S.S.A.P.
Well-known member
Sorry my post was over your head econ101 ...... maybe if you think about it.
S.S.A.P. said:Sorry my post was over your head econ101 ...... maybe if you think about it.
Econ101 said:agman said:Econ101 said:The problem here, Agman, was that you didn't know what you were talking about when you used that little bit of information about how savings are actually calculated. Then you made an assertion that was totally and completely refuted.
This is not the first time.
ou should stick with horses, something you might know something about.
...and what did you to disprove what I posted? You diverted to unfunded pension funds which is an entirely different issue. That is par for you. Divert to prove to yourself how brilliant you are but fail to recognizes you are not even of the same subject-another comprehension problem on your part.
If you have a problem with the formula that is used then perhaps you should spend some time ascertaining what it fails to tell everyone about the actual savings rate. Have you figured out by now what NET Household Net Worth Means - assets minus liabilities. Do you know where to locate that data?
If you believe the current formula to compute savings is correct then why dismiss the govenment formula used to calculate Household Net Worth? I guess it does not fit your bias. Trapped again in your own ignorance and deception!!
Why do you so conveniently dismiss the comments I posted previously? Here is a repost "You should know that it was actually Greenspan who first realized the deficiencies in the current accounting methods. He is not alone as Corrado and Sichel of the Federal Reserve Board are on the forefront of challenging current accounting used by the BEA. As disciples of Greenspan they recognize this accounting shortfall only becomes greater as the economy transitions from a manufacturing economy of the past." Are these members of the Fed wrong along with the new Fed Chairman Bernanke when he recently stated "Aggregate savings and investment may be significantly understated in the U.S. official statistics".
Stroke your ego Conman, you have not even got to first base against me let alone hit any home runs. You have been trapped in you own distortion and lies so many times it is truly pathetic. Better luck next time Conman.
a) Agman, your original posting was about how much more wealth we really have in the U.S. than the personal savings calculation by the govt.
b) The personal savings calculation by the government is just a number used mostly by economists with a specific definition that is unrelated to personal savings that most people think about.
c) Your point was that we are wealthier than we think because the personal savings calculation did not include some items that you thought it should include.
My point was that there are also unfunded liabilties (I posted them) that need to be taken into account if you are going to interpret the numbers the way you try. Although you are technically correct in point a) and point b), the conclusions you come to in point c) is incorrect.
This is the same type of logical fallacy you have in reference to the Pickett case. It is not about baseball and hitting home runs. It is about knowing what you are talking about. You have a little more knowledge than the average guy, but your use of it is incorrect.
I am happy I could help you out..........again.
Both the current and former fed chairmen agree with me on this issue.
agman said:Econ101 said:agman said:...and what did you to disprove what I posted? You diverted to unfunded pension funds which is an entirely different issue. That is par for you. Divert to prove to yourself how brilliant you are but fail to recognizes you are not even of the same subject-another comprehension problem on your part.
If you have a problem with the formula that is used then perhaps you should spend some time ascertaining what it fails to tell everyone about the actual savings rate. Have you figured out by now what NET Household Net Worth Means - assets minus liabilities. Do you know where to locate that data?
If you believe the current formula to compute savings is correct then why dismiss the govenment formula used to calculate Household Net Worth? I guess it does not fit your bias. Trapped again in your own ignorance and deception!!
Why do you so conveniently dismiss the comments I posted previously? Here is a repost "You should know that it was actually Greenspan who first realized the deficiencies in the current accounting methods. He is not alone as Corrado and Sichel of the Federal Reserve Board are on the forefront of challenging current accounting used by the BEA. As disciples of Greenspan they recognize this accounting shortfall only becomes greater as the economy transitions from a manufacturing economy of the past." Are these members of the Fed wrong along with the new Fed Chairman Bernanke when he recently stated "Aggregate savings and investment may be significantly understated in the U.S. official statistics".
Stroke your ego Conman, you have not even got to first base against me let alone hit any home runs. You have been trapped in you own distortion and lies so many times it is truly pathetic. Better luck next time Conman.
a) Agman, your original posting was about how much more wealth we really have in the U.S. than the personal savings calculation by the govt.
b) The personal savings calculation by the government is just a number used mostly by economists with a specific definition that is unrelated to personal savings that most people think about.
c) Your point was that we are wealthier than we think because the personal savings calculation did not include some items that you thought it should include.
My point was that there are also unfunded liabilties (I posted them) that need to be taken into account if you are going to interpret the numbers the way you try. Although you are technically correct in point a) and point b), the conclusions you come to in point c) is incorrect.
This is the same type of logical fallacy you have in reference to the Pickett case. It is not about baseball and hitting home runs. It is about knowing what you are talking about. You have a little more knowledge than the average guy, but your use of it is incorrect.
I am happy I could help you out..........again.
Both the current and former fed chairmen agree with me on this issue.
I hate to pop your bubble but you evidently don't know what the word 'NET" means. Look it up in the dictionary. Your attempt to divert to unfunded pension liabilities is just that "diversion". That would come under Corporate Net Worth as a subtraction, not Household Net Worth which would include only the funded portion. My post was specific to Household Net Worth. I will post the Corporate Net Worth Total as soon as I find time to examine that data. We can continue once I post the latter figure.