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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (34948)	6/13/2003 9:01:18 AM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Then what about counting the housing as saving? plus "the $300 billion in "non-charged bank fees," ? these two together would be much higher than the "capital gain". About the saving rate of majority of Americans, one just needs to look around. I can see much more people live pay-check by pay-check than the ones who actually save a couple of percent points of their pay. From the same article "The strangest thing is that housing is even part of "savings." The very concept of savings brings up the vision of an individual earning cash that they take to the bank and deposit in a savings account. If you look at Personal Income figures, the consumer is saving over 4% in the first quarter of 2003. If you look at the Flow of Funds data, even with this 4% rate of savings, household wealth declined. Obviously, something is rotten in the numbers. Because the US is in a massive housing bubble, flowing through the rising prices of homes directly into the calculation for savings makes the reported savings number look positive when it is actually negative (the Flow of Funds data just published by the Federal Reserve shows that Household wealth declined in the first quarter of 2003)." 321gold.com >> so some one who made 80k a year in salary, 20 k in capital gains, and spent 76k gets counted as saving 4k, or a 5% rate<< I wonder how many in the US could have an income structure like the one in your example? perhaps very very few. Otherwise the liberals would not have argued about most of Bush tax cut went to 1-5% richest Americans.