some cases at extraordinary rates.

What does the $100 benchmark actually compare?

Six assets sit opposite the US Dollar:

• Dow Jones
• S&P 500
• Gold
• Silver
• Bitcoin
• Berkshire Hathaway

The common starting point is $100 in 1913. The test asks what each holding can buy over time, rather than how many nominal dollars it produces. That unit matters because Bittek treats a rising dollar balance and rising purchasing power as different outcomes, and the chart tests every holding against the same dollar benchmark.

The page displays the TradingView symbol 100*CUUR0000SA0R/29.7 and describes it as 100*FRED:CUUR0000SA0R/29.7. The accompanying text gives no endpoint values, annualized returns, drawdowns or detailed index methodology. Its conclusions therefore form a directional purchasing-power argument, not a complete return ranking.

The post separates the comparison into two mechanisms. Gold, Silver and Bitcoin serve as monetary assets. The Dow Jones, S&P 500 and Berkshire Hathaway represent ownership in productive businesses. Each holding faces the same test against the dollar's declining purchasing power.

Which assets does Bittek favor?

Bittek characterizes the US Dollar's record as relentless erosion in purchasing power over a century. He says Gold and Silver have preserved and expanded their value across generations. The post groups them among scarce assets that compounded wealth over time.

For equities, Bittek credits ownership in productive businesses with rewarding long-term capital allocation. Berkshire Hathaway receives a separate designation as a remarkable example of long-term compounding. The source offers no revenue, earnings, valuation or transaction data for the company, so the chart uses Berkshire Hathaway as a long-term business case.

Bitcoin carries the clearest qualifier. Bittek describes it as a new monetary asset with an extraordinary but volatile trajectory. The source presents an exceptional path while keeping volatility attached to the result.

These judgments do different work. The dollar is the fading unit. Gold and Silver are stores of value that held their ground across generations. Equities reward ownership and allocation. Berkshire Hathaway supplies the company example. Bitcoin combines monetary-asset exposure with volatility.

Why does purchasing power change the question?

Bittek frames the core test this way: “The real question isn't simply which asset performed best.” His alternative is to ask how much purchasing power money will retain over the next 10, 20 or 50 years.

The shift from price to purchasing power also changes what counts as wealth. Bittek says wealth is not just the number of dollars held; it is what those dollars can buy. His conclusion is direct: “Don't just measure wealth in dollars. Measure it in purchasing power.”

This framework favors a long horizon and puts every holding on the same economic basis, because a dollar balance matters only through the goods and services that balance can acquire. Under Bittek's approach, a nominal gain has less force when it does not keep pace with the dollar's loss of buying power.

What should investors examine next?

The source sets three forward horizons: 10, 20 and 50 years. It does not supply forecasts for any of them. Investors can still apply the framework by using one purchasing-power measure for each asset over the same period and checking whether the apparent advantage persists as the holding period lengthens.

The chart supports a warning about nominal balances, not a completed allocation case. Dollar balances do not preserve purchasing power automatically, and the source presents several assets that have compounded more strongly. Bittek leaves the allocation decision open, but sets the next analytical standard: compare buying power across horizons rather than declare a winner from nominal prices alone.