"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.
Where did that other $1.3 trillion come from? Thin jewish air, perhaps?
> You could divide this by the number
> of households in each year to get a per-household figure.
According to the US Census Bureau, that per-household figure was $46,669 in
1993, which is a far cry from $6 trillion.
> 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?
http://christianparty.net/assetownership.htm
>> >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 ? Why on Earth would you
even begin to believe that anyone would accept a "liberal"'s word for it,
without proper citations? Why did this "source" of yours inflate the figure
by 8 fold?
>> >The
> >increase in the number of female headed households, whose median net
worth
> >is less than $15,000 each, is one of the primary factors for this loss of
> >household assets.
>> 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.
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.
Now you know why the "news media" is making such a big hooplah about 911--to
conceal the REAL American disaster.
>> >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? The two are
completely unrelated. 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%? Certainly not even you
"liberals" can really believe that either of these are good trends?
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, 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?
> >The problem is that in 1991, per the US Census Bureau, only 20.7 million
> >American households held stocks and mutual fund shares with a median
value
> >of only $5,490, which is only $114 billion. How then did American
> >"investors" manage to lose $7.2 trillion during that time? They
mortgaged
> >to the hilt the only asset they had,
>> Nonsense. First of all, stocks went up a long way before they fell
> back that $6-7 trillion. Next, most of the investment was not
> directly held by those households. At the end of 2000, $6.5 trillion
> was held in stocks, $3 trillion in mutual funds, and $9.8 trillion in
> pension fund reserves. People don't borrow on their houses for
> pension fund reserves, and that's where half of American private
> ownership of stocks is held.
>> 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:
$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
>> >But in 1991, 64.7 million homeowners had equity worth a median of only
> >$43,070, which is less than $2.8 trillion, and their total equity was
less
> >than $4.8 trillion, which means that this stock market loss was $2.4
> >trillion more than they had in assets.
>> >1991 Asset Number of Households Median Asset Value Total Value
($billions)
> >Interest-earning Assets 73,200,000 3,709 271.5
> >Other Interest-earning Assets 9,000,000 16,058 144.5
> >Checking Accounts 46,000,000 529 24.3
> >Stocks & Mutual Funds Shares 20,700,000 $5,490 $113.6
> >Own homes 64,700,000 43,070 2,786.6
> >Rental Property 9,000,000 31,270 281.4
> >Other Real Estate 10,700,000 20,140 215.5
> >Vehicles 86,400,000 5,555 480.0
> >Business or Profession 11,700,000 10,203 119.4
> >U.S. Savings Bonds 18,100,000 610 11.0
> >IRA or Keogh Accounts 22,900,000 11,886 272.2
> >Other Financial Investments 2,800,000 19,031 53.3
> >TOTAL $4,773.3
>> 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.
> >x In 1993, median measured net worth varied from $5,786 (± $474) for the
> >youngest households to $91,481 (± $3,736) for households in the
55-to-64-year-old category.
>> Table 688:
>> In 1998, the range was $9,000 for those under 35 to $146,500 for those
> 65 to 74.
>> It
> >was $77,654 (± $4,510) for the oldest group (75 years and over). Median
measured net
> >worth fell significantly from 1991 to 1993 for households in
35-to-44-year-old and 65-to-69-year-old
> >categories.
>> From 1992 to 1998, it fell around 15% for those aged under 35, 2% for
> those aged 55 to 64, and rose 20-30% for the other age categories.
>> >x In 1993, households with White householders had median measured net
worth
> >of $45,740 (± $1,307), households with Black householders had median
measured net worth
> >of $4,418 (± $697), and households with Hispanic-origin householders had
a median
> >measured net worth of $4,656 (± $681), which was not significantly
different from that of Black
> >households.
> >
> >x Married-couple households had the largest median measured net worth,
> >$61,905 (± $1,614) in 1993. Both male- and female-maintained households
had median measured net
> >worth approximately one-fifth that of married-couple households in 1993.
> >
> >x Households headed by females experienced a decline in their median
> >measured net worth, from
> >
> >$15,518 (± $1,506) (in 1993 dollars) in 1991 to $13,294 (± $1,112) in
1993.
> >This decline was concentrated among female householders age 35 to 54.
>> They don't do those breakouts any more, since they use a different
> data source. They give net worth by education level (down for those
> without a high school diploma; up for everyone else), income, age,
> region, and primary income source of the householder.
>> lojbab
Now you know why.
John Knight
