"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:9hublucbg31bihkdkmr1g6uotb49krv351 at 4ax.com...
> "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.
>
And exactly WHERE do you get this information that they believe one of their
studies is "in some way invalid"? You will find absolutely no reference in
the entire Census Bureau that supports your STUPID statement.
The Census Bureau uses a number of different methods to determine statistics
like this, far more than what they have on the web site or put in the
Statistical Abstract. The usual procedure would be to publicize the min and
the max to give people a range of possible data points. There are many
reasons to believe that their household surveys are more accurate than the
other techniques for determining home equity and incomes.
> >> 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.
No. You said: "You can get comparable numbers though. From the 2001
Statistical Abstract Table 689", indicating that you "think" these are
"comparable numbers", which they're obviously not.
You can't get much less comparable than to have a $9 trillion spread, can
you?
Certainly you don't think that "total real estate assets of households"
increased by $9 trillion, or 3.7 times, in only 9 years, do you?
For one thing, the 1991 figure of $3.3 trillion is the NET worth, meaning
that this is the difference between the market value and the total mortgage
debt, whereas your 2000 figure of $12.3 trillion is JUST the asset value.
>From that you must subtract at least the $5.1 trillion mortgage debt, and
something in the range of $3.2 trillion in government real estate, leaving
$4 trillion in personal real estate net worth.
This is only $40,000 per American household, and each of those American
households lost an AVERAGE of $72,000 in the last two years of stock market
implosion, which makes this a FAR more significant event than you want to
admit.
>> >> >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).
>
You're comparing apples and oranges. One of the "assets" that make up
almost one quarter of this $41 trillion is pension plans which haven't even
been capitalized, and which may now have COMPLETELY disappeared. Already,
before this latest crash, the creation of the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Association had caused the percent of Americans with pension plans to plunge
from 40% to 24% in just 30 years. The jews who're playing Monopoly with
those pension plans have certainly sent the rest of it to Israel by now, so
you might just as well erase that from the $41 trillion.
Another quarter of that $41 trillion is [read: was] corporate stocks, and
already you can subtract $7.2 trillion from that due to the plunge in the
NASDAQ and jew Yawk stock exchanges.
It's disingenuous to claim that real estate assets increased from $7.4
trillion to $12.3 trillion between 1990 and 2000, because the reality is
that real estate net worth in 2000 was actually lower than it was in 1990,
nationwide. Why? Because in 1991, the median value of real estate net
worth was 31% lower than it was in 1984, just 7 years earlier, and there's
NOTHING that even hints that this trend suddenly reversed itself.
http://christianparty.net/assetownership.htm
John Knight
