"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:9hublucbg31bihkdkmr1g6uotb49krv351 at 4ax.com...>> 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 fact that they *no longer* use the survey used in the early 1990s
as the source of their household income data, and instead now use a
different source which gathers somewhat different data should make it
clear that the Census Bureau believes this to be the better data.
>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.
I did a fairly thorough search and found no evidence that they are
still doing the Survey of Consumer Finance that was the basis for the
early 1990s numbers. There is no mention of it after the mid-90s.
>The usual procedure would be to publicize the min and
>the max to give people a range of possible data points.
I see no evidence that the Census Bureau EVER does that. They may
publish multiple statistics that conflict to a small degree, but I can
find only one place where there is anything like a "range of possible
data points", and that is in the multiple models projecting population
growth.
>There are many
>reasons to believe that their household surveys are more accurate than the
>other techniques for determining home equity and incomes.
Whether you think so or not, the Census Bureau did not, and it chose a
different source for later years. In any event, the results are not
that different in most places where the data can be compared.
>> >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.
The numbers are for household net worth in both cases, a phrase which
has a jargon meaning that likely has not changed in 10 years.
>You can't get much less comparable than to have a $9 trillion spread, can
>you?
Certainly. You've tried comparing a lot more ridiculous things than
1992 household worth and 1999 household worth, all of which were less
comparable.
>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?
Table 689 shows an increase of $5 trillion in 10 years for real
estate. Financial assets increased by almost $19 trillion over the
same time period, $20.5 trillion if you stop at the end of 1999.
Pension funds increased by over $6 trillion which was a trebling.
Why should this be so unbelievable, if stocks can fall $7 trillion
dollars in 2 years?
>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.
You can't subtract the government real estate, because the asset value
listed is that of household real estate.
The net household equity in Table 689 at the bottom. In 1990, it is
listed as $4.075 trillion, in 2000 as $6.015 trillion. No guessing is
needed.
>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.
But you are ignoring the fact that most household assets are NOT in
real estate equity. Table 689 makes that clear. At the end of 1999,
at the peak of the stock market, the total of household assets that
were in stocks (corporate equities, mutual funds) was $11.8 trillion.
The stock loss of $7 trillion was not limited to household stock
holdings, but included international holdings and holdings by trust
and pension funds, but still is less than the household stock
holdings. You can use the Standard and Poors index or some other
broadbased stock index to get an idea what percentage of the stock
value has evaporated, but the fact that stocks have positive values
means that the value of stocks as assets is a significant positive
number.
>> >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,
The data specifically reports pension fund RESERVES which are that
portion that HAVE been capitalized. $9.8 trillion in 2000
>and which may now have COMPLETELY disappeared.
As I just explained, it hasn't. If it had, then stocks would have
zero value on average. That is what "COMPLETELY disappeared" would
mean.
>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.
Nope. Only a part of that $7 trillion was household stock
investments. Table 1199 shows that the total corporate equity holdings
at the end of 1999 were $19.756 trillion. THAT is the number that
decreased by $7 trillion. Only around 45% of it was held directly by
households, another 20% by mutual funds and 10% by pension funds.
>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.
You are silly. If you were correct about the trend continuing, you'd
have to PAY people to take your house in a couple of years. The
housing market went into a slump that lasted through daddy Bush's
presidency. Housing prices have skyrocketed since 1991. The
assessment on my house went up 20% last year alone.
Lessee, carrying out a trend line of a 31% drop in 7 years, it now
being 18 years since 1984 gives an 80% drop. If you want to sell your
house for 20% of what it was worth in 1984, I'm sure a lot of people
would be interested. Are you offering? After all, if you are
correct, in 7 more years it will be worth -11% of what it was worth in
1984. Better sell fast!!!
lojbab
