"Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
news:o5a29.2422$Fl.214228 at nnrp1.ptd.net...
> Dear Parse Tree,
>> Really, even the most highly credit-worthy homeowners in the USA do NOT
> entirely own their own property.
That's their fault, not the a result of the cost of homes. My parents own
their house, and it's certainly higher than the median house listed in that
index.
> I am a loan application taker for a local Home Improvement Co. which also
> assists clients through mortgage refinancing and debt consolidation, in
> order for them to "afford" more expensive but badly needed or highly
desired
> home improvements. When I am taking the credit application, I ask, "Is
your
> name the only name on the deed?", many times the clients respond, "Mine
and
> the Bank's." They answer this way because they KNOW that the Mortgage
> Lenders have placed LIENS on their homes in case of "default" on the
> mortgage. Of course, "default" means FORECLOSURE on the home.
>> Welcome to the United Kibbutzim of Amerika, Reb Parse Tree. Your Goy butt
> is OWNED by the very BANK that charges you INTEREST on the GDP of your
anus.
> Personal Property is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. Your rights of owning
> private property are only "covered" with a thinly veiled THREAT that if
you
> don't dance to the high interest rate tune that you're charged for every
> purchase, then you have no right to YOUR property that YOU may have
> purchased outright!
I'm not charged interest for purchases. You shouldn't be either.
> Here's why this condition exists. Our DOLLAR used to be on the GOLD
> STANDARD. That meant that you could trade a dollar for an equivalent
weight
> in gold, and you could sell that gold back for that same dollar. Now, our
> dollar is OFF the gold standard. Gold prices fluctuate as a commodity,
only
> usable by the very wealthiest people. Our dollar, meanwhile, isn't worth
> the paper on which it's printed.
Gold really isn't used outside of electronics and jewelery.
> Let me put it to you in layman's terms. You own a store, and I come in to
> buy something from you. I have two items in my hand which I can use to
pay
> you for your item. One is an ingot of 99.9% pure gold. The other is a
> highly artistically decorated piece of paper with a dollar sign and a
> denomination value written on it, with nothing more than a "written"
> guarantee that it will buy the denomination's value of a good or service.
> Knowing that you can use the gold for everything from trade value to
costume
> jewelry, and that that piece of paper can be consumed to light your
> cigarette, which would you choose?
I'd take the cash. The value of gold is based on perceived value, since it
has no intrinsic use. Since money has the confidence of a nation, and is
fiat currency, it would be safer to go with it.
Regardless, I can buy a can of pop for a dollar. Evidently dollars are not
worthless, else that could not happen.
> Ding, dong, the bells are chiming... Isn't this exactly why property
values
> are OVERINFLATED based on a WORTHLESS DOLLAR whose tax base is SUPPORTED
by
> WELFARE and SOCIAL SECURITY recipients and whose WELFARE AND SOCIAL
SECURITY
> FUNDS are plundered by the very CONGRESSMEN they elect, to be used for pet
> pork-barrel projects ostensibly to employ people in THEIR districts (read:
> cause for them to be re-elected at $150,000/year salaries)?
They only make $150,000? That's not very much.
> Welcome to the United Kibbutzim of Amerika, Parse Tree. You don't really
> think you OWN your home, do you?
I don't have a mortgage.
> Sincerely,
>>> Richard C. August
>> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tpE19.59$9g7.22300 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > You have your date set incorrectly.
> >
> > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > news:8cC19.45114$Fq6.4020271 at news2.west.cox.net...> > >
> > > So tell us, parsetree, do you think we should believe the affirmative
> > action
> > > hirees at the CIA who pad their figures with "purchasing power
parity",
> or
> > > would you prefer ACCURATE data from independent, industry sources
which
> > use
> > > REAL data?
> >
> > Corporations use figures that reflect PPP. It costs $299 for a PS2 in
> > Canada, and $200 in the US. That's not the literal exchange rate.
> >
> > > If you want to know how misleading "purchasing power parity" really
is,
> > take
> > > a look at Asia Week Magazine's "Bottom Line" at
> > > http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0818/bottomline.html> >
> > Do you honestly think that $783 is an accurate depiction of China's GDP
> per
> > person? I know that in NA you can't live off of that much money in a
> year.
> > It's literally impossible.
> >
> > > To be specific, Japan has a higher GDP per capita than the US, but the
> CIA
> > > and other feminized American sources use ppp to penalize Japan to
reduce
> > it
> > > from $34,715 to $23,480, based on the most senseless excuses, like how
> > long
> > > students are in school, and a whole bunch of irrelevant tricks.
> >
> > It is incredibly expensive to live in Japan. Just like it is more
> expensive
> > to live in new york, rather than some little village.
> >
> > > The CIA doesn't report ANY data correctly, as they always use this ppp
> and
> > > other "tricks" [read: LIES] in their reports. Where they report
> > > Switzerland's GDP to be $22,600, their REAL GDP per capita is $37,145,
> > much
> > > higher than ours at $28,600. Germany is penalized $3,000 for WHAT?
> Their
> > > cost of living certainly isn't higher, though their savings rate of
22%
> is
> > > literally *infinitely* higher than ours, since our personal savings
rate
> > is
> > > NEGATIVE after all the interest on the humongous debts is paid.
> > >
> > > http://christianparty.net/bottomline.htm> > >
> > > http://christianparty.net/personalsavings.htm> > >
> > > The countries with the highest per capita incomes, like Kuwait and
> Qatar,
> > > aren't even on these lists. Why not? What does "planet101" hope to
> hide
> > > from you? Lookit how easy it is to LIE to you with statistics.
> >
> > "Purchasing-Power Parity (PPP) takes into account price differences
> between
> > countries to provide a more accurate picture of national wealth"
> > From your vaunted Christian Party website. It seems even they
understand
> > PPP.
> >
> > > The fact that we have a NEGATIVE personal savings rate means that we
> have
> > NO
> > > private ownership of property, because the state now owns it all, and
> you
> > > don't even realize it. This is FAR more important to determining who
is
> a
> > > "rich country" and who is not than "purchasing power parity".
> >
> > So now the United States has no private ownership?
> >
> > You just don't stop, do you?
> >
> > > John Knight
> > >
> > >
> > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:DYn19.64$dn3.26502 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > > > http://www.planet101.com/richcountry.htm> > > >
> > > > The United States has the highest GDP per capita in the world.
> > > >
> > > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ZHn19.42217$Fq6.3845211 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > > > Well said, Mr. August!
> > > > >
> > > > > The loss to women employees really is incalculable.
> > > > >
> > > > > The dollars that had to be lost in order to go, in only 3 decades,
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > world's undisputed highest per capita income to a shaky 17th place
> and
> > > > > falling fast, are truly incalulable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, not only are we dealing with a "bell curve" that's
so
> > > flat
> > > > > that it makes pancakes look like mountains, but we're way down the
> > left
> > > > side
> > > > > of that "bell curve" where liquid nitrogen freezes. Trying to get
> an
> > > > > electron to wriggle at this sub-zero IQ is like trying to get a
> > > "liberal"
> > > > to
> > > > > quote something besides a TV commercial in his "critique".
> > > > >
> > > > > But we still must attempt to make that electron wriggle, in the
slim
> > > hope
> > > > > that their brain washing can be mitigated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:XSa19.1395$Fl.162231 at nnrp1.ptd.net...> > > > > > Dear Parse Tree,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The actual percentages of the rise of the cost of homes vs. the
> rise
> > > in
> > > > > > median incomes doesn't matter a stitch. The fact is that an
> > > increasing
> > > > > > number of working class poor are rendered UNABLE to own a home,
> new
> > or
> > > > > not,
> > > > > > because of their INCOMES, DEBT-TO-INCOME RATIO, and CREDIT
SCORES.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Point blank, many people can barely afford an old trailer.
> Usually,
> > > an
> > > > > old
> > > > > > trailer is what they end up buying, especially when they live in
> my
> > > > area.
> > > > > > My area is known for depleted savings, paltry incomes, no
> retirement
> > > > > > pensions, and a tax base supported by elderly, handicapped, and
> > > retarded
> > > > > who
> > > > > > have no place else to go or stay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am working for a living, and living with my 64-year old
mother,
> > > whose
> > > > > > income can barely feed a canary let alone pay a mortgage. She
> > cannot
> > > > > afford
> > > > > > to pay her homeowners' insurance or her taxes this year. She
> could
> > > not
> > > > > > refinance her mortgage despite the fact that she put a new roof,
> > > siding,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > windows on the house, because property values plummetted.
Median
> > > > incomes
> > > > > in
> > > > > > my area range between $7 and $8 an hour for semi-skilled labour.
> > > > Doctors,
> > > > > > lawyers, plumbers and electricians and contractors earn more,
but
> > > their
> > > > > > incomes are swallowed up in insurance bills and lawsuits.
What's
> > left
> > > > are
> > > > > > retirees from local businesses and also NY and NJ, who have
built
> > > their
> > > > > > homes and are waiting to die.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you honestly think that you can buy a new home in an area
where
> > > jobs
> > > > > are
> > > > > > scarce, the commute to work is at least one hour and at most 4
> > hours,
> > > > and
> > > > > > incomes are pitiful, do the math again. That, by the bye, is
> > > happening
> > > > > more
> > > > > > and more often in more and more places nationwide, as jobs dry
up
> > due
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > "giant sucking sound" from Mexico, about which H. Ross Perot
> warned
> > us
> > > > in
> > > > > > 1992 if NAFTA/GATT were signed. NAFTA/GATT were signed, and the
> > > vacuum
> > > > > > cleaner just got running.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In order to remain competitive, and keep jobs in the USA, Union
> > Labour
> > > > > will
> > > > > > now be FORCED to take pay and benefits cuts or else lose their
> jobs
> > > > > > entirely. Pay and benefits cuts to keep jobs already happened
in
> > the
> > > > Auto
> > > > > > Industry. Where will it happen next? Will it be your job, and
> will
> > > it
> > > > > > happen to you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Parse Tree, remember this FACT. The American News Media are
> > > CONTROLLED
> > > > BY
> > > > > > JEWS!!! They have taken their lesson well from their Doctor of
> > Style
> > > > > Josef
> > > > > > Goebbels, former Nazi Minister of Propaganda. Soothe the
Public.
> > > Lull
> > > > > them
> > > > > > to sleep. Tell them the good news first. Make it all glossy
and
> > > shiny
> > > > > and
> > > > > > pretty looking. Lie to them, because Jew Hitler said that the
> > people
> > > > will
> > > > > > never swallow the Big Lie unless you break it down in little
> pieces
> > > and
> > > > > feed
> > > > > > it to them in spoonfuls. Can't you figure out that that is
> EXACTLY
> > > what
> > > > > the
> > > > > > American News Media have done to you? Or will it take a hit in
> YOUR
> > > > > wallet,
> > > > > > a loss of YOUR house, or YOUR JOB, before it cracks your skull?
I
> > > think
> > > > > > you'll lose your job first.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Concerning the negative productivity of women, the loss due to
> them
> > is
> > > > > > really incalculable. Everything from lack of female physical
> > strength
> > > > to
> > > > > > lengthened employee break times to equalization of gender in the
> > work
> > > > > force
> > > > > > to sexual harrassment complaints/suits attest to this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard C. August
> > > > > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:6x219.346$sI2.279017 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > > > > > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:a3T09.34142$Fq6.3318011 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:7mJ09.26204
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry, all requests for free research (which we now
> > understand
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > neccessary when ONE THIRD ...) must be funneled through
> The
> > > > > > Christian
> > > > > > > > > Party.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But you're in luck--the urls at
> > > > > > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm> > > > > > > > > > are direct references to the original FEDERAL data
(which
> > > > because
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > CYA
> > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > not be the most accurate, but it
> > > > > > > > > > will put you in the ballpark).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That doesn't demonstrate, in any way, that women workers
are
> > > > > > negatively
> > > > > > > > > productive.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Try again.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, parsetree, we do know the problem now, which is that
> > you're
> > > > > > > literally
> > > > > > > > incapable of doing the math yourself, so you'd just as soon
> > insist
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > was done incorrectly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you have a degree in mathematics?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your complete ignorance of statistics, linear algebra and
> calculus
> > > > > > > demonstrates that you do not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Find someone who can do it for you and tell me HONESTLY if
> they
> > > get
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > different NEGATIVE figure for the "productivity" of American
> > women
> > > > > > workers
> > > > > > > > than the one below!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your assumptions are wrong, yet again. See below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Home Prices Increase 4X More Than Incomes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Median household incomes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>http://www.census.gov/income/cdrom/cdrom00/Historical%20Tables/Income/cpi-u-
> > > > > > > > rs/household/h11.lst
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This link refutes most of what you say below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can quite clearly see that the median rose from $31,397 in
> > 1967,
> > > > to
> > > > > > > $42,151 in 2000. This is properly adjustted for inflation,
> unlike
> > > > your
> > > > > > > stats below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Median home prices
> > > > > > > >
> > http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ushmc/winter2001/histdat08.htm> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Labor force participation rates
> > > > > > > > http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This link is broken.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While feminazis, jews, niggers, muds, sodomites, and other
> > > > "liberals"
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > jumping for joy over our recent putative "economic boom",
most
> > > > > Americans
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > can read and add and subtract are wondering why median home
> > prices
> > > > > > > increased
> > > > > > > > by four times more than median incomes increased. And why
> the
> > > > > percent
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > men who are working decreased 7% while the percent of women
> who
> > > are
> > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > > increased 19%. Median prices of homes increased from
$22,700
> in
> > > > 1967
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > $169,000 in 2000, a $146,300 increase, while median incomes
> > lagged
> > > > WAY
> > > > > > > > behind, increasing by only $35,008 (from $7,143 to 42,151).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is the percentage increase that is relevant.
> > > > > > > You should have said that house prices increasd by almost 7.5
> > times,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > that income only increased by just under 6 times. When you're
> > > trying
> > > > to
> > > > > > > illustrate a point, at least use pertinent infomation.
> Increases
> > in
> > > > > > > absolute terms are essentially meaningless in this situation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Incidentally, Japan, the country you're complimenting
> excessively,
> >
> > > had
> > > > a
> > > > > > > Comparative Cost Index of 145.62 as compared to 97.22 for the
> > United
> > > > > > States,
> > > > > > > according to the World Competitiveness Yearbook, June 2000.
> It's
> > > > > cheaper
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > live in the US.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If living in a house wasn't important to you, as it must be
> for
> > > > > > > "liberals",
> > > > > > > > this might be neutral or even good news, but if you're a
> normal
> > > > > person,
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > not a good sign.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The number of houses sold is increasing. So evidently more
> people
> > > are
> > > > > > > beginning to live in them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The real fun is when you point out that the problem was
caused
> > the
> > > > > > > > unprecedented entry into the labor force of the American
girls
> > who
> > > > > > scored
> > > > > > > > lower on TIMSS than if they'd just guessed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Firstly, you can demonstrate no causal connection between
female
> > > entry
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > the workplace and this supposed 'decrease'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Secondly, I have already demonstrated that you really mean
that
> > they
> > > > > > > PROBABLY scored lower than if they had guessed. One is
certain,
> > one
> > > > is
> > > > > > not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When the mostly single-worker
> > > > > > > > families of 4 decades ago had four times the purchasing
power,
> > and
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > almost exclusively single-worker families in Japan have two
to
> > > three
> > > > > > times
> > > > > > > > the incomes, of the mostly two-working parent families of
> today,
> > > > > > > feminaziism
> > > > > > > > appears as a huge festering boil all over everything.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, the purchasing power seems to be properly adjusted
in
> > the
> > > > > stats
> > > > > > > above, and it seems to be increasing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This four fold plunge in family purchasing power occurred as
> the
> > > > > percent
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > men in the labor force decreased 7% aand the percent of
women
> > > > > increased
> > > > > > > 19%.
> > > > > > > > Put simply, purchsing power of American families in 1967
> > [P(1967)]
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > labor force consisted of 81.5% of men working and 39.3% of
> women
> > > > > working
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > four times higher than in 2000 [P(2000)] when only 74.1% of
> men
> > > and
> > > > > > 58.7%
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > women were in the labor force.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Many other things happened during this time that could be
> equally
> > to
> > > > > > blame.
> > > > > > > The fact that you are blaming it on women seems to illustrate
> that
> > > you
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > truly believe prayer increases productivity, or that the
> education
> > > > > system
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > getting worse at all. Nice backpedalling.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > X = productivity of men
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Y = productivity of women
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > P(1967) = 1967 Purchasing Power = X x 81.5% + Y x 39.3% = 1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > P(2000) = 2000 Purchasing Power = X x 74.1% + Y x 58.7% =
> 0.25
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > X = (1 - 39.3%Y)/.815
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 74.1% x (1 - 39.3%Y)/81.5% + 58.7%Y = 0.25
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0.9092 - 0.3573Y +.587Y = 0.25
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > .2297Y = -0.6592
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Y = -2.87
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > X = (1 - 39.3%Y)/0.815 = (1 + 1.1279)/0.815 = 2.61
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nice try, but you're wrong again. Purchasing power was lower
in
> > > 1967.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, your math applied to the correct figures would
> > demonstrate
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > women are MORE productive. Something to think about, isn't
it?
> > > > Perhaps
> > > > > > > your math is wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As it is, the US median household income in 1996 of $35,172
is
> > ONE
> > > > > THIRD
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > that of Japan, which was $9,819 in December 1999.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, Japan is one third of the US, if you take your
figures
> > > > above.
> > > > > > > Isn't that impressive?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <Snipped unreadable stats, since most of it seems to be
> available
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > links above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>>
