brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Sun Aug 11 01:08:01 EST 2002


"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:tmc3lu0m81ebd3ijjj6tllbf1clfpbn2un at 4ax.com...
>> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>> (changing the topic yet again, having been stymied on his 50 zillion
>> other idiotic topics).
>>
>> >Asset Ownership of Households: 1993
>> >
>> >Between 1984 and 1993, a period of nine years, the "median values of
>> >holdings" for "own homes" in the US decreased by 17%, from $56,430 to
>> >$46,669.  In 1996 the Census Bureau changed the format for reporting this
>> >asset change so a direct comparison cannot be made to prior years,
>>
>> That particular number, no.  You can get comparable numbers though.
>> From the 2001 Statistical Abstract Table 689, owner's equity in
>> household real estate, Dec 31, 2000 was $6.015 trillion.  At the end
>> of 1993 it was $4.102 trillion.
>
>No.  According to the US Census Bureau, the total figure was less than $2.8
>trillion, which is half of what the Statistical Abstract reports.

The Statistical Abstract is published by the US Census Bureau,
nincompoop.  So according to the US Census Bureau the total figure is
what the Statistical Abstract says it is.

The data you were quoting from was from a SAMPLE, and it seems rather
apparent that they have found out that the sampling was in some way
invalid.

>> Note that
>> this is equity - the real estate debt (around 5 trillion in 2000) has
>> already been subtracted.  The total real estate assets of households
>> and non-profit organizations was $12.309 trillion, of which around 10%
>> is owned by non-profit organizations.
>
>According to the US Census Bureau, the TOTAL net worth of all American
>households, excluding the $6 trillion public debt, excluding their per
>capita share of the social security debt, excluding their future tax
>liability which is BOUND to increase, was less than $5 trillion in 1991.
>Are you calling the US Census Bureau a LIAR, lojbab?

No.  I am calling you a nincompoop.  YOU are the one calling the
Census Bureau a liar, if you say that the Statistical Abstract data is
false.

>> >If this trend continued,
>> >however, then in 1997 it was down to $42,120 and in 2000 to $37,240.
>>
>> But of course the trend did not continue.  And residential real estate
>> is not the only form of asset that most people have.  Total assets
>> of households and non-profits was $41 trillion at the end of 2000, so
>> that $6 trillion stock loss was a lot, but wasn't hardly an economic
>> collapse.
>
>And which orifice did you pull this $41 trillion from?  How is this source
>more credible than the US Census Bureau figure of?

Because the source IS the US Census Bureau (which got it in part from
the Federal Reserve, which of course is the ultimate source for
financial information on this country).

>Why on Earth would you
>even begin to believe that anyone would accept a "liberal"'s word for it,
>without proper citations?

I gave you the citation.  Do you need the URL, because you cannot find
the Statistical Abstract selection on the Census Bureau home page?

>Why did this "source" of yours inflate the figure by 8 fold?

Why did the "source" you use underestimate the figure by 8 fold?

Especially when the two sources are the SAME.

>>  The median net worth of those with incomes between $10K and $25K, was
>> $24,800 in 1998.  This was in fact down 10% from 1992, but the overall
>> median net worth of ALL families rose from $56,500 to $71,600 in
>> constant 1998 dollars between 1992 and 1998.
>
>The $7.2 trillion loss in the stock market JUST in the last two years is
>$72,000 per household, which means that any possible increase between 1992
>and 1998, PLUS SOME, was wiped out.

Nope.  The median net worth was $71,600.  The MEAN net worth was
around 4 times that.  Net worth is one of those areas where the mean
and the median are not close together.  The curve isn't bell shaped.

>Furthermore, even IF the median net worth in 1998 was $71,600 (a figure
>which is EXTREMELY suspect, and completely contradictory to the US Census
>Bureau figures), then the $72,000 loss wiped it ALL out.

Nope. You are subtracting a mean from a median.  Another nincompoop
error.

>> >To make matters worse, in 2000, Personal Saving became NEGATIVE at the same
>> >time that mortgage debt reached a record high of $5 trillion, a five fold
>> >increase in just 20 years,
>>
>> But that ignores the fact that real estate value rose four fold in the
>> same 20 years, so that all this really means is that the average
>> American owes 44% of his house value in mortgage instead of 33%.
>
>Why are you confusing mortgage debt with personal savings? 

I didn't.  You mentioned mortgage debt.  Read what you wrote, silly.

>And why are you ignoring the long term decrease in
>American incomes relative to housing prices, where median incomes decreased
>from 32% of median home values to less than 20%?

I'm not.  I have no opinion on whether it is good or bad, and I'm only
responding to what YOU wrote.

>On TOP of that, your most incredible omission is the simple fact that during
>this time you "think" that real estate "value" rose four fold,

I only "think" that the Census Bureau is the Census Bureau, and if you
are going to accept their numbers in some cases, you need to so in
others.

 it was
>actually real estate "prices" which increased, plus they increased by only
>2.6 fold (from $64,600 in 1980 to $169,000 in 2000), and MORTGAGE DEBT
>increased by more than five fold, from $934 billion to $5,022 billion.
>
>Certainly this raises red flags even in minute "liberal" brains, eh?

I don't know.  I don't know anyone with a "minute 'liberal' brain".

>> In addition to the above table, Tables 1166-1169 give more detailed
>> breakdown of the financial assets and liabilities (everything BUT real
>> estate and personal property).  Yes the stock market lost $6-7
>> trillion in the last 2 years.  But between 1990 and 1999, households
>> GAINED $15 trillion from the stock market runup.
>
>Which is *precisely* the point.  This "stock market runup" of $15 trillion
>represents $150,000 per American household, and as you note above "the
>overall median net worth of ALL families rose from $56,500 to $71,600 in
>constant 1998 dollars between 1992 and 1998", so, in order to have $150,000
>per household in "stock market assets" and $71,600 in "net worth", that EACH
>household had to have an average debt of $78,400:

Nope.  You again confuse mean and median.  The mean net worth in
constant 1998 dollars was $212,700 in 1992, and $282,500 in 1998.
(Table 688).


$150,000 in "stock market assets"
>- 78,400 in debts
>= 71,600 in median net worth
>
>The recent $72,000 per household plunge in the stock market thus wiped out
>ALL American household assets, using the most "liberal" estimates for
>"median net worth":
>
>$71,600 in median net worth
>- 72,000 loss in "stock market assets"
>= - 400 per household in median assets

Doesn't work that way.  (And not all stocks are owned by American
households.)

>> Probably the reason why they abandoned this particular data collection
>> method is that it doesn't match with the Federal Reserve numbers,
>> which show that households in 1990 owned $1.8 trillion in corporate
>> stocks, $2.5 trillion in time and savings accounts, and 126 billion in
>> savings bonds.  The real estate numbers are reasonably close, however.
>>
>
>No, the reason they dropped it is because it was almost accurate, it told
>the TRUTH about the humongous debts per American household, it revealed the
>manipulation of the "stock market", and too many people would have been able
>to easily follow the trend without having to do all the math.

Are you calling the US Census Bureau a LIAR, nincompoop?

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list