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

What is the Real Debt Picture Like, Agman?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman: "Brad, thanks for your concern but do you know how the savings rate as reported is computed? The negative savings rate is one of the real problems with the present accounting system. The savings rate as reported is a product of National Income Accounting whcih is income minus transer payments etc. etc. The residual is what they then call savings. It is not a measure of the true savings rate in this country at all. For instance, your 401K and IRA' are not even counted in the National Income Accounting process. The true savings of individuals in the U.S. is at the 8-10% level.

Household net worth after all debt is $55 trillion. After subtracting housing, which is most individuals largest asset from that total, Household Net Worth is still $40 trillion. The national household ASSET to DEBT ratio is excess of $5:$1. That is not a misprint Brad. Unfortunately this good news seldom ever gets mentioned in the news and too few people bother to research this on their own. We are the most blessed people on earth to be part of this great economic machine which is the envy of the entire world. We are in the midst of the greatest generational transfer of wealth in the history of the world.

How are your kids doing? Give a hi-five to those little ones."



Agman, this webpage shows how you pick and chose data to support your bias. You are no different when it comes to the Pickett case. Your little personal question about someone's kids take the cake. You seem to be really nice when you lie and mislead. I think the Pickett jury saw through people like you. To see this page on the world wide web (where it is much better) click:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm#household








ome & Contents | Summary | Feedback | What's New | Link Index | Eye-opener | Must See |

America's Total Debt Report
page 1 of 2
$ 40 Trillion - - and soaring
- household, business, financial and government sectors -
by Michael Hodges - email
updated March 2005

- a chapter of the Grandfather Economic Reports -

America has become more debt-dependent - - than ever before

with total debt of $40 trillion, or $136,479 per man, woman and child
and each added dollar of new debt produces less increased national income
I am concerned about the debt being passed to our younger generation. Who isn't?

The Grandfather Economic Reports (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/) is a series of picture reports of threats to the economic future of families and their children, compared to prior generations. You are now at the chapter on Total National Debt trends. Welcome. We hope your visit will find useful information to help you and your loved ones.

You may have previously viewed the historic pictures in the Federal Government Debt Report, which covers just the federal debt of $7.6 Trillion, or $26,000 per person. This chapter covers all U.S. debt, called America's Total Debt (defined as the sum of all recognized debt of federal, state & local governments, international, private households, business and domestic financial sectors, including federal debt to trust funds - but excludes the huge contingent liabilities of social security, government pensions, Medicare and other government off-budget items).

America Debt Total is now over $40 Trillion, or $136,479 per man, woman and child. This page tells the story with 11 pictures.

BIG PICTURE - - DEBT RATIOS - - DEBT PER PERSON - - EXCESS DEBT
DIMINISHED DEBT PRODUCTIVITY
MAJOR COMPONENTS of TOTAL DEBT REVEAL the CULPRITS
HOUSEHOLD DEBT - - DEBT SUMMARY TABLE
(graphics on household, business, financial sector and government debt from link bottom of page)

BIG PICTURE - $40 TRILLION IN DEBT, and rising rapidly

and this excludes contingent liabilities such as social security, government pensions and Medicare. The economy is 2-3 times more debt-dependent - with at least $23 Trillion DEBT EXCESS - - compared to the 1950s
Total debt dollar value: today vs 1957The next 2 charts will show: first the debt in current dollars 1957 vs. today, and then adjusted for inflation in 2004 dollars.

This chart compares total American debt today vs. 1957 in actual dollars.

Total American Debt is defined as all U.S. debt (federal and state & local governments, international, and private debt, incl. household, business and financial sector).

The chart shows the debt in 1957 was $693 billion (the left bar in the chart) - - or about $4,000 per capita

Today's debt has grown above $40 trillion (the right bar in the chart)- - 40 times higher - - to $136,479 per man, woman and child - or $545,916 per family of 4.

66% ($27 trillion) of today's debt was created since 1990.

Trend national debt vs national incomeHere's the representative chart you saw on the previous summary page. Which line goes up faster, the red debt line or the blue economy size line?

This is A SCARY CHART - showing 4 decade trends of America's total debt (the red line, reaching $40 trillion) vs. growth of the economy a measured by net national income (blue line), adjusted for inflation in today's dollars.

America's Total Debt is here defined as all U.S. debt (sum debt of federal and state & local governments, international, and private debt, incl. household, business and financial sector, including federal debt to trust funds).

Note from 1957 to the early 1970s each curve approximately doubled - meaning about the same ratio of debt was supporting national income growth, despite paying on old WW II debt and covering Korean and Vietnam wars.

Had the economy become less debt dependent after that we would have expected debt to slow down. But, instead, it took off.

In just the 1990s real debt increased more than two times faster than growth of the total economy - - despite zero cold wars.

Other charts show the driving culprits were not only federal government debt ratios (which stopped falling in early 1970s and reversed strongly to the upside - growing 2x the economy) - but, not to be left out, other main culprits were accelerating household debt (growing nearly twice the rate of the economy, and domestic financial sector debt growth (at rates 4 times faster than general economic growth).

This chart clearly shows the accelerating reliance on debt to drive economic growth in the past 2 decades, compared to prior periods.

DEBT RATIOS

Total debt ratio: total vs. 1957America's Total Debt today restated as a percentage of the economy is twice that of 1957, when we were dealing with debt left over from World War II plus the Korean War.

This chart shows the above total (government + private) debt as a ratio to the size of the economy in 1957 vs. today - - with the size of the economy measured by national income.

If total debt in America had not grown faster than the economy then the two bars on the chart would be the same height. But they are not the same height, because the debt ratio to economy size in that period increased over two times faster than growth of the economy - - indicating more than a 100% increase in debt dependence - - as it jumped from 186% of national income to a 437% debt ratio.

Stated another way, if 2004 debt had been at the 1957 ratio then 2004 debt would have been $17 trillion, not $40 trillion - - meaning an excess debt in America today of $23 trillion.

Stated differently, in 1957 there was $1.86 in debt for each dollar of national income, but today there is $4.37 of debt for each dollar of national income. It also means that this extra $2.51 of debt produces zilch relative national income.

This chart implies today's economy has more than double the debt load in relation to economy size, as was the 1957 economy. Not only is this ratio difference very large, but the 1957 economy was still paying off World War II debt (and carrying parts of the Korean war).

Restated - it took twice as much debt per dollar of national income in today as was required in 1957.

There can be little doubt (from this chart) that our economy is significantly more debt-dependent than ever before - - and that the economy can have a major negative impact should interest rates rise significantly or the economy slow down.

trend total debt ratiosThe chart at the left looks at debt ratios to economy size for all in-between years: 1957 to now.

If the years after 1957 required no more debt per dollar of national income, then the black curve in the chart would have remained flat - at the 186% level. But, as the years went on, especially after the late 1960s, it took more debt each year than the year before to produce a dollar of national income.

By 2004 Total America debt reached a historic peace-time record at 437% of national income - - more than double the share of economy that was debt laden in 1957. This picture makes quite clear that today's economy is over 100% more debt dependent (leveraged) than before.

Restated - - in 1957 a dollar of debt produced 54 cents of national income; but today's dollar of debt only produced 23 cents of national income - or 57% less economic growth per added dollar of debt.

The black line is our data. The red dashed line is the exponential trend line. Note in the more recent years, not only has the black line increased at a faster rate, but it is now growing at a rate above the red exponential trend line.

And, this faster debt ratio climb is occurring despite so-called higher levels of economic growth in the 1990s, and record tax collections.

DEBT PER MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD

debt per person 1957 vs. todaySnap Shot - - today vs. 1957

America's Total Debt restated as inflation-adjusted per person - - 5 times too much.

This chart shows total total debt allocated on a per capita basis, adjusted for inflation. The left bar shows 1957 debt nation-wide (in today's dollars) was $27,084 per man, woman and child.

If debt per person were only adjusted for inflation over the 47 year period, the right bar (2004) should have remained the same size as the left bar (1957) at $27,084 per capita.

BUT- the right bar shows 2004 debt was $136,479 per man, woman and child - - 5 times higher per capita than in 1957.

Adjusted for inflation, this data shows inflation-adjusted total debt load per person increased $109,395 - - equivalent to an increase of $437,580 per family of 4.

total debt per person - adjusted for inflationYear to year 1957 to today -
This chart shows the full year to year trend of the above chart's total American debt

(adjusted for inflation) on a per person basis, with all the years shown.

Per capita real debt has increased from $27,084 in 1957 to $136,479 today - - 5 times more debt per person, adjusted for inflation.

Note the very steep upward thrust of the curve for more recent years - -
- - as if current debt trends are up faster than a rocket boost from Cape Kennedy.

Note: all debt data is from the Federal Reserve, except the data for the federal government portion of the total is from the Dept. of Debt at the Treasury Dept. which also takes into account federal debt owed to the trust funds. National income data is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

EXCESS AMERICAN DEBT is $23-33 Trillion (adjusted for inflation).

excess debt Let us calculate the excess debt in today, compared to 1957 - - via 2 methods.

This chart looks at the $40 Trillion of total debt in America today (the left bar in the chart) and asks the following question > >
What would be the size of today's debt had the economy operated at the same debt ratios (to national income and per capita, adjusted for inflation) today as it did in 1957?

The chart's middle bar displays the excess based on % national income method: today's (2003) debt would have been $17.07 Trillion if the economy and been no more debt-dependent than it was at the 186% debt ratio to national income of 1957.

But, actual debt was $40.1 Trillion - - more than twice as much. The difference between the two bars is an Excess Debt in 2004 of $23 Trillion ($40 less $17). This excess alone is equivalent to $78,400 per man, woman and child - - in excess debt load - - or $313,600 excess debt load per family of 4.

The chart's right-hand bar displays the answer for per capita debt excess: today's debt would have been $7.4 Trillion if today's debt per capita had been the same per capita ratio as 1957 - - both in constant 2004 dollars. But, it was $40 Trillion, or 5 times more.

The difference using per capita measurements indicates 2004's excess debt was $33 Trillion ($40 less $7) too much.

That's an excess of $112,500 per man, woman and child in excess debt load - - or $450,000 per family of four excess load.

SUMMARY: this chart shows that total debt in America in 2004 carried an excess between $23 and $33 Trillion too much - - or $78,000 to $112,500 per person too much - - or $313,600 to $450,000 per family too much.

AMERICA'S DIMINISHED DEBT PRODUCTIVITY

If America was more efficient in real productive employment of new debt
then less debt would be needed for each dollar of national income.
But - - the reverse is true. We are less productive regarding debt than ever before.
Each dollar of economic growth requires more debt per dollar than before - now over twice as much and, the national income achieved per dollar of debt dropped 57%
debt needed to produce one dollar of national incomeThe left chart restates the above.

It shows that in 1957 there was $1.86 of outstanding debt for each dollar of national income.

But, today's economy needs $4.37 in outstanding debt for each dollar of national income.

That's double the outstanding debt load per dollar of national income.

That extra $2.51 of debt produced zero national income.
national income per dollar of debtThe left chart shows the reciprocal - - and the diminishing returns resulting from debt.

It shows the declining amount of national income achieved by the economy for each added dollar of debt.

In 1957, 54 cents of national income resulted for each dollar of debt.

But, today only 23 cents of national income resulted per dollar of debt.

That's a 57% drop in national income per added dollar of debt.
The left graphic above looks at total debt outstanding vs. national income at end of each year, which is the correct long-term approach.

However, if we look at differences for just one year, 2004 vs. 2003, $3.05 trillion of new debt was added in 2004, yet national income that year increased just $336 billion - - meaning it took $9.10 of newly added debt to produce each new dollar of national income - - a huge figure, which helps explain the soaring trend above.

COMPONENTS OF AMERICA'S TOTAL DEBT

IDENTIFYING THE PRIME DEBT-GROWTH CULPRITS
- a most sobering and scary picture

The Prime Debt Culprits are:
Federal Government - Financial sector - Household sector - Business sector

Following is a very revealing chart, compressed to show just the past 29 years (1972-2001). It shows 5 major components of debt in America - the debt amount of each as a ratio to the size of the economy's national income.

The 5 lines include State & Local government, Household debt, Business Sector debt, Domestic Financial Sector debt and the total federal government debt. Not shown is international debt, which is covered in the International Trade Report.

We know from the above charts that total ratios are up exponentially. This chart identifies those components driving the upward trend in debt ratios in all government and private sectors.

chart showing trend of components of national debt - ratiosLook for the lines that are rising - - like the red line (exploding financial sector debt), the blue line (rapid increases in Household debt ratios), the black line (Federal Government) and the yellow line (business sector). The fact these 4 lines rise means debt in these sectors increased significantly faster than the economy was growing. These are the driving force now threatening the American economy with sky-rocketing debt-dependence.

The most dramatic & scary is the red line, which is Financial sector debt (today at $12 trillion) - a very scary trend!!! (Although much of the financial sector debt is also included in the other categories, most also agree that the business debt category understates its own debt, as evidenced by off-balance sheet debts of the likes of Enron, etc.- - an area of hidden debt still coming to light. Therefore, it is instructive to include financial sector debt).

* As shown on the chart's red line, the financial sector's debt ratio zoomed from 5% of the economy's national income in 1957 to 131% of today's economy - a debt ratio growth rate 26 times faster than general economic growth - and, pointing upward faster and faster.
* A separate chart on this component follows below, which shows its trend line is upward exponentially.

The next largest rapidly rising component is the blue line, or Household debt ($10.3 trillion) - from 43% of national income to today's 106%, more than double the prior ratio - meaning it, too, is growing much faster than general growth of the economy.

Household debt is made up of consumer debt plus mortgage debt. The Family Income Report shows real median family incomes stopped growing in 1970, and thereafter families tried to keep up by going deeper and deeper into debt ever since - at near twice the rate of total economic growth - to an all-time high today. Consumer debt payments % disposable income are at historic highs. The Family Income Report cites the reason, with dramatic pictures.

The fact household debt ratios have reached historic highs during the so-called boom years of the 1990s proves that the economy was more driven by debt than anything else - - and households have excessive debt instead of reduced debt at end of an expansion period.

Next there is the black line, the Federal government sector debt ratios -

* We have seen this before. It was pointing downward 1950s to mid 1970s (see Federal Debt Report) - a period of strong real median family income growth, stopped dropping in 1974, oscillated, and then took off upward - under the pressure of consumptive social spending rising 12 times faster than the economy as reported in the Federal Spending Report (as family incomes ceased to climb).
* Today's ratio (83%) is double that of early 1970s when the Vietnam war and the cold war were in process. The recent short down turn was due to record tax revenues, and a dramatic lowering of national security expense ratios to a near record low as a share of the economy - - but, now reversing to the upside as the reduced military is re-built.
* Some of the reasons are in the Social Security Report, which shows how the general government dips into trust fund surpluses, siphons such off for non-pension spending (leaving behind a few worthless IOUs), and then does not account for such spending in the way the budget deficit is calculated. The same siphon and spend approach occurs in other trust funds, such as the federal employee pension trust fund. Together, $3.1 trillion has been siphoned from trust fund, with zero budget to reduce other general government spending to repay.

The business sector debt (yellow line) of $7.8 trillion increased twice the speed of the economy, increasing from 44% of national income in 1957, doubling to over 86% today - an all-time high.

The green line (debt of state & local governments) is the only component not rising. Although its debt may have moderated, the State & Local Government Report proves spending and headcount ratios are way out of line, compared to the past, and this sector needs major attention.

HOUSE-HOLD DEBT

trend household debt % national incomeThe left chart shows the trend of household debt as a share of national income from 1963 to present. If household debt were not growing faster than the economy's own growth then this chart would show a flat, horizontal line. But, the chart plot is straight up in recent years, meaning household debt is soaring faster than the economy.

Household debt is primarily made up of mortgage debt and credit (credit cards, auto loans, etc.). In 2004 household debt was up 11.2% over the prior year to $10.3 trillion, incl. $7.5 trillion mortgage debt and $2.2 trillion credit debt.

Note the left side of the chart for the first several years where the debt ratio did not increase, until the late 1970s.

It then started upward, slowly - and then upward like a rocket - to new all time highs today.

Debt has risen at rates much faster than growth of the economy, suggesting real equity is not the driving force of economic size - - it is debt driven.

If today's debt ratio (105.6% of net national income) had been the same as in the earlier years on this chart, the chart's curve would be horizontal instead of soaring upwards, and then today's debt in dollars would have been $5.3 Trillion less than it was in 2004. In other words, 2004 household debt would have been $5 Trillion - - not the $10.3 Trillion that did occur.

This shows that the economy is more leveraged by household debt than ever before. And, households are even more at the mercy of credit and mortgage interest rates than ever before.

Auto loans > In addition to soaring home equity mortgages which consume owner stakes in their homes, according to USAToday (2/16/04) the average automobile loan today is for 63 months, with some going as high as 80 months, compared with an average of less than 48 months five years ago - - and about 24 months in the 1950s. In 1997, banks financed an average 89% of a new vehicle's price. Last year, it was 101% since consumers borrowed to cover the amount they were upside down on their trade-in. And get this…40% of all trade-ins involve upside-down car loans. (this author recalls when he entered the workforce in the late 1950s normal down payment was on-third cash for a car, with 18 month financing for the balance. Quite a contrast to current times.)

Credit Cards > A massive 42% of Americans are making just minimum payments or no payments on their credit card balances, according to the Cambridge Consumer Credit Index in March 2004. Of those respondents surveyed with revolving balances on their credit cards, 39% made only the minimum payment due and 3% made no payments at all last month. Another 39% paid less than half the balance owed but more than the minimum, while 19% paid more than half their balances. In 2003, the average credit-card debt of US households with at least one card was $9,205, up from $2,966 in 1990, according to the research firm CardWeb.com - - that's 310% higher.
The same firm in 2004 said, "About 51 million households carry credit-card debt at an average balance of nearly $12,000." (http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/031005/creditcard.html) - - that totals $612 billion in total debt for those households.

NOTE TO READER > More household debt graphics and info, including color data trend graphics on business and the financial sector and government sector on the next page, from link bottom of this page.

WHAT IS TO HAPPEN TO THE YOUNGER GENERATION AND FAMILIES?

How can such debt trends be sustained - - considering the Grandfather Family Income Report shows 2 ½ decades of stagnant real median incomes for families, as income of full-time working males has fallen for more than a decade?

The Tax Report shows citizens work 3 times longer to pay all taxes each year - - which depresses family spending options leading to increased household debt to make up.

The State & Local Government Spending Report shows they have added employees at a rate faster than growth of the nation's population, with a new record high last year. Most citizens have learned that each working person today supports more seniors than ever before, but few know they also carry on each of their backs 3 times more state & local government employees per head than before.

Additionally, if families are consuming their home equity (while prior generations saved theirs) yet the Grandfather Social Security Report shows these families can expect much less in pension benefits when they retire than their elders - - how can this be sustained?

And from where comes family funds to support higher education for the children of younger families - - especially considering college cost inflation and degradation in high school output quality, as covered in the Grandfather Education Report? Tremendous increases in inflation-adjusted public spending per student, while test scores compared to other nations place the USA at the bottom of the heap, waste and drain of individual and national resources. Net result: families and students take on more college debt than ever before.

Further, said generation faces global competition for their living standards more so than any generation in U.S. history against many competitors better educated than they as shown in the International Education Report.

AND - - America, that used to be the biggest creditor on earth is now the biggest international debtor with exploding trade deficits, as shown in the Grandfather Foreign Trade Report,

AS debt soars America's energy infrastructure has deteriorated and especially its independence regarding petroleum and natural gas, as covered in the well-documented Energy Report with extensive graphics of production vs. consumption vs. imports vs. reserves.

Let's summarize our findings in a simple table - - as follows:
BOTTOM-LINE - - DEBT SUMMARY TABLE
AMERICA'S TOTAL DEBT
- $40 Trillion -
- add another $44 trillion for contingent Social Security/Medicare -
(updated March 2005)

From our data we have identified Federal Government Debt Report debt of $7.6 Trillion, the State & Local Government Report debt of $1.7 Trillion, plus $30.8 Trillion private (household, business and financial sector) debt from America's Total Debt Report.

These sum to $40 Trillion, or $136,347 per capita. This sum does not include the federal government's un-funded contingent liabilities for social security/Medicare estimated at $44 trillion, plus additional amounts for unknown (?) contingencies listed below.)

The following table summarizes Total Debt in America

DEBT TYPE


DEBT AMOUNT


Debt Per Child
(per capita)

GOVERNMENT SECTOR DEBT:
Federal Government Sector debt - a record high
(Treasury data and Federal Government Debt Report, (includes $1.9 trillion federal govt. owes foreigners, plus $2.5 trillion debt owed U.S. domestic public, plus the $3.2 trillion surplus siphoned from and owed to trust funds) $7.6 Trillion $25,845
State & Local Government Sector debt - a record high
(State & Local Government Spending Report) $1.7 Trillion $ 5,699
Un-funded Social Security contingent liabilities estimated looking forward * $7 Trillion $23,818
Un-funded Medicare contingent liabilities, estimated * $37 Trillion $125,893
Un-funded federal employee pension and medical contingent liabilities (incl. Postal service)

? no estimate


?
Un-funded state & local government employee pension & medical contingent liabilities

? no estimate


?
Other off-budget Federal Govt. borrowings*

?


?

SUM above Government Debt


$53.3 Trillion + ?


$181,255 +?

PRIVATE SECTOR DEBT:
(see the America's Total Debt Report)
Household Sector debt - soaring record high $10.3 Trillion $34,923
Business Sector debt - record high $ 7.8 Trillion $26,695
Financial Sector debt (domestic) - explosive record high $ 11.4 Trillion $40,000
Other (extra foreign debt in addition to such included in numbers above sectors) $ 0.7 Trillion $ 2,432
Un-funded business sector employee pension & medical contingent liabilities

?


?
Impact trillions of dollars of derivatives on business & financial sector debt

?


?

SUM above Private Debt
$30.8 Trillion + ? $105,003 + ?

- -
- - - - - - - -

SUM Government + Private Debt (including Contingent liability items*)
$84.1 Trillion +? $286,258 +?

SUM Government + Private Debt (excluding contingent liability items*)
$40.1 Trillion $136,479 per person
* for discussion some of above government items, see the Grandfather Social Security Report, the America's Total Debt Report and Trust Fund Report. (Debt Data Sources: Federal Govt. from Treasury Dept.; Private Sector and State & Local Govt. from Federal Reserve flow of funds accounts, table D.3)

CONCLUSIONS

1. As America began to 'invent' new reasons for larger government than defined by its founding forefathers as the 4 principle purposes of government, government spending increased faster than economic growth, primarily fueled by zooming social program spending, much caused by Social Security & Medicare - and the share of the economic pie remaining to the private sector was reduced. Government spending ratios increased for the federal government, and state & local government spending increased faster than the economy and its employee head-counts faster than the population. As of today, the federal government spending ratio has reached 25% of national income - representing 10 times more growth in government spending than growth in the economy since1930. And, state & local government spending now consumes 15% of the economy, three times higher than after the 2nd world war.
2. National productivity and savings started a long down-trend and by 1970 real family incomes stopped rising and stagnated - as earnings of full-time males declined, singling the end of the on-wage earner family as more mothers were sucked into the workforce (away from their children) trying to help make up the difference - as each working person had to support more seniors and more state & local government employees than ever before - -and what we used to know as 'family values' begin to decline.
3. Education Productivity (relationship of output quality to per student real spending) started a long-term slide in the 1960s, dropping 71% over the next 3 decades. Helped by changing measurement criteria, this 'rate' has improved somewhat in last 2 years.
4. As a result of such government expansion, government entities increased mandated regulations on the private sector, at accelerating regulatory compliance cost loads on the economy and its productivity and savings. Today's compliance costs consume 16% of the total national income.
5. Following the above, inflation rates jumped - - and today are still higher than during the period of strong family income growth when inflation was measured by more stringent methods.
6. The nation's Trade Balance went steadily negative starting in then 1970s - and today America is the world's largest debtor nation - - with increasing deficits each year to a new all-time record deficit today.
7. And, the International Value of the U.S. dollar may again be threatened by exploding trade deficits, as it was before.
8. The graphics in this America's Debt Report prove that the nation, trying to maintain and expand consumption (instead of producing real goods and savings) begin to go more and more into debt, in relation to the size of the economy. Federal Government Debt ratios, after falling since World War II stopped falling and then soared to the highest peace-time ratio in history. Families, trying to keep up under the squeeze in the economy and of education quality, went more and more into debt, causing Household debt ratio (charts above) to grow twice as fast as the economy since the mid 1970s when family incomes stagnated - and are rising exponentially as of today.
9. Debt of the Financial Sector (charts next page) accelerated, now expanding exponentially to the highest ratios in history.
10. And - - America's debt productivity, less and less national income per added dollar of new debt outstanding, has significantly deteriorated.
11. As debt soars in America citizen voter turnout deteriorates, as does trust in government and family confidence in their future.

America, that used to derive strong family incomes and values from producing real goods and savings, even with one bread earner per family, has moved to a fully consumptive society financed by ever increasing ratios of debt at private and government levels, with nil savings - - with debt ratios reaching new records - - with each added dollar of debt producing diminishing amounts of national income.

AMERICA HAS BECOME LESS A FAMILY-BASED, FRUGAL AND PRODUCTIVE SOCIETY WITH SMALL GOVERNMENT - - AND MORE A CONSUMPTIVE, PERMISSIVE, DEBT-DEPENDENT AND GOVERNMENT-DEPENDENT SOCIETY THAN EVER - - A BECOMING QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THAT ENVISIONED BY ITS FOUNDING FORE-FATHERS. WE ARE AT A CROSS-ROAD. OUR YOUNG GENERATION FACES EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES IN THIS REGARD - - AND MAY BE LESS PREPARED TO MEET THE APPARENT FUTURE THAN ANY PRIOR GENERATION IN RECENT HISTORY

America may experience a crisis of economic un-sustainability.

But - will citizens fight back from the grass-roots to retake her proud heritage of the past. Will leaders come forth that do not scream: growth-growth-debt-debt? There is much to be done, because there is much at stake.

The purpose of the Grandfather Economic Reports is to increase public awareness

of major threats facing today's families and youth - compared to prior generations.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER - IF YOU HAVE IT

WARNING

DON'T MISS MORE DEBT GRAPHICS - Click This to page #2
- - for graphics on household, government and financial sector debt -

Click This

(at http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-b.htm )

Or - Return to the starter summary page of the America's Total Debt Report.

Or - Return to the HOME PAGE OF THE GRANDFATHER ECONOMIC REPORT and sub report contents - - or to the specific chapter called the Grandfather Federal Government Debt Report.

TOP

| Home & Contents | Summary | Feedback | What's New | Link Index | Eye-opener | Must See |

Copyright © 1997-2005 Michael W. Hodges. The Grandfather Economic Report series is the intellectual property of its author; all rights reserved under Copyright Conventions. Permission to redistribute all or part of this series for non commercial purposes is granted by the author, provided the associated web page address is included and full credit given to the Grandfather Economic Report (including its home page web address http://mwhodges.home.att.net/) and the author, Michael Hodges. Notice appreciated via email.

visits since reset
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You're just fear mongering, Econ. :wink: You need to smell the roses (actually, you might see things more Agman's way if you smell burning cannibis roses) :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
I warned you about that sarcasm, Sandhusker. We have some people on this board who are not smart enough to pick that up. Speaking of cannibus, where is Murgen?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker and Econ 101, are you two sophomores referring to cannabis, aka hemp, aka marijuana?

If so, why would you imply that a person whom you apparently have no personal knowledge is using an illegal drug on a widely public forum which could have serious consequences to that persons' business?

That is quite easily the lowest, most reprehensible thing that has been printed on this site to smear an individual. And this is a site that has seen plenty of mean spirited things said about many of us.

MRJ
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A little Maryjane might put a smile on even your face MRJ :wink: :lol:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
Sandhusker and Econ 101, are you two sophomores referring to cannabis, aka hemp, aka marijuana?

If so, why would you imply that a person whom you apparently have no personal knowledge is using an illegal drug on a widely public forum which could have serious consequences to that persons' business?

That is quite easily the lowest, most reprehensible thing that has been printed on this site to smear an individual. And this is a site that has seen plenty of mean spirited things said about many of us.

MRJ

MRJ, as far as I know, Murgen is an anymous person. Do you have some dots that you are trying to connect here? Why are you so good at some puzzles but not others? SH comes out and says a lot worse and I have yet to see you speak out against him. Are you in some way connected to him? I would like to know the connection between these dots.

Do you have a comment about the article posted and Agman's comments on debt or are you just trying to fish today?
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
Econ writes:
Agman, ............Your little personal question about someone's kids take the cake. ...........

Now from Econ's valued piece authored by Michael Hodges :

ACKNOWLEDGMENT - - and, about the Author
Creation of this Grandfather Economic Report series was inspired by
the beautiful, trusting, and loving eyes of my infant grandchildren
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
S.S.A.P. said:
Econ writes:
Agman, ............Your little personal question about someone's kids take the cake. ...........

Now from Econ's valued piece authored by Michael Hodges :

ACKNOWLEDGMENT - - and, about the Author
Creation of this Grandfather Economic Report series was inspired by
the beautiful, trusting, and loving eyes of my infant grandchildren

It is too bad you can not see the difference here, SSAP. One article was written by someone wanting to hide a problem and damage done to kids and one was written by someone who wanted the truth to come out about the damage being done.

Like I said, it is too bad you don't have the abilty to tell the difference. If you are too dumb to know the difference between right and wrong, black and white, good or bad, what good are you? In this case, ignorance is no excuse.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Conman gets his pants pulled down by yet another ranchers.net poster and he starts calling them dumb.

Too funny.

Your flimsy attack on Agmans comments is pathetic conman the convict.

This article doesn't even mention assests or net worth that Agman made his statements about.

Talk about picking what you want to see.

Debtload is a concern but is an individuals choice. If you choose to buy the bigger house that is your right. If you don't repay the debt you will have consequences.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ, I believe Sandhusker did imply that only with a drug clouded mind could Agman have made his comments on debt/savings.

And, typically, you criticized anything positive from anyone with whom you disagree.

I will grant you only that there are differences of opinion by various people who write about economics. There are plenty of fearmongers in that business, IMO.

Until I learn who your economics hero is working for, what he is seeking to do with his information, and whom he is trying to lift up and whom he seeks to put down, all of which takes lots of time, I will put my trust in the person I know the most about. And no, I do not know Agman personally, only professionally. Too bad you haven't had that advantage, but on the other hand, since his philosophies seem totally opposite yours, and you seem determined that you are right, it's doubtful you would benefit from such acquaintance.

Your comment to S.S.A.P. further demonstrates your vicious personal attacks on those who point our your fallacies.

OT, your attempt at humor re. use of an illegal substance leaves one to wonder how you can be considered fit to serve in any aspect of law enforcement. Personally, my friends consider that I have a rather well developed sense of humor. I do tend to lose it where fools and/or criminals are involved.

MRJ
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
Econ101 said:
S.S.A.P. said:
Econ writes:
Agman, ............Your little personal question about someone's kids take the cake. ...........

Now from Econ's valued piece authored by Michael Hodges :

ACKNOWLEDGMENT - - and, about the Author
Creation of this Grandfather Economic Report series was inspired by
the beautiful, trusting, and loving eyes of my infant grandchildren

It is too bad you can not see the difference here, SSAP. One article was written by someone wanting to hide a problem and damage done to kids and one was written by someone who wanted the truth to come out about the damage being done.

Like I said, it is too bad you don't have the abilty to tell the difference. If you are too dumb to know the difference between right and wrong, black and white, good or bad, what good are you? In this case, ignorance is no excuse.


" AND" Since you made this accusation about me .....

Like I said, it is too bad you don't have the abilty to tell the difference. If you are too dumb to know the difference between right and wrong, black and white, good or bad, what good are you? In this case, ignorance is no excuse

..... prove it please with a presentation on how you arrived at this conclusion; source, formulas, numbers, data... etc.

" OR " apologize.

If you have trouble with the "and" / "or" perhaps ask your daughter whom you previously stated knows the difference.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Agman: "Brad, thanks for your concern but do you know how the savings rate as reported is computed? The negative savings rate is one of the real problems with the present accounting system. The savings rate as reported is a product of National Income Accounting whcih is income minus transer payments etc. etc. The residual is what they then call savings. It is not a measure of the true savings rate in this country at all. For instance, your 401K and IRA' are not even counted in the National Income Accounting process. The true savings of individuals in the U.S. is at the 8-10% level.

Household net worth after all debt is $55 trillion. After subtracting housing, which is most individuals largest asset from that total, Household Net Worth is still $40 trillion. The national household ASSET to DEBT ratio is excess of $5:$1. That is not a misprint Brad. Unfortunately this good news seldom ever gets mentioned in the news and too few people bother to research this on their own. We are the most blessed people on earth to be part of this great economic machine which is the envy of the entire world. We are in the midst of the greatest generational transfer of wealth in the history of the world.

How are your kids doing? Give a hi-five to those little ones."



Agman, this webpage shows how you pick and chose data to support your bias. You are no different when it comes to the Pickett case. Your little personal question about someone's kids take the cake. You seem to be really nice when you lie and mislead. I think the Pickett jury saw through people like you. To see this page on the world wide web (where it is much better) click:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm#household








ome & Contents | Summary | Feedback | What's New | Link Index | Eye-opener | Must See |

America's Total Debt Report
page 1 of 2
$ 40 Trillion - - and soaring
- household, business, financial and government sectors -
by Michael Hodges - email
updated March 2005

-Copyright © 1997-2005 Michael W. Hodges. The Grandfather Economic Report series is the intellectual property of its author; all rights reserved under Copyright Conventions. Permission to redistribute all or part of this series for non commercial purposes is granted by the author, provided the associated web page address is included and full credit given to the Grandfather Economic Report (including its home page web address http://mwhodges.home.att.net/) and the author, Michael Hodges. Notice appreciated via email.

visits since reset

You are even dumber and a bigger idiot than you have appeared on previous posts. You comment regarding my comment to Brad and his children is a clear display of your ignorance, and arrogance. You have not a clue why I made that comment to him. Cnce again you just ASSUMED. If YOU can refute the facts I presented please do so. It would be a first for you.

Your source's concentration is on debt without any measurement of assets, private, corporate or government assets. Where is debt relative to income and assets? Looking at one-half the facts is worse than not looking at any facts which is par for a mental midget such as yourself. Unfortunately this world has too many individuals who sensationalize to gain an audience. Did you totally fail to comprehend that I addressed the Household Sector-debt and assets? The savings issue is too far over your head.

You calling someone else a liar shows what a complete fool you really are. You have been trapped in outright lies and diversion amid deception so many times one can only use the words as "truly pathetic" to describe you.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Econ101 said:
Agman: "Brad, thanks for your concern but do you know how the savings rate as reported is computed? The negative savings rate is one of the real problems with the present accounting system. The savings rate as reported is a product of National Income Accounting whcih is income minus transer payments etc. etc. The residual is what they then call savings. It is not a measure of the true savings rate in this country at all. For instance, your 401K and IRA' are not even counted in the National Income Accounting process. The true savings of individuals in the U.S. is at the 8-10% level.

Household net worth after all debt is $55 trillion. After subtracting housing, which is most individuals largest asset from that total, Household Net Worth is still $40 trillion. The national household ASSET to DEBT ratio is excess of $5:$1. That is not a misprint Brad. Unfortunately this good news seldom ever gets mentioned in the news and too few people bother to research this on their own. We are the most blessed people on earth to be part of this great economic machine which is the envy of the entire world. We are in the midst of the greatest generational transfer of wealth in the history of the world.

How are your kids doing? Give a hi-five to those little ones."



Agman, this webpage shows how you pick and chose data to support your bias. You are no different when it comes to the Pickett case. Your little personal question about someone's kids take the cake. You seem to be really nice when you lie and mislead. I think the Pickett jury saw through people like you. To see this page on the world wide web (where it is much better) click:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm#household








ome & Contents | Summary | Feedback | What's New | Link Index | Eye-opener | Must See |

America's Total Debt Report
page 1 of 2
$ 40 Trillion - - and soaring
- household, business, financial and government sectors -
by Michael Hodges - email
updated March 2005

-Copyright © 1997-2005 Michael W. Hodges. The Grandfather Economic Report series is the intellectual property of its author; all rights reserved under Copyright Conventions. Permission to redistribute all or part of this series for non commercial purposes is granted by the author, provided the associated web page address is included and full credit given to the Grandfather Economic Report (including its home page web address http://mwhodges.home.att.net/) and the author, Michael Hodges. Notice appreciated via email.

visits since reset

You are even dumber and a bigger idiot than you have appeared on previous posts. You comment regarding my comment to Brad and his children is a clear display of your ignorance, and arrogance. You have not a clue why I made that comment to him. Cnce again you just ASSUMED. If YOU can refute the facts I presented please do so. It would be a first for you.

Econ: Tell us then. Then tell us how my assertion is incorrect. Your tell is showing again.

Your source's concentration is on debt without any measurement of assets, private, corporate or government assets. Where is debt relative to income and assets? Looking at one-half the facts is worse than not looking at any facts which is par for a mental midget such as yourself. Unfortunately this world has too many individuals who sensationalize to gain an audience. Did you totally fail to comprehend that I addressed the Household Sector-debt and assets? The savings issue is too far over your head.

Econ: Bring your own facts out if you want, Agman. You are welcome to do it. Mine are fine.

You calling someone else a liar shows what a complete fool you really are. You have been trapped in outright lies and diversion amid deception so many times one can only use the words as "truly pathetic" to describe you.

Econ: I stand by my allegation. Prove it is not so. You have called me worse in almost every post. What is good for the goose......

What happens when someone from Texas calls someone who is in Denver a liar? Is "truly pathetic" all I get?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
Econ101 said:
Agman: "Brad, thanks for your concern but do you know how the savings rate as reported is computed? The negative savings rate is one of the real problems with the present accounting system. The savings rate as reported is a product of National Income Accounting whcih is income minus transer payments etc. etc. The residual is what they then call savings. It is not a measure of the true savings rate in this country at all. For instance, your 401K and IRA' are not even counted in the National Income Accounting process. The true savings of individuals in the U.S. is at the 8-10% level.

Household net worth after all debt is $55 trillion. After subtracting housing, which is most individuals largest asset from that total, Household Net Worth is still $40 trillion. The national household ASSET to DEBT ratio is excess of $5:$1. That is not a misprint Brad. Unfortunately this good news seldom ever gets mentioned in the news and too few people bother to research this on their own. We are the most blessed people on earth to be part of this great economic machine which is the envy of the entire world. We are in the midst of the greatest generational transfer of wealth in the history of the world.

How are your kids doing? Give a hi-five to those little ones."



Agman, this webpage shows how you pick and chose data to support your bias. You are no different when it comes to the Pickett case. Your little personal question about someone's kids take the cake. You seem to be really nice when you lie and mislead. I think the Pickett jury saw through people like you. To see this page on the world wide web (where it is much better) click:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm#household








ome & Contents | Summary | Feedback | What's New | Link Index | Eye-opener | Must See |

America's Total Debt Report
page 1 of 2
$ 40 Trillion - - and soaring
- household, business, financial and government sectors -
by Michael Hodges - email
updated March 2005

-Copyright © 1997-2005 Michael W. Hodges. The Grandfather Economic Report series is the intellectual property of its author; all rights reserved under Copyright Conventions. Permission to redistribute all or part of this series for non commercial purposes is granted by the author, provided the associated web page address is included and full credit given to the Grandfather Economic Report (including its home page web address http://mwhodges.home.att.net/) and the author, Michael Hodges. Notice appreciated via email.

visits since reset

You are even dumber and a bigger idiot than you have appeared on previous posts. You comment regarding my comment to Brad and his children is a clear display of your ignorance, and arrogance. You have not a clue why I made that comment to him. Cnce again you just ASSUMED. If YOU can refute the facts I presented please do so. It would be a first for you.

Econ: Tell us then. Then tell us how my assertion is incorrect. Your tell is showing again.

Your source's concentration is on debt without any measurement of assets, private, corporate or government assets. Where is debt relative to income and assets? Looking at one-half the facts is worse than not looking at any facts which is par for a mental midget such as yourself. Unfortunately this world has too many individuals who sensationalize to gain an audience. Did you totally fail to comprehend that I addressed the Household Sector-debt and assets? The savings issue is too far over your head.

Econ: Bring your own facts out if you want, Agman. You are welcome to do it. Mine are fine.

You calling someone else a liar shows what a complete fool you really are. You have been trapped in outright lies and diversion amid deception so many times one can only use the words as "truly pathetic" to describe you.

Econ: I stand by my allegation. Prove it is not so. You have called me worse in almost every post. What is good for the goose......

What happens when someone from Texas calls someone who is in Denver a liar? Is "truly pathetic" all I get?

If you would not repeatedly demonstrate how phony and pathetic you are I would not call you by your well earned names. Show where I lied in the figures I posted. You made the claim, it is your responsibity to back your claim. I already posted my facts, can't you comprehend anything? You called me a liar, show everyone where I lied if you think you can Conman.

In your haste to attempt to discredit my post you posted only an article citing one side of the ledger which basically examined only debt. You did not do any of that research on your own as usual. You just swallowed what the author wrote without observing what he missed. A knowledgeable person would not make such an elementary mistake. But who ever said you are knowledgeable about anything. You have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of any real knowledge. That is why you only have baseless accusations. Your claimed intelligence got crushed again by your lack of knowledge per subject matter. You have provided me another day with laughter. You strike out at every turn.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Econ101 said:
Econ101 said:
Agman: "Brad, thanks for your concern but do you know how the savings rate as reported is computed? The negative savings rate is one of the real problems with the present accounting system. The savings rate as reported is a product of National Income Accounting whcih is income minus transer payments etc. etc. The residual is what they then call savings. It is not a measure of the true savings rate in this country at all. For instance, your 401K and IRA' are not even counted in the National Income Accounting process. The true savings of individuals in the U.S. is at the 8-10% level.

Household net worth after all debt is $55 trillion. After subtracting housing, which is most individuals largest asset from that total, Household Net Worth is still $40 trillion. The national household ASSET to DEBT ratio is excess of $5:$1. That is not a misprint Brad. Unfortunately this good news seldom ever gets mentioned in the news and too few people bother to research this on their own. We are the most blessed people on earth to be part of this great economic machine which is the envy of the entire world. We are in the midst of the greatest generational transfer of wealth in the history of the world.

How are your kids doing? Give a hi-five to those little ones."



Agman, this webpage shows how you pick and chose data to support your bias. You are no different when it comes to the Pickett case. Your little personal question about someone's kids take the cake. You seem to be really nice when you lie and mislead. I think the Pickett jury saw through people like you. To see this page on the world wide web (where it is much better) click:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm#household








ome & Contents | Summary | Feedback | What's New | Link Index | Eye-opener | Must See |

America's Total Debt Report
page 1 of 2
$ 40 Trillion - - and soaring
- household, business, financial and government sectors -
by Michael Hodges - email
updated March 2005

-Copyright © 1997-2005 Michael W. Hodges. The Grandfather Economic Report series is the intellectual property of its author; all rights reserved under Copyright Conventions. Permission to redistribute all or part of this series for non commercial purposes is granted by the author, provided the associated web page address is included and full credit given to the Grandfather Economic Report (including its home page web address http://mwhodges.home.att.net/) and the author, Michael Hodges. Notice appreciated via email.

visits since reset

You are even dumber and a bigger idiot than you have appeared on previous posts. You comment regarding my comment to Brad and his children is a clear display of your ignorance, and arrogance. You have not a clue why I made that comment to him. Cnce again you just ASSUMED. If YOU can refute the facts I presented please do so. It would be a first for you.

Econ: Tell us then. Then tell us how my assertion is incorrect. Your tell is showing again.

Your source's concentration is on debt without any measurement of assets, private, corporate or government assets. Where is debt relative to income and assets? Looking at one-half the facts is worse than not looking at any facts which is par for a mental midget such as yourself. Unfortunately this world has too many individuals who sensationalize to gain an audience. Did you totally fail to comprehend that I addressed the Household Sector-debt and assets? The savings issue is too far over your head.

Econ: Bring your own facts out if you want, Agman. You are welcome to do it. Mine are fine.

You calling someone else a liar shows what a complete fool you really are. You have been trapped in outright lies and diversion amid deception so many times one can only use the words as "truly pathetic" to describe you.

Econ: I stand by my allegation. Prove it is not so. You have called me worse in almost every post. What is good for the goose......

What happens when someone from Texas calls someone who is in Denver a liar? Is "truly pathetic" all I get?

If you would not repeatedly demonstrate how phony and pathetic you are I would not call you by your well earned names. Show where I lied in the figures I posted. You made the claim, it is your responsibity to back your claim. I already posted my facts, can't you comprehend anything? You called me a liar, show everyone where I lied if you think you can Conman.

In your haste to attempt to discredit my post you posted only an article citing one side of the ledger which basically examined only debt. You did not do any of that research on your own as usual. You just swallowed what the author wrote without observing what he missed. A knowledgeable person would not make such an elementary mistake. But who ever said you are knowledgeable about anything. You have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of any real knowledge. That is why you only have baseless accusations. Your claimed intelligence got crushed again by your lack of knowledge per subject matter. You have provided me another day with laughter. You strike out at every turn.

Agman, if you read the posted article and go to the different websites you can get all the information you need. The per capita debt is over 136,000 with the contingent liabilities over 286,000. That includes all the more poor people who have no assets. The website breaks it down for you to read real easy.

Agman:"You did not do any of that research on your own as usual. You just swallowed what the author wrote without observing what he missed."

Econ: I don't call numbers posted by you where you don't show your work to be credible, Agman. It may be correct, but without examining where your numbers come from and how you got them, they are not credible. So much for your demand numbers. You can find the sources for the information on the website I posted if you want to go there. I never swallowed whole what an author writes up, as your personal experience with me is a testament to that fact.

If you would like to refute anything in the article, go ahead. This is an open forum. The author of the article was much more thorough than what I have seen of you.

If you would like to post on all the assets, then go ahead. Don't criticize me for something you want to do.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
mwj said:
Econ would you please prove that you quit locking your child up without food :roll:

Mwj, I have the best kids in the world. All three are very smart and make good grades. They do have stubborness hybridized into them, however and they often train me into dealing with difficult people.

Tonight they fixed my wife and I the best Valentine's dinner. We had thai rice with coconut milk and ginger, fried shrimp, a small bit of parsley, fresh baked bread and a nice Cabernet Sauvignon, tea, and a special desert with three layers that my oldest made with the blender.

The table rosewood table was sparsely set with a long candle at both ends, the pink full bloom hydrangia I got for my wife in the middle, and the candle from my niece's wedding last summer that had the flowers surrounding it next to the end with my wife and I. My 5 year old took the order and helped with the decorations and settings. The oldest cooked most of it and the middle one helped in between. They all gave us just the right amount of attention at the table and let us enjoy a memorable evening reminiscing about them when they were younger.

MRJ, I did remember you and what you wrote about the important things in life. Tonight was one of them.

I hope you all had a great Valentines Day.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Econ101 said:
You are even dumber and a bigger idiot than you have appeared on previous posts. You comment regarding my comment to Brad and his children is a clear display of your ignorance, and arrogance. You have not a clue why I made that comment to him. Cnce again you just ASSUMED. If YOU can refute the facts I presented please do so. It would be a first for you.

Econ: Tell us then. Then tell us how my assertion is incorrect. Your tell is showing again.

Your source's concentration is on debt without any measurement of assets, private, corporate or government assets. Where is debt relative to income and assets? Looking at one-half the facts is worse than not looking at any facts which is par for a mental midget such as yourself. Unfortunately this world has too many individuals who sensationalize to gain an audience. Did you totally fail to comprehend that I addressed the Household Sector-debt and assets? The savings issue is too far over your head.

Econ: Bring your own facts out if you want, Agman. You are welcome to do it. Mine are fine.

You calling someone else a liar shows what a complete fool you really are. You have been trapped in outright lies and diversion amid deception so many times one can only use the words as "truly pathetic" to describe you.

Econ: I stand by my allegation. Prove it is not so. You have called me worse in almost every post. What is good for the goose......

What happens when someone from Texas calls someone who is in Denver a liar? Is "truly pathetic" all I get?

If you would not repeatedly demonstrate how phony and pathetic you are I would not call you by your well earned names. Show where I lied in the figures I posted. You made the claim, it is your responsibity to back your claim. I already posted my facts, can't you comprehend anything? You called me a liar, show everyone where I lied if you think you can Conman.

In your haste to attempt to discredit my post you posted only an article citing one side of the ledger which basically examined only debt. You did not do any of that research on your own as usual. You just swallowed what the author wrote without observing what he missed. A knowledgeable person would not make such an elementary mistake. But who ever said you are knowledgeable about anything. You have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of any real knowledge. That is why you only have baseless accusations. Your claimed intelligence got crushed again by your lack of knowledge per subject matter. You have provided me another day with laughter. You strike out at every turn.

Agman, if you read the posted article and go to the different websites you can get all the information you need. The per capita debt is over 136,000 with the contingent liabilities over 286,000. That includes all the more poor people who have no assets. The website breaks it down for you to read real easy.

Agman:"You did not do any of that research on your own as usual. You just swallowed what the author wrote without observing what he missed."

Econ: I don't call numbers posted by you where you don't show your work to be credible, Agman. It may be correct, but without examining where your numbers come from and how you got them, they are not credible. So much for your demand numbers. You can find the sources for the information on the website I posted if you want to go there. I never swallowed whole what an author writes up, as your personal experience with me is a testament to that fact.

If you would like to refute anything in the article, go ahead. This is an open forum. The author of the article was much more thorough than what I have seen of you.

If you would like to post on all the assets, then go ahead. Don't criticize me for something you want to do.

You missed the point again genius. He only looked at debt. I did my own research and did not swallow someone Else's work as you did. But that is par for you-stand in judgment but never provide anything but meaningless dissertations.

You made the claim that I lied with the numbers I posted. You prove it; the burden of proof is on you genius. Until then you just lied again as usual.

I won't waste my time to dispute the authors results that you posted. What I did say is he only presented one-half the ledger. Anyone can see that for themselves. Presenting one-half the facts is par for sensationalists and/or people who really are not adept at research. You fit that mold perfectly. On top of that profile you will lie instead of providing your own work. You have provided no work to-date but always stand in judgment and want others to support and show their work. You are a consistent with that pattern-all foam, no beer. What you provided in this case is someone elses work, since you never do anything on your own, which you have not verified. You are a bigger fool than you appear and that is hard to accomplish even for a wanna-be intellectual like you.

Regarding your self proclaimed prowess on demand analysis as I said previously, I have forgotten more than you will ever know. You remain a total fraud unable to do anything but make baseless accusations. Thanks for the laugh today Conman.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Agman, why do I see every article on the topic of savings saying that our savings rate is negetive and giving warning? Why does the Chairman of the Federal Reserve also say the same thing? You're the only one who tries to poo - poo the information. Why should I believe you over Alan Greenspan? Why should I beleive you over Warren Buffet?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Agman, there was a good article on this in the Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, Geb. 14, 2006 on page A2 by Greg Ip. I am not going to post the whole article, if you want good information you should get a subscription, but I will post a few excerpts from it. The article Title is:

"Report Plays Down Economic Woes, Bush Advisers Stay Upbeat Amid Record Trade Deficit, Low Personal-Savings Rate"


This paragraph is really funny:

Striking a more ooptimistic tone than many economists, the Economic Report of the President said the decline in the personal-saving rae last year to post-Depression lows "may not be cause for alarm." It blamed much of the trade deficit on other countries that save too much, rather than the U.S. saving too little.

Ben Bernanke was still the chair of the Council of Economic Advisoers, but he recused himself from preparing the report.

Last year, house hold spending exceeded after-tax income, produccing a negative saving rate for the first time since the Great Depression. The White House report said the decline is "potentially misleading" because it doesn't reflect how the rising values of houses and stocks make households feel more financially secure and willing to spend.....

Other economists warned about taking comfort in higher household wealth. "It's too sanguine to equate capital gains wigh cash-flow saving-they're not the same", said Alan Auerbach, economist.....

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has noted that "capital gains do not finance capital investment," because they exist only on paper. Americans don't save enough to both buy those assets from future retirees and finance new investment, forcing the U.S, to directly or indirectly sell assets to foreigners or borrow from them.........

The report identified two risks to American's retirement security: the weak state of defined-benefit pensions, and Social Security's large unfunded liabilities......

Agman, you have the present Fed Chairman not signing off on your delusional sales pitch, and Greenspan speaking directly against the point you are trying to make.

You are sounding more and more like a snake oil salesman or one of the officials that didn't stop the 9-11 attacks after warnings by members of the FBI. I am sorry you have a hard time connecting the dots. Maybe we should have people better at it than you in places of advisement to policy makers. We need policy makers who are not puppets to the status quo or to industry.
 

Latest posts

Top