Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SeaViewer who wrote (108073)	6/11/2001 1:34:35 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

yep...advice from Bronson (i concur), it's a good time to FIGHT THE FED: csf.colorado.edu

To: SeaViewer who wrote (108073)	6/11/2001 5:01:37 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

I cross referenced the Fed numbers on Consumer Debt to the NIPA numbers on Personal Income. First, a look at raw debt using a log chart rbcassociates.homestead.com I always wonder when reading prudent bear how they decide what ranges of dates to use, and how to scale the data. I don't think I've ever seen them use a log chart. The data wouldn't be as impressive. Debt divided by population- under the theory that as population grows, so would the number of credit cards etc. rbcassociates.homestead.com Surprisingly, that $8k/consumer number isn't what I found. But then, kids shouldn't have credit cards, so if you divided revolving debt by outstanding cards, you might get that number. Using number of households might improve this data. What really counts is how much debt exists in relation to Income. This chart tells a much different story than commonly accepted wisdom would suggest, at least around these parts. rbcassociates.homestead.com I had to double check this numbers, 3 times even. The lines are surpisingly flat, even for a nonlog graph. 17 would suggest that outstanding consumer debt was 17 times Gross Income. That seems high, but it's ranged between 15 and 17 for most of the past 3 decades. Note that we are talking consumer debt here, not corporate. Debt to GDP ratios which include corporate debt might show a different picture. IMO, if you're going to toss corporate debt into the picture, it weakens the argument that high debt will trash the consumer, who represents two thirds of GDP by some accounts. Finally, since Gross Income can't be used to pay for anything, the ratio of Consumer Debt to Disposable Income. I don't see that acceleration due to consumers trying to maintain their lifestyles. rbcassociates.homestead.com Silly me, I put it on log paper. Ref: bea.doc.gov Table 2.9 and federalreserve.gov Jan readings on debt were used to for the year, selecting Jul or Dec data would alter the charts slightly.