• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

How savings as reported are derived.

Help Support Ranchers.net:

S.S.A.P. said:
Sorry my post was over your head econ101 ...... maybe if you think about it.

What does this have to do with personal savings?
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Agman, can you stop with the comments?:"I hate to pop your bubble but you evidently don't know what the word 'NET" means."

I know what net means and I know the debate we are having on these points. It is all old stuff. I have given you enough information for you to be able to figure it out.

Let me spell it out for you one more time. Pensions are not counted as assets. They are monies set aside for future liabilities of retirement. If you count them as assets, you have to count the future liability of saving for retirement. That is ONE of the reasons pensions are not counted as an asset. 401ks and other retirement plans owned by individuals have taken the place of many pension plans. The difference in them and pension plans is that if you die, the money can go to your heirs instead of the actuarial accounting that happens in pension plans. The money in the 401ks and other "owned" retirement plans that is left over when one dies does go to heirs. It can then be counted as savings then, unless it is rolled over into another retirement plan.

You should have realized this fact when I brought these things out in my posts instead of me having to embarass you when you keep going on about it. I posted the debt information because Social Security is a pay as you go system that actuarially has future liabilities greater than the pay as you go system can handle. That is why we have to worry about them.
The same thing with people who have no pensions and only have 401ks and personal retirement plans.

Way back a long time ago when I was a college student, I worked for a firm that set up ERISAs. The govt. had just had enough of pension plans being used in corporate takeovers and things like that so they passed the ERISA requirements so companies had to do real accounting on their retirement plans instead of raiding those plans and leaving the people with unfunded liabilities. We have had a real stretch of lax govt. regulation in this regard. That is the pension plan problems we are now facing that both fed chairmen are talking about and that we as taxpayers may have to bail out. (We could talk about corporate america's problems there sometime but it would require a whole thread)

I have watched this problem develop for over 20 years. I know the issues. I know why and how the problems developed.

The personal savings rate is NOT a savings rate that is a measure of wealth. It is like a balance sheet item for a company. It does have economic meaning, however. If we had a zero inflation rate it might be more applicable for specific purposes that some people try to use it for today, I grant you.

Whether the personal savings rate is enough on average for the liabilities ahead plus economic growth is the question.

By the way, pension "liabilities" are not liabilities for companies if they are fully funded. They net out.
 

Latest posts

Top