What is the Real Debt Picture Like, Agman?

[mrj]

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.
****
Econ, your ludicrous comment really belongs on the Political Bull page, but since you made it here, I am replying here.

Do you really believe this administration had any more warning of that attack than did the Clinton admin. of the many attacks on his watch? Or that, had Clinton taken suitably strong action, very possibly 9-11 would not have been attempted? It seems obvious that Pres. GW Bush has trusted the FBI, CIA, and others, and if there have been lies, they were to him, not from him. Obviously, Bush haters, Liberals, Democrats and demogogues would not agree.

MRJ
***************

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.

 

[agman]

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.

I already made the post you fool. Comprehension problem again or did you not get that far in school to understand what net-worth is?

How do you know the author was thorough; what research have you ever done on your own to verify his work? The answer is you have done no research as usual. You just want to act intelligent and impresss yourself which shows what a true mental misfit you really are. You are too mentally inept to do any supporting research. If you weren't so inept you would know how to research the data I provided. If it was incorrect you could then claim victory. Without those results you have just made another of your endless stream and baseless accusations by calling me a liar for making the post. Prove your point hero and liar. You have failed at every turn so far. Are you confused by all those voices again? Thanks for the laugh today boy.

 

[Econ101]

And I totally refuted your points with the current and past fed chairmen and Sandhusker with one of the most famous investors around (cornhusker). It is you who are the fool.

As far as the research I have done, you know nothing. Why do you keep bringing it up as if you do? Do you always talk of the things you know nothing of as if you are an expert? The kind of "research" you bring to the table is so biased it can only be used to set the benchmark for a packer backer. Show your work, Agman. I continually post my sources and you do not. We have to take it that you did your little calculations correct because you never show your work.

As I said before, you are nothing better than a snakeoil salesmen when it comes to economic interpretation to people who don't know any better. You just don't like me calling your hand all the time. Too bad.

 

[agman]

And I totally refuted your points with the current and past fed chairmen and Sandhusker with one of the most famous investors around (cornhusker). It is you who are the fool.

As far as the research I have done, you know nothing. Why do you keep bringing it up as if you do? Do you always talk of the things you know nothing of as if you are an expert? The kind of "research" you bring to the table is so biased it can only be used to set the benchmark for a packer backer. Show your work, Agman. I continually post my sources and you do not. We have to take it that you did your little calculations correct because you never show your work.

As I said before, you are nothing better than a snakeoil salesmen when it comes to economic interpretation to people who don't know any better. You just don't like me calling your hand all the time. Too bad.

Keep lying to yourself fool. Only a true fool lies to himself to stroke his midget mind. Who are you kidding about Sandhusker-yourself again? What points did YOU refute? You are one pathetic person Conman.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman says right, Greenspan, Buffet, and Berneke say left. Now who should we believe?

 

[agman]

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?

Ask either of them if that figure is a true measurement of savings. I have been with Economists higher up the ladder in the Fed then you will ever meet and they will just laugh and shrug at the savings rate as quoted.

Have you figured out yet how the savings rate, as reported, is computed or are you just going to sit there like a fool and talk about something you know nothing about?

You shouldn't always take for granted what someone posts. If you were serious you would do some real research on your own, then you might actually learn and know something. For a banker you are absent alot of facts about this economy. But then someone who is snowed by R-Calf verbiage is not interested in or understanding facts. Read my latest post. Disprove it if you think you can!! Doomsdayers are a failed bunch, always have been, always will be.

 

[Sandhusker]

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?

Ask either of them if that figure is a true measurement of savings. I have been with Economists higher up the ladder in the Fed then you will ever meet and they will just laugh and shrug at the savings rate as quoted.

Have you figured out yet how the savings rate, as reported, is computed or are you just going to sit there like a fool and talk about something you know nothing about?

You shouldn't always take for granted what someone posts. If you were serious you would do some real research on your own, then you might actually learn and know something. For a banker you are absent alot of facts about this economy. But then someone who is snowed by R-Calf verbiage is not interested in or understanding facts. Read my latest post. Disprove it if you think you can!! Doomsdayers are a failed bunch, always have been, always will be.

I'm not going to worry about how the rate is computed. I'm comfortable taking Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffet's word over yours. If you think you've got one over those guys, your ego indeed needs a reality check.

 

[agman]

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?

Ask either of them if that figure is a true measurement of savings. I have been with Economists higher up the ladder in the Fed then you will ever meet and they will just laugh and shrug at the savings rate as quoted.

Have you figured out yet how the savings rate, as reported, is computed or are you just going to sit there like a fool and talk about something you know nothing about?

You shouldn't always take for granted what someone posts. If you were serious you would do some real research on your own, then you might actually learn and know something. For a banker you are absent alot of facts about this economy. But then someone who is snowed by R-Calf verbiage is not interested in or understanding facts. Read my latest post. Disprove it if you think you can!! Doomsdayers are a failed bunch, always have been, always will be.

I'm not going to worry about how the rate is computed. I'm comfortable taking Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffet's word over yours. If you think you've got one over those guys, your ego indeed needs a reality check.

MY ego is not in my way. The difference is that I know full well what data they are referring to and you don't. You are assuming that is all they know about savings and rest assured they know alot more than the derived tabulation they cite.

You don't care that IRA's, 401K's and retirement funds etc. are not included in the national income accounting process-that figures. That is a brilliant position to take!! Half facts equals half knowledge. Go get em Sandhusker.

 

[Sandhusker]

What I care about is a couple of household names in the economics and investing world say one thing and you say the other.

 

[Econ101]

Ask either of them if that figure is a true measurement of savings. I have been with Economists higher up the ladder in the Fed then you will ever meet and they will just laugh and shrug at the savings rate as quoted.

Have you figured out yet how the savings rate, as reported, is computed or are you just going to sit there like a fool and talk about something you know nothing about?

You shouldn't always take for granted what someone posts. If you were serious you would do some real research on your own, then you might actually learn and know something. For a banker you are absent alot of facts about this economy. But then someone who is snowed by R-Calf verbiage is not interested in or understanding facts. Read my latest post. Disprove it if you think you can!! Doomsdayers are a failed bunch, always have been, always will be.

I'm not going to worry about how the rate is computed. I'm comfortable taking Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffet's word over yours. If you think you've got one over those guys, your ego indeed needs a reality check.

MY ego is not in my way. The difference is that I know full well what data they are referring to and you don't. You are assuming that is all they know about savings and rest assured they know alot more than the derived tabulation they cite.

You don't care that IRA's, 401K's and retirement funds etc. are not included in the national income accounting process-that figures. That is a brilliant position to take!! Half facts equals half knowledge. Go get em Sandhusker.

If you count those items as assets, Agman, you have to count the liabilities that they are for as liabilities. Half facts equals half knowledge. Go get em Agman.

 

[agman]

What I care about is a couple of household names in the economics and investing world say one thing and you say the other.

Consider the context in what and where they made the statement. Neither of them would refute what I posted. If you actually think our savings rate is negative or as menial as described by the National Income Accounting process I have a pet rock to sell you.

 

[agman]

I'm not going to worry about how the rate is computed. I'm comfortable taking Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffet's word over yours. If you think you've got one over those guys, your ego indeed needs a reality check.

MY ego is not in my way. The difference is that I know full well what data they are referring to and you don't. You are assuming that is all they know about savings and rest assured they know alot more than the derived tabulation they cite.

You don't care that IRA's, 401K's and retirement funds etc. are not included in the national income accounting process-that figures. That is a brilliant position to take!! Half facts equals half knowledge. Go get em Sandhusker.

If you count those items as assets, Agman, you have to count the liabilities that they are for as liabilities. Half facts equals half knowledge. Go get em Agman.

Explain the liability side of IRA's and 401K's. For you no facts equals no knowledge is appropriate. This stuff is over your head. Dance again Conman!!!

 

[Sandhusker]

What I care about is a couple of household names in the economics and investing world say one thing and you say the other.

Consider the context in what and where they made the statement. Neither of them would refute what I posted. If you actually think our savings rate is negative or as menial as described by the National Income Accounting process I have a pet rock to sell you.

I did consider the context. I'm sure they know everything you know - yet they raise a red flag. Once again the choice is to believe Greenspan and Buffet or Agman.

 

[agman]

What I care about is a couple of household names in the economics and investing world say one thing and you say the other.

Consider the context in what and where they made the statement. Neither of them would refute what I posted. If you actually think our savings rate is negative or as menial as described by the National Income Accounting process I have a pet rock to sell you.

I did consider the context. I'm sure they know everything you know - yet they raise a red flag. Once again the choice is to believe Greenspan and Buffet or Agman.

The choice is whether you know what they used in the proper context or if there is much more to savings than they stated. I will stand by my statement knowing full well either of those two esteemed individuals would corroberate my position if asked the relevant question. Would you care to place a bet?

 

[Econ101]

MY ego is not in my way. The difference is that I know full well what data they are referring to and you don't. You are assuming that is all they know about savings and rest assured they know alot more than the derived tabulation they cite.

You don't care that IRA's, 401K's and retirement funds etc. are not included in the national income accounting process-that figures. That is a brilliant position to take!! Half facts equals half knowledge. Go get em Sandhusker.

If you count those items as assets, Agman, you have to count the liabilities that they are for as liabilities. Half facts equals half knowledge. Go get em Agman.

Explain the liability side of IRA's and 401K's. For you no facts equals no knowledge is appropriate. This stuff is over your head. Dance again Conman!!!

Agman, I will let you think about that. Consider our discussions on the pension funding. While 401 ks and IRA's were supposed to pick up the unfunded liabilities when it comes to retirmement or supplement it, every study I have see has shown how short they are for the average person in that regard. Maybe not you and maybe not I, but for the average person, substituting those accounts for defined pension plans has been a failure. Again, this was one or the concerns that was spoken of by both the fed chairmen.

Who to believe? It is not even close.

 

[agman]

If you count those items as assets, Agman, you have to count the liabilities that they are for as liabilities. Half facts equals half knowledge. Go get em Agman.

Explain the liability side of IRA's and 401K's. For you no facts equals no knowledge is appropriate. This stuff is over your head. Dance again Conman!!!

Agman, I will let you think about that. Consider our discussions on the pension funding. While 401 ks and IRA's were supposed to pick up the unfunded liabilities when it comes to retirmement or supplement it, every study I have see has shown how short they are for the average person in that regard. Maybe not you and maybe not I, but for the average person, substituting those accounts for defined pension plans has been a failure. Again, this was one or the concerns that was spoken of by both the fed chairmen.

Who to believe? It is not even close.

Nice attempt at diversion and deception. Contributions to 401K's and IRA's are totally separate issues from unfunded pension funds which are listed as liabilities of corporations. You are in over your head. You're right for once. Given your recored of twists and turns and lies who to believe is not close. You lose hands down again. Go play with the kids.

 

[Econ101]

Explain the liability side of IRA's and 401K's. For you no facts equals no knowledge is appropriate. This stuff is over your head. Dance again Conman!!!

Agman, I will let you think about that. Consider our discussions on the pension funding. While 401 ks and IRA's were supposed to pick up the unfunded liabilities when it comes to retirmement or supplement it, every study I have see has shown how short they are for the average person in that regard. Maybe not you and maybe not I, but for the average person, substituting those accounts for defined pension plans has been a failure. Again, this was one or the concerns that was spoken of by both the fed chairmen.

Who to believe? It is not even close.

Nice attempt at diversion and deception. Contributions to 401K's and IRA's are totally separate issues from unfunded pension funds which are listed as liabilities of corporations. You are in over your head. You're right for once. Given your recored of twists and turns and lies who to believe is not close. You lose hands down again. Go play with the kids.

The liabilities are there whether or not they are under the corporation's name or the individual's name.

As has been recently noted, the liabilities of some of these companies in relation to their pension funds has been a problem. Unfunded pension liabilities have been the problem. It is about time they tightened up on those rules. Too many companies have put their hand into the pension money to keep going and paying out profits to investors. It eventually catches up to them as the Enron employees found out.

You want to basically double count these assets and I am calling you on that assertion.

 

[agman]

Agman, I will let you think about that. Consider our discussions on the pension funding. While 401 ks and IRA's were supposed to pick up the unfunded liabilities when it comes to retirmement or supplement it, every study I have see has shown how short they are for the average person in that regard. Maybe not you and maybe not I, but for the average person, substituting those accounts for defined pension plans has been a failure. Again, this was one or the concerns that was spoken of by both the fed chairmen.

Who to believe? It is not even close.

Nice attempt at diversion and deception. Contributions to 401K's and IRA's are totally separate issues from unfunded pension funds which are listed as liabilities of corporations. You are in over your head. You're right for once. Given your recored of twists and turns and lies who to believe is not close. You lose hands down again. Go play with the kids.

The liabilities are there whether or not they are under the corporation's name or the individual's name.

As has been recently noted, the liabilities of some of these companies in relation to their pension funds has been a problem. Unfunded pension liabilities have been the problem. It is about time they tightened up on those rules. Too many companies have put their hand into the pension money to keep going and paying out profits to investors. It eventually catches up to them as the Enron employees found out.

You want to basically double count these assets and I am calling you on that assertion.

The mere fact that there is a shortage in funded pension funds does not mean there is a liability against 401K's and IRA's. These are two totally seperate issues and means to total savings. To whom am I liable for funds I place into 401K's and/or IRA's? This will be interesting folks. Watch the diversion.

 

[Econ101]

Nice attempt at diversion and deception. Contributions to 401K's and IRA's are totally separate issues from unfunded pension funds which are listed as liabilities of corporations. You are in over your head. You're right for once. Given your recored of twists and turns and lies who to believe is not close. You lose hands down again. Go play with the kids.

The liabilities are there whether or not they are under the corporation's name or the individual's name.

As has been recently noted, the liabilities of some of these companies in relation to their pension funds has been a problem. Unfunded pension liabilities have been the problem. It is about time they tightened up on those rules. Too many companies have put their hand into the pension money to keep going and paying out profits to investors. It eventually catches up to them as the Enron employees found out.

You want to basically double count these assets and I am calling you on that assertion.

The mere fact that there is a shortage in funded pension funds does not mean there is a liability against 401K's and IRA's. These are two totally seperate issues and means to total savings. To whom am I liable for funds I place into 401K's and/or IRA's? This will be interesting folks. Watch the diversion.

Your own retirement, unless of course you don't want to retire. 401ks and iras are retirement accounts, not savings accounts. They may be a part of total wealth but they are also monies to pledged for retirement. You wouldn't count pensions that way.

 

[agman]

The liabilities are there whether or not they are under the corporation's name or the individual's name.

As has been recently noted, the liabilities of some of these companies in relation to their pension funds has been a problem. Unfunded pension liabilities have been the problem. It is about time they tightened up on those rules. Too many companies have put their hand into the pension money to keep going and paying out profits to investors. It eventually catches up to them as the Enron employees found out.

You want to basically double count these assets and I am calling you on that assertion.

The mere fact that there is a shortage in funded pension funds does not mean there is a liability against 401K's and IRA's. These are two totally seperate issues and means to total savings. To whom am I liable for funds I place into 401K's and/or IRA's? This will be interesting folks. Watch the diversion.

Your own retirement, unless of course you don't want to retire. 401ks and iras are retirement accounts, not savings accounts. They may be a part of total wealth but they are also monies to pledged for retirement. You wouldn't count pensions that way.

Divert, divert, divert,....par for you. Thanks for another laugh today. What are savings that are pledged for retirement?!!!! By talking in circles you got your foot stuck in your mouth again. You are simply too easy.