"Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X9E19.50$9g7.18884 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> news:QxC19.45140$Fq6.4023681 at news2.west.cox.net...> >
> > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:6Wn19.62$dn3.25537 at news20.bellglobal.com...> >
> > > > In 1965, American family incomes were five times that of Japan, but
> now
> > > > they're a half to a third of Japan's. If you want a REAL standard,
> use
> > > the
> > > > yen rather than the "consumer price index" (though they'll produce
the
> > > same
> > > > results, since Japan uses the gold standard).
> > >
> > > But you posted that Japanese family income was 1/3 of American family
> > > income. Were you mistaken there?
> > >
> >
> > WHAT? Read that post again. Better yet, here are the exact figures:
> >
> > A) Japan's median household income for the month of December 1999, at
the
> > height of the "Asian economic crisis", was $9,819
> > http://christianparty.net/japan1999income.htm>>http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_umsgid=a3T09.3
> 4142%24Fq6.3318011 at news2.west.cox.net&lr=lang_en&num=50&hl=en
>>> "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."
>> Was that a typographical error?
>
No. Why would you think that? If you could READ, you would know that the
$35,172 is the ANNUAL figure in the US, which you should have been able to
convert easily in your head to $2,931, which is ONE THIRD of Japan's average
monthly household income of $9,819.
> > B) The US median household income per month in 1996 was $2,931
> > http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm or
> > http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/mednhhld/ta2.html> >
> > Please tell us how you "interpreted" this to mean "Japanese family
income
> > was 1/3 of American family income". It's the other way around. To be
> > precise, $9,819 / $2,931 = 3.35, which means that Japan's household
> incomes
> > are more than THREE TIMES higher than ours.
>> I was basing it on what you posted. It's evidently erroneous.
>
WHAT is "erroneous"? If anything was, it was your inability to comprehend
the difference between annual and monthly incomes. This is something you
should have done on the fly, without even batting an eye, but here you are,
still debating the FACTS.
> > AND--they spent only 9% for government, while we spent 42%.
> >
> > AND--they SAVED 43% of that, whereas we saved NOTHING, and in fact had
to
> > dip into whatever is left of "personal savings" in order to pay the
> interest
> > on the debts.
>> 43% savings is an unsafe level.
>
What is an "unsafe level" is the number of MORONS from the world's WORST
"education" system who "think" that having a high personal savings rate is
"unsafe".
That is REAL STUPID!
>>http://www.shh.fi/depts/natikka/courses/courseshomeps/intekon/ondrej.doc>> "Historically, there is a high saving rate in Japan. Since 1963 the
Japanese
> private saving rate exceeds the U.S. saving rate. While the saving rate in
> the USA was pretty stable on the level little bit less than 10 % of NNP
and
> decreased in the second half of the 1980s to 5 %, Japan´s saving rate was
> during the whole period higher with about 5 % and it reached almost 25 %
in
> early 1970s.
>>> During the period after World War II when there was enormous economic
> growth, these savings were consumed by high investments. However, a
slowdown
> in anticipated growth in the 1990s has led to a sufficiently large
imbalance
> between saving and investment. So even if the interest rate decreased to
> almost zero, there is still excess of savings. But why does somebody want
to
> save money when interest rates are almost zero?"
>
This article is wrong. There are links to several Japanese articles which
describe the real level of Japan's savings since WWII, and they were never
lower than 22%.
http://christianparty.net/japanpsadata.htm
>> > This doesn't require algbra or probability and statistics to comprehend,
> you
> > know. ALL you need to know is addition, subtraction, multiplication,
and
> > division!
>> I took what you said at face value. The fault partially lies with you.
>>
Even IF you misunderstood the post, you could STILL have checked the url's
which were posted WITH the data. You can't make it much plainer than that.
John Knight
