"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:u%S09.34130$Fq6.3317310 at news2.west.cox.net...
> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:R6q09.25675$dk1.2062610 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > news:1bY%8.20655$Fq6.2434522 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:F4B%8.10387$sb5.1039692 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > > >
> > > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:FXy%8.17564$Fq6.2089077 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > > > "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> > > > > news:tk1rju8dfvhuruel2dstshlkvn761cr8pk at 4ax.com...> > > > > > "Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >US GDP has absolutely NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZERO to do with the
> FACT
> > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > >have 400 times as many lawyers as the Japanese. In the trade
> wars
> > > vs.
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >Japanese, guess who's winning and has been winning since the
late
> > > > 1970s?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The stock market is tanking and people still think our economy
is
> > > > > healthier
> > > > > > than that of the Japanese.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't that precisely the point?
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't it a FACT that what the majority of the graduates of our
> > "schools"
> > > > > "think", and what constitutes reality, are exact opposites, way
too
> > > often?
> > > > >
> > > > > Less than 5% of Japanese households' financial assets are in the
> stock
> > > > > market, so the Nikei could drop into the Pacific Ocean without
them
> > > hardly
> > > > > noticing that it's gone. What this two year long drop in the US
> stock
> > > > > market did by wiping out $trillions in financial assets has yet to
> be
> > > > > learned, but the simple fact that we are the only industrialized
> > nation
> > > in
> > > > > the world with a *negative* personal savings rate SHOULD have
given
> > some
> > > > > Americans a clue. They seem to have completely forgotten what the
> > > phrase
> > > > > "personal savings" even means, though.
> > > > > http://christianparty.net/japan.htm> > > > >
> > > > > According to the Japanese government's official web site (a very
> > > > > conservative site), in this midst of this putative Asian economic
> > > crisis,
> > > > > the Japanese shoveled another $2 trillion in personal savings on
TOP
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > $30-40 trillion they already had in personal savings. Even
> > "liberals"
> > > > like
> > > > > you would probably enjoy such an economic crisis, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Actually, if you had any type of economics background you'd realise
> that
> > > the
> > > > Japanese actions are the complete opposite of what should be done.
> > Japan
> > > > will be stuck in a slow down for quite some time do to their massive
> > > > propensity to save as opposed to consume.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This, in fact, is a LIE.
> > >
> > > You could not believe this LIE if you had even a remote understanding
of
> > the
> > > math you claim to be an expert at.
> >
> > You obviously have never taken a course in macroeconomics.
> >
> > A high marginal propensity to save means that they have a low propensity
> to
> > consume, and thus the aggregate demand is low. Consequently, economic
> > growth will continue to be slow while this trend continues.
> >
> > You are aware that the Japanese economy is in a slump, right?
> >
>> You do not have to be a "macroeconomist" to realize that an economy in a
> slump DOES NOT put $two trillion dollars into the bank in ONE year, do
you?
Actually, it does. They put all of their money into savings rather than
spending it.
Considering their GDP was estimated at $3.15 in 2000, that's very little
left over.
> The Japanese put that much in the bank AND spent more than us for your oh
so
> precious consumer junk--but they bought their own junk, instead of ours,
or
> anyone else's, which is the REAL lesson of the "Keynesian" economics that
> you worship (but don't understand).
That's not possible. Simple math illustrates that such is not impossible.
The US GDP is larger. Thus consumer spending and investment must
necessarily combine to a greater sum in the US.
Japanese consumer spending must therefore be VERY low.
> This is the big fat LIE that American students COULD understand in an
> instant if they knew the slightest thing about math (with NO consideration
> for "eocnomics" at all).
No. I'm afraid you're completely wrong. You should get a better education.
Perhaps studying abroad would be helpful, since your American education is
obviously lacking.
> > > > > The *official* average Japanese household income in December 1999
> was
> > > > $9,819
> > > > > just in that one month, which is two to three times higher than
> ours.
> > > > > http://christianparty.net/japan1999income.htm> > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincome.htm> > > >
> > > > The GDP per person in the US is much higher than that. How is this
> > > > possible?
> > >
> > > GDP per person and household income are obviously different figures.
> The
> > > latest figure from the US Census Bureau, after a 7 year slide in
> American
> > > household incomes, was $35,172, in 1996, which is $2,976 per month,
> which
> > is
> > > ONE THIRD of the average Japanese household in December 1999.
> > > http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/mednhhld/ta2.html> >
> > So instead American's are so wealthy that they own their own residences?
> In
> > Japan, many people are crammed into a small area, but in the US that
same
> > number of people would have multiple places of residence.
>> You've got this exactly BACKWARDS. Americans do NOT "own their
residences":
> THE BANKS OWN THEM. Our mortgage debt is now MUCH bigger than the entire
> net worth of all residential real estate, combined.
>> But the Japanese have almost NO mortgage debt, because they don't use
their
> homes like poker chips in the world's largest gambling casino, called
"Wall
> Street". And their average household savings of $1 million per household
> doesn't even include their homes, which is another $600,000 DEBT FREE.
Debt is not necessarily a bad thing. That's why essentially every nation on
the planet has debt, as well as almost every major corporation.
> > > > > Even better they SAVED 43% of it, and spent only 9.9% for taxes,
> > > compared
> > > > to
> > > > > a NEGATIVE 1% US personal savings rate, and a 43% tax rate. In
> other
> > > > words,
> > > > > what the average Japanese household put in the bank, our
government
> > > SPENT
> > > > > (as a percentage, not absolute dollars).
> > > >
> > > > Good. That means you won't have the same type of economic crisis as
> > > Japan.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is really rich. If you REALLY *think* that putting TWO TRILLION
> > > DOLLARS into personal savings is an "economic crisis", you are a FAR,
> FAR
> > > bigger moron than you've demonstrated thus far.
> >
> > Yes, it is an economic crisis. If consumers fail to consume, then the
> > economy falters. Actually, that would probably lead to deflation.
>> Let's leave this "economics principle" aside for a moment and consider how
> much you "REALLY THINK" it benefits the US economy if American consumers
are
> buying everything in town BUT products manufactured in the US?
The trade deficit is a bad thing. But it's not as bad as investing(saving)
all of your money.
> If you look at the mechanical and electrical devices in your own home, my
> bet is that HALF of them were made in Japan (which is HOW they put $40
> trillion in their postal savings account), which did NOT benefit the US
one
> iota. The other half were made in China, Taiwan, Korea, the Phillipines,
> Ireland, Germany, even Italy and Portugal--NOT THE US.
No. I have very few Japanese consumer electronics. Pretty much just a
playstation 2.
> If you look under the hood of a Chrysler, the ONLY thing that's not
Japanese
> is the alternator--WHICH IS GERMAN.
Actually, almost 100% of cars in Canada are wholly Canadian made.
> > > > > How many of these radical feminazis encumbered with so much
> "negative
> > > > > knowledge" do YOU expect to even be able to understand this
> "abstract
> > > > > concept", much less to appreciate the significance of it?
> > > >
> > > > Take a course in macroeconomics.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Should I make sure I have a jewish "teacher"?
> >
> > It doesn't really matter. As long as he's Keynesian, he teaches from
the
> > same basic precepts.
> >
>> It wasn't a "Kennesian" economics teacher who taught you this
> gibberish--this is straight from feminaziism.
No. I'm afraid you're clueless again. Economics is a rational objective
practice. Very little of it is open to subjective interpretation, as long
as you accept the basic axioms.
