You have your date set incorrectly.
"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:8cC19.45114$Fq6.4020271 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> So tell us, parsetree, do you think we should believe the affirmative
action
> hirees at the CIA who pad their figures with "purchasing power parity", or
> would you prefer ACCURATE data from independent, industry sources which
use
> REAL data?
Corporations use figures that reflect PPP. It costs $299 for a PS2 in
Canada, and $200 in the US. That's not the literal exchange rate.
> If you want to know how misleading "purchasing power parity" really is,
take
> a look at Asia Week Magazine's "Bottom Line" at
>http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/magazine/2000/0818/bottomline.html
Do you honestly think that $783 is an accurate depiction of China's GDP per
person? I know that in NA you can't live off of that much money in a year.
It's literally impossible.
> To be specific, Japan has a higher GDP per capita than the US, but the CIA
> and other feminized American sources use ppp to penalize Japan to reduce
it
> from $34,715 to $23,480, based on the most senseless excuses, like how
long
> students are in school, and a whole bunch of irrelevant tricks.
It is incredibly expensive to live in Japan. Just like it is more expensive
to live in new york, rather than some little village.
> The CIA doesn't report ANY data correctly, as they always use this ppp and
> other "tricks" [read: LIES] in their reports. Where they report
> Switzerland's GDP to be $22,600, their REAL GDP per capita is $37,145,
much
> higher than ours at $28,600. Germany is penalized $3,000 for WHAT? Their
> cost of living certainly isn't higher, though their savings rate of 22% is
> literally *infinitely* higher than ours, since our personal savings rate
is
> NEGATIVE after all the interest on the humongous debts is paid.
>>http://christianparty.net/bottomline.htm>>http://christianparty.net/personalsavings.htm>> The countries with the highest per capita incomes, like Kuwait and Qatar,
> aren't even on these lists. Why not? What does "planet101" hope to hide
> from you? Lookit how easy it is to LIE to you with statistics.
"Purchasing-Power Parity (PPP) takes into account price differences between
countries to provide a more accurate picture of national wealth"
>From your vaunted Christian Party website. It seems even they understand
PPP.
> The fact that we have a NEGATIVE personal savings rate means that we have
NO
> private ownership of property, because the state now owns it all, and you
> don't even realize it. This is FAR more important to determining who is a
> "rich country" and who is not than "purchasing power parity".
So now the United States has no private ownership?
You just don't stop, do you?
> John Knight
>>> "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:DYn19.64$dn3.26502 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > http://www.planet101.com/richcountry.htm> >
> > The United States has the highest GDP per capita in the world.
> >
> > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > news:ZHn19.42217$Fq6.3845211 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > Well said, Mr. August!
> > >
> > > The loss to women employees really is incalculable.
> > >
> > > The dollars that had to be lost in order to go, in only 3 decades,
from
> > the
> > > world's undisputed highest per capita income to a shaky 17th place and
> > > falling fast, are truly incalulable.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, not only are we dealing with a "bell curve" that's so
> flat
> > > that it makes pancakes look like mountains, but we're way down the
left
> > side
> > > of that "bell curve" where liquid nitrogen freezes. Trying to get an
> > > electron to wriggle at this sub-zero IQ is like trying to get a
> "liberal"
> > to
> > > quote something besides a TV commercial in his "critique".
> > >
> > > But we still must attempt to make that electron wriggle, in the slim
> hope
> > > that their brain washing can be mitigated.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Richard C. August" <raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
> > > news:XSa19.1395$Fl.162231 at nnrp1.ptd.net...> > > > Dear Parse Tree,
> > > >
> > > > The actual percentages of the rise of the cost of homes vs. the rise
> in
> > > > median incomes doesn't matter a stitch. The fact is that an
> increasing
> > > > number of working class poor are rendered UNABLE to own a home, new
or
> > > not,
> > > > because of their INCOMES, DEBT-TO-INCOME RATIO, and CREDIT SCORES.
> > > >
> > > > Point blank, many people can barely afford an old trailer. Usually,
> an
> > > old
> > > > trailer is what they end up buying, especially when they live in my
> > area.
> > > > My area is known for depleted savings, paltry incomes, no retirement
> > > > pensions, and a tax base supported by elderly, handicapped, and
> retarded
> > > who
> > > > have no place else to go or stay.
> > > >
> > > > I am working for a living, and living with my 64-year old mother,
> whose
> > > > income can barely feed a canary let alone pay a mortgage. She
cannot
> > > afford
> > > > to pay her homeowners' insurance or her taxes this year. She could
> not
> > > > refinance her mortgage despite the fact that she put a new roof,
> siding,
> > > and
> > > > windows on the house, because property values plummetted. Median
> > incomes
> > > in
> > > > my area range between $7 and $8 an hour for semi-skilled labour.
> > Doctors,
> > > > lawyers, plumbers and electricians and contractors earn more, but
> their
> > > > incomes are swallowed up in insurance bills and lawsuits. What's
left
> > are
> > > > retirees from local businesses and also NY and NJ, who have built
> their
> > > > homes and are waiting to die.
> > > >
> > > > If you honestly think that you can buy a new home in an area where
> jobs
> > > are
> > > > scarce, the commute to work is at least one hour and at most 4
hours,
> > and
> > > > incomes are pitiful, do the math again. That, by the bye, is
> happening
> > > more
> > > > and more often in more and more places nationwide, as jobs dry up
due
> to
> > > the
> > > > "giant sucking sound" from Mexico, about which H. Ross Perot warned
us
> > in
> > > > 1992 if NAFTA/GATT were signed. NAFTA/GATT were signed, and the
> vacuum
> > > > cleaner just got running.
> > > >
> > > > In order to remain competitive, and keep jobs in the USA, Union
Labour
> > > will
> > > > now be FORCED to take pay and benefits cuts or else lose their jobs
> > > > entirely. Pay and benefits cuts to keep jobs already happened in
the
> > Auto
> > > > Industry. Where will it happen next? Will it be your job, and will
> it
> > > > happen to you?
> > > >
> > > > Parse Tree, remember this FACT. The American News Media are
> CONTROLLED
> > BY
> > > > JEWS!!! They have taken their lesson well from their Doctor of
Style
> > > Josef
> > > > Goebbels, former Nazi Minister of Propaganda. Soothe the Public.
> Lull
> > > them
> > > > to sleep. Tell them the good news first. Make it all glossy and
> shiny
> > > and
> > > > pretty looking. Lie to them, because Jew Hitler said that the
people
> > will
> > > > never swallow the Big Lie unless you break it down in little pieces
> and
> > > feed
> > > > it to them in spoonfuls. Can't you figure out that that is EXACTLY
> what
> > > the
> > > > American News Media have done to you? Or will it take a hit in YOUR
> > > wallet,
> > > > a loss of YOUR house, or YOUR JOB, before it cracks your skull? I
> think
> > > > you'll lose your job first.
> > > >
> > > > Concerning the negative productivity of women, the loss due to them
is
> > > > really incalculable. Everything from lack of female physical
strength
> > to
> > > > lengthened employee break times to equalization of gender in the
work
> > > force
> > > > to sexual harrassment complaints/suits attest to this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard C. August
> > > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:6x219.346$sI2.279017 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > > > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:a3T09.34142$Fq6.3318011 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:7mJ09.26204
> > > > > > > > Sorry, all requests for free research (which we now
understand
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > > neccessary when ONE THIRD ...) must be funneled through The
> > > > Christian
> > > > > > > Party.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But you're in luck--the urls at
> > > > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm> > > > > > > > are direct references to the original FEDERAL data (which
> > because
> > > of
> > > > > CYA
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > not be the most accurate, but it
> > > > > > > > will put you in the ballpark).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That doesn't demonstrate, in any way, that women workers are
> > > > negatively
> > > > > > > productive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Try again.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, parsetree, we do know the problem now, which is that
you're
> > > > > literally
> > > > > > incapable of doing the math yourself, so you'd just as soon
insist
> > > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > was done incorrectly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have a degree in mathematics?
> > > > >
> > > > > Your complete ignorance of statistics, linear algebra and calculus
> > > > > demonstrates that you do not.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Find someone who can do it for you and tell me HONESTLY if they
> get
> > a
> > > > > > different NEGATIVE figure for the "productivity" of American
women
> > > > workers
> > > > > > than the one below!
> > > > >
> > > > > Your assumptions are wrong, yet again. See below.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Home Prices Increase 4X More Than Incomes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Median household incomes
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>http://www.census.gov/income/cdrom/cdrom00/Historical%20Tables/Income/cpi-u-
> > > > > > rs/household/h11.lst
> > > > >
> > > > > This link refutes most of what you say below.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You can quite clearly see that the median rose from $31,397 in
1967,
> > to
> > > > > $42,151 in 2000. This is properly adjustted for inflation, unlike
> > your
> > > > > stats below.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Median home prices
> > > > > >
http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ushmc/winter2001/histdat08.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Labor force participation rates
> > > > > > http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet> > > > >
> > > > > This link is broken.
> > > > >
> > > > > > While feminazis, jews, niggers, muds, sodomites, and other
> > "liberals"
> > > > are
> > > > > > jumping for joy over our recent putative "economic boom", most
> > > Americans
> > > > > who
> > > > > > can read and add and subtract are wondering why median home
prices
> > > > > increased
> > > > > > by four times more than median incomes increased. And why the
> > > percent
> > > > of
> > > > > > men who are working decreased 7% while the percent of women who
> are
> > > > > working
> > > > > > increased 19%. Median prices of homes increased from $22,700 in
> > 1967
> > > to
> > > > > > $169,000 in 2000, a $146,300 increase, while median incomes
lagged
> > WAY
> > > > > > behind, increasing by only $35,008 (from $7,143 to 42,151).
> > > > >
> > > > > It is the percentage increase that is relevant.
> > > > > You should have said that house prices increasd by almost 7.5
times,
> > and
> > > > > that income only increased by just under 6 times. When you're
> trying
> > to
> > > > > illustrate a point, at least use pertinent infomation. Increases
in
> > > > > absolute terms are essentially meaningless in this situation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Incidentally, Japan, the country you're complimenting excessively,
> had
> > a
> > > > > Comparative Cost Index of 145.62 as compared to 97.22 for the
United
> > > > States,
> > > > > according to the World Competitiveness Yearbook, June 2000. It's
> > > cheaper
> > > > to
> > > > > live in the US.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If living in a house wasn't important to you, as it must be for
> > > > > "liberals",
> > > > > > this might be neutral or even good news, but if you're a normal
> > > person,
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > not a good sign.
> > > > >
> > > > > The number of houses sold is increasing. So evidently more people
> are
> > > > > beginning to live in them.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The real fun is when you point out that the problem was caused
the
> > > > > > unprecedented entry into the labor force of the American girls
who
> > > > scored
> > > > > > lower on TIMSS than if they'd just guessed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Firstly, you can demonstrate no causal connection between female
> entry
> > > > into
> > > > > the workplace and this supposed 'decrease'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Secondly, I have already demonstrated that you really mean that
they
> > > > > PROBABLY scored lower than if they had guessed. One is certain,
one
> > is
> > > > not.
> > > > >
> > > > > > When the mostly single-worker
> > > > > > families of 4 decades ago had four times the purchasing power,
and
> > > when
> > > > > the
> > > > > > almost exclusively single-worker families in Japan have two to
> three
> > > > times
> > > > > > the incomes, of the mostly two-working parent families of today,
> > > > > feminaziism
> > > > > > appears as a huge festering boil all over everything.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, the purchasing power seems to be properly adjusted in
the
> > > stats
> > > > > above, and it seems to be increasing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > This four fold plunge in family purchasing power occurred as the
> > > percent
> > > > > of
> > > > > > men in the labor force decreased 7% aand the percent of women
> > > increased
> > > > > 19%.
> > > > > > Put simply, purchsing power of American families in 1967
[P(1967)]
> > > when
> > > > > our
> > > > > > labor force consisted of 81.5% of men working and 39.3% of women
> > > working
> > > > > was
> > > > > > four times higher than in 2000 [P(2000)] when only 74.1% of men
> and
> > > > 58.7%
> > > > > of
> > > > > > women were in the labor force.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many other things happened during this time that could be equally
to
> > > > blame.
> > > > > The fact that you are blaming it on women seems to illustrate that
> you
> > > > don't
> > > > > truly believe prayer increases productivity, or that the education
> > > system
> > > > is
> > > > > getting worse at all. Nice backpedalling.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > X = productivity of men
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Y = productivity of women
> > > > > >
> > > > > > P(1967) = 1967 Purchasing Power = X x 81.5% + Y x 39.3% = 1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > P(2000) = 2000 Purchasing Power = X x 74.1% + Y x 58.7% = 0.25
> > > > > >
> > > > > > X = (1 - 39.3%Y)/.815
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 74.1% x (1 - 39.3%Y)/81.5% + 58.7%Y = 0.25
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.9092 - 0.3573Y +.587Y = 0.25
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .2297Y = -0.6592
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Y = -2.87
> > > > > >
> > > > > > X = (1 - 39.3%Y)/0.815 = (1 + 1.1279)/0.815 = 2.61
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice try, but you're wrong again. Purchasing power was lower in
> 1967.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, your math applied to the correct figures would
demonstrate
> > > that
> > > > > women are MORE productive. Something to think about, isn't it?
> > Perhaps
> > > > > your math is wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > > As it is, the US median household income in 1996 of $35,172 is
ONE
> > > THIRD
> > > > > of
> > > > > > that of Japan, which was $9,819 in December 1999.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, Japan is one third of the US, if you take your figures
> > above.
> > > > > Isn't that impressive?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <Snipped unreadable stats, since most of it seems to be available
on
> > the
> > > > > links above.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>>
