How savings as reported are derived.

[agman]

I made a verbatim copy of the accounting equation used by the government to calculate savings as it is reported in most news stories. Please note that this process has little bearing to our actual savings rate in this country as I have previously indicated. As previously mentioned, items such as IRA's and 401K's contributions which are pre-tax are excluded as are many other savings. Thus, as virtually every economist will agree the aforementioned process of measuring savings severely understates our ACTUAL savings rate.

Personal Income and Its Distribution:


Compensation of employees, received
Wages and Salary disbursements
Private industries
Goods producing industries
Manufacturing
Service producing industries
Trade, transportation and utilities
Other service producing industries
Government
Supplements to wages and salaries
Proprietors' income with IVA and CCAdj.
Farm
Nonfarm
Rental income of persons with CCAdj.
Personal income receipts on assets
Personal income
Personal dividend income
Personal current transfer receipts
Less: contributions for government and social insurance

Equals: Personal income

Less: Personal current taxes
Equals: Disposable personal income
Less: Personal Outlays
Equals: Personal savings

 

[Sandhusker]

Maybe you need to explain this to Greenspan.

 

[agman]

Maybe you need to explain this to Greenspan.

He already knows. The figure he cited was derived from that formula. However, that formula is not all inclusive as I have pointed out and he would qucikly corroborate. You as a banker should also know the shortfall of that accounting process but it is very evident how truly limited your kowldege is of our great economy.

 

[Econ101]

National savings and personal savings are two different things, Agman, and we can all probably agree on that. It is the interpretation of those numbers that is the question.

You are making the same mistake that has landed a lot of big companies in a lot of hot water. Assets that are pledged toward future liabilities are not net assets. This is the crux of the pension question you failed to understand.

Tell me, Agman, who is right on these issues?

Agman
or
Both Fed Chairmen

 

[agman]

National savings and personal savings are two different things, Agman, and we can all probably agree on that. It is the interpretation of those numbers that is the question.

You are making the same mistake that has landed a lot of big companies in a lot of hot water. Assets that are pledged toward future liabilities are not net assets. This is the crux of the pension question you failed to understand.

Tell me, Agman, who is right on these issues?

Agman
or
Both Fed Chairmen

 

[agman]

National savings and personal savings are two different things, Agman, and we can all probably agree on that. It is the interpretation of those numbers that is the question.

You are making the same mistake that has landed a lot of big companies in a lot of hot water. Assets that are pledged toward future liabilities are not net assets. This is the crux of the pension question you failed to understand.

Tell me, Agman, who is right on these issues?

Agman
or
Both Fed Chairmen

Are you disputing that the reference to savings by Greensapn was derived from the supplied formula?

I know that assets pledged toward future liabilities are not net assets. Only the portion that exceeds liabilities would be considered a net asset. What else is new?

Fortunately Household Net Worth is as it states "NET". That is total household assets minus total household liabilities. You are dead meat so far concerning this issue. Better luck next time.

 

[agman]

National savings and personal savings are two different things, Agman, and we can all probably agree on that. It is the interpretation of those numbers that is the question.

You are making the same mistake that has landed a lot of big companies in a lot of hot water. Assets that are pledged toward future liabilities are not net assets. This is the crux of the pension question you failed to understand.

Tell me, Agman, who is right on these issues?

Agman
or
Both Fed Chairmen

Are you disputing that the reference to savings by Greensapn was derived from the supplied formula?

I know that assets pledged toward future liabilities are not net assets. Only the portion that exceeds liabilities would be considered a net asset. What else is new?

Fortunately Household Net Worth is as it states "NET". That is total household assets minus total household liabilities. You are dead meat so far concerning this issue. Better luck next time.

 

[Econ101]

National savings and personal savings are two different things, Agman, and we can all probably agree on that. It is the interpretation of those numbers that is the question.

You are making the same mistake that has landed a lot of big companies in a lot of hot water. Assets that are pledged toward future liabilities are not net assets. This is the crux of the pension question you failed to understand.

Tell me, Agman, who is right on these issues?

Agman
or
Both Fed Chairmen

Are you disputing that the reference to savings by Greensapn was derived from the supplied formula?

I know that assets pledged toward future liabilities are not net assets. Only the portion that exceeds liabilities would be considered a net asset. What else is new?

Fortunately Household Net Worth is as it states "NET". That is total household assets minus total household liabilities. You are dead meat so far concerning this issue. Better luck next time.

Agman, where is the household liabilty for retirement?

Even you have to admit that if you had two families, one with a defined and well funded pension plan and one with IRA and 401k retirement accounts, the two family's "net" accounts would be added up vastly different under your argument.

Think about it. When you do, you will see the point of the fed chairmen.

 

[agman]

National savings and personal savings are two different things, Agman, and we can all probably agree on that. It is the interpretation of those numbers that is the question.

You are making the same mistake that has landed a lot of big companies in a lot of hot water. Assets that are pledged toward future liabilities are not net assets. This is the crux of the pension question you failed to understand.

Tell me, Agman, who is right on these issues?

Agman
or
Both Fed Chairmen

Are you disputing that the reference to savings by Greensapn was derived from the supplied formula?

I know that assets pledged toward future liabilities are not net assets. Only the portion that exceeds liabilities would be considered a net asset. What else is new?

Fortunately Household Net Worth is as it states "NET". That is total household assets minus total household liabilities. You are dead meat so far concerning this issue. Better luck next time.

Agman, where is the household liabilty for retirement?

Even you have to admit that if you had two families, one with a defined and well funded pension plan and one with IRA and 401k retirement accounts, the two family's "net" accounts would be added up vastly different under your argument.

Think about it. When you do, you will see the point of the fed chairmen.

The point is that savings, personal or national, are understated. This is a recent quote from the new Fed Chairman Bernanke addressing the very issue I have brought to readers attention. "Aggregate saving and investment may be SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERSTATED in the U.S official statistics."

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.

I am firm and confident with my position which I have brought to readers per this subject. The aforementioned individuals only corroborate my position. That is pretty good company to be associated with.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, " am firm and confident with my position which I have brought to readers per this subject. The aforementioned individuals only corroborate my position. That is pretty good company to be associated with."

Then why are they warning and you're saying everything is roses?

 

[agman]

Agman, " am firm and confident with my position which I have brought to readers per this subject. The aforementioned individuals only corroborate my position. That is pretty good company to be associated with."

Then why are they warning and you're saying everything is roses?

It is unfortunate that you cannot connect the dots and know so little regarding the accounting process that you cling to quote that you do not even understand and cannot defend on your own. For a banker you are consistently out of the information and knowledge loop regarding this great economy. That is quite disappointing.

The fed always has concerns but that does not dismiss the deficiency that they fully recognize, lead by Greenspan, in the current accounting process which significantly understates savings whether national or private.

 

[Anonymous]

I think I have to go along with Sandhusker and follow the two Fed Chairmen....Agman don't you have an economical bias to keep things looking shiny so that people will have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the soundness in markets and investing- thereby using your services which means more commissions/fees and pocket money for you :???:

 

[mrj]

I think I have to go along with Sandhusker and follow the two Fed Chairmen....Agman don't you have an economical bias to keep things looking shiny so that people will have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the soundness in markets and investing- thereby using your services which means more commissions/fees and pocket money for you :???:

OT, are you saying you do not think it will affect Agmans' business if he knowingly uses questionnable numbers to steer them wrong?

Seems to me he could do that only one time and retain his customers. I really believe he is wiser than that.

Isn't the difference in figures/methods possibly more due to what the press likes to present about our financial picture.....doom and gloom? They rarely focus on the positive aspects of the economy when a Republicans are in the Whitehouse and in control of Congress.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Isn't the difference in figures/methods possibly more due to what the press likes to present about our financial picture.....doom and gloom? They rarely focus on the positive aspects of the economy when a Republicans are in the Whitehouse and in control of Congress.

MRJ

Greenspans probably giving his wife news scoops-eh :wink: :lol: :lol:

 

[agman]

I think I have to go along with Sandhusker and follow the two Fed Chairmen....Agman don't you have an economical bias to keep things looking shiny so that people will have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the soundness in markets and investing- thereby using your services which means more commissions/fees and pocket money for you :???:

For a so called judge your intellect is truly shallow. Perhaps you make comments to fit your bias or lack of knowledge. Both are very apparent following your comments and posts on these forums. If you can dispute with facts what I post then you are welcome to do so. Have at it judge, show the world what you don't know.

The simple fact is that most people are not aware of how savings are actually computed. I provided the calculations and you evidently are not smart enough to understand the formula. What else is new. If you choose not to believe what I post that is your choice. That just leaves you less informed than I am and that is to my advantage and that of my clients. BTW, since I deal in hedging not speculation my position would be enhanced by being negative not positive. Is that over your head again? You struck out again-par for you. You should stick with horses, something you might know something about.

 

[Econ101]

I think I have to go along with Sandhusker and follow the two Fed Chairmen....Agman don't you have an economical bias to keep things looking shiny so that people will have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the soundness in markets and investing- thereby using your services which means more commissions/fees and pocket money for you :???:

For a so called judge your intellect is truly shallow. Perhaps you make comments to fit your bias or lack of knowledge. Both are very apparent following your comments and posts on these forums. If you can dispute with facts what I post then you are welcome to do so. Have at it judge, show the world what you don't know.

The simple fact is that most people are not aware of how savings are actually computed. I provided the calculations and you evidently are not smart enough to understand the formula. What else is new. If you choose not to believe what I post that is your choice. That just leaves you less informed than I am and that is to my advantage and that of my clients. BTW, since I deal in hedging not speculation my position would be enhanced by being negative not positive. Is that over your head again? You struck out again-par for you. You should stick with horses, something you might know something about.

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.

 

[agman]

I think I have to go along with Sandhusker and follow the two Fed Chairmen....Agman don't you have an economical bias to keep things looking shiny so that people will have a warm and fuzzy feeling about the soundness in markets and investing- thereby using your services which means more commissions/fees and pocket money for you :???:

For a so called judge your intellect is truly shallow. Perhaps you make comments to fit your bias or lack of knowledge. Both are very apparent following your comments and posts on these forums. If you can dispute with facts what I post then you are welcome to do so. Have at it judge, show the world what you don't know.

The simple fact is that most people are not aware of how savings are actually computed. I provided the calculations and you evidently are not smart enough to understand the formula. What else is new. If you choose not to believe what I post that is your choice. That just leaves you less informed than I am and that is to my advantage and that of my clients. BTW, since I deal in hedging not speculation my position would be enhanced by being negative not positive. Is that over your head again? You struck out again-par for you. You should stick with horses, something you might know something about.

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.

 

[Econ101]

For a so called judge your intellect is truly shallow. Perhaps you make comments to fit your bias or lack of knowledge. Both are very apparent following your comments and posts on these forums. If you can dispute with facts what I post then you are welcome to do so. Have at it judge, show the world what you don't know.

The simple fact is that most people are not aware of how savings are actually computed. I provided the calculations and you evidently are not smart enough to understand the formula. What else is new. If you choose not to believe what I post that is your choice. That just leaves you less informed than I am and that is to my advantage and that of my clients. BTW, since I deal in hedging not speculation my position would be enhanced by being negative not positive. Is that over your head again? You struck out again-par for you. You should stick with horses, something you might know something about.

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.

 

[S.S.A.P.]

yes - we should all realize

quoting econ101:
It is not about baseball and hitting home runs. It is about knowing what you are talking about.

It is all about ..

quoting econ101:
As I said before, it is much like the family who allows the uncle into the house to rape their daughter. The father and mother both know that the uncle is doing something wrong, but due to their circumstances of the uncle being the only breadwinner and a dominant personality for the family, they put up with it. You seem to be in the same position. The least you could do is not support the uncle in someone else's family problems of the same sort.

quoting econ101:
Tam, you are about as big a fraud in the cattle business in Canada as your husband. Your supposed "child" has been raped by uncle Tyson and you still defend them. I have worked on the problem of abused children and it never ceases to amaze me of how it really happens, who allows it, and who doesn't say a word to stop it. With leaders like you, it is no wonder Canadian producers went through what they did. I feel sorry for every one of them, except those who don't speak out against the abuse. They are just as responsible as you are.

quoting econ101:
You are a little like the father who heard the uncle in the bedroom raping his daughter who used the defense, " I didn't do anything because I couldn't. You had to be there to understand".

quoting econ101:
"Rape" or "incest" happens on many different levels. The lady who thought she was poisoned by the poultry companies with one of those "superbugs" was raped in real life. She told me what she has been going through with the poultry company was as bad or worse than the rape she went through in real life. Rape happens on many different levels. It isn't always just sexual. In fact, the biggest part is not sexual at all.

 

[Econ101]

yes - we should all realize

quoting econ101:
It is not about baseball and hitting home runs. It is about knowing what you are talking about.

It is all about ..

quoting econ101:
As I said before, it is much like the family who allows the uncle into the house to rape their daughter. The father and mother both know that the uncle is doing something wrong, but due to their circumstances of the uncle being the only breadwinner and a dominant personality for the family, they put up with it. You seem to be in the same position. The least you could do is not support the uncle in someone else's family problems of the same sort.

quoting econ101:
Tam, you are about as big a fraud in the cattle business in Canada as your husband. Your supposed "child" has been raped by uncle Tyson and you still defend them. I have worked on the problem of abused children and it never ceases to amaze me of how it really happens, who allows it, and who doesn't say a word to stop it. With leaders like you, it is no wonder Canadian producers went through what they did. I feel sorry for every one of them, except those who don't speak out against the abuse. They are just as responsible as you are.

quoting econ101:
You are a little like the father who heard the uncle in the bedroom raping his daughter who used the defense, " I didn't do anything because I couldn't. You had to be there to understand".

quoting econ101:
"Rape" or "incest" happens on many different levels. The lady who thought she was poisoned by the poultry companies with one of those "superbugs" was raped in real life. She told me what she has been going through with the poultry company was as bad or worse than the rape she went through in real life. Rape happens on many different levels. It isn't always just sexual. In fact, the biggest part is not sexual at all.

ssap, would you assign no responisiblity for those in your country who were in a position to do something but did nothing? If so, you deserve the results.