"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
news:FIF19.45654$Fq6.4070522 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> "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.
Oh, you were stating that the income for december was 9,819. I assumed you
meant the figure was reported in december, as the sentence implies.
> > > 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".
It is. Actually, the majority of educated economists believe that to be so.
> That is REAL STUPID!
Take a macroeconomics course.
> > 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
It's just bad grammar. He's from finland. He's stating that the savings
rate was higher by at least 5'%, always.
Also, note the trade deficit.
> > > 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.
I don't bother when you provide the data already. URLs are often broken or
full of extra info that is not relevant.
