Carpe Diem

Household net worth improves in Q4 to highest level since 2007; real estate values increased by $1 trillion this year

The Federal Reserve released data today for the net worth of U.S. households in
Q3, here are some highlights:

1. The net worth of U.S. households increased to $64.77 trillion in the third quarter, which was an increase of $6.11 trillion, and more than 10%, from Q3 last year (see chart).

2. Net worth in Q3 this year reached the highest level in any quarter since Q4 of 2007, when household net worth was $66 trillion (see chart).

3. Since the end of last year, the value of real estate owned by U.S. households has increased by more than $1 trillion from $16.2 trillion in Q4 2011 to $17.2 trillion in Q3 this year (see bottom chart above), and is at the highest level since 2008.

4. The total value of all financial assets owned by U.S. households increased by more than $3 trillion since the end of last year, from $50.39 trillion in Q4 2011 to $53.57 trillion in Q3 2012.

5. The value equities and mutual funds owned by U.S. households increased by almost $2 trillion since the end of last year, from $13.36 trillion to $15.33 trillion in Q3 this year.

MP: In nominal terms, U.S. households have now gained back almost all of the $15 trillion of net worth that was lost during the Great Recession, financial crisis, and collapse of the housing values in 2008 and 2009. The value of real estate owned by U.S. households has increased by more than a $1 trillion so far this year, and the gain will likely increase even further in Q4.  As Scott Grannis commented about today’s Fed report, “No doubt about it, things are getting better.”

52 thoughts on “Household net worth improves in Q4 to highest level since 2007; real estate values increased by $1 trillion this year

    • Good question: top 1% still is paid more than the bottom 50%, and and top 1% owns more than the bottom 90%.

      This is the glorious triumph of “free market” capitalism that has given us the wonders we enjoy today.

      • actually max, yes, it is.

        lots of people use google. they do so because they feel it makes them better off.

        this has made larry and sergei very rich men.

        so what?

        the fact that they had a really big idea and executed it well got very, very rich just means that they did so by making a great many people better off.

        that IS a triumph of free market capitalism.

        you just seem to be having scale issues.

        if you own a hotdog stand and sell me a hotdog, i buy it because it makes me feel better off and you sell it to make a profit which makes you feel better off.

        we both win or there is no trade.

        if you figure out a way to sell a million hotdogs to a million people instead of one to me, what has changed?

        nothing.

        each transaction makes both parties better off, but because you engage in so many, you get rich.

        wealth gets concentrated, but only because you are so good at making others better off.

        so what’s the problem with that?

        • You people are oblivious. But there is a deeper question in your answer that blew right by you.

          If I become as successful as Nathan’s Famous by producing a product people will consume, that bodes well for employment and the growth of head count that contributes to the rest of society’s wealth. Factories must expand to produce more hot dogs. Beef producers benefit too. So do processors, and owners of retail shopping space.

          That’s not the issue I was talking about. I was talking about the concentration of wealth that is being dialed back to the metrics of the “Robber Baron” age, and this is what I meant by the re-litigation of 19th century social issues- IN THE 21st CENTURY. And that includes a walking piece of crap like Romney ADMITTING to a 9% tax bite, much less what he DIDN’T own up to on his earlier returns.

          I ask you again: IS THIS THE COUNTRY YOU WANT?

          What made America prosperous was the far greater stake the average American had in a thriving economy- in case you haven’t noticed, its disappearing before your very eyes.

          As far as Google’s case, for all of their world wide reach, their global influence and their massive utility, they hire all of only 32,000 employees. And Facebook? About 3400.

          You better sit down and have a good talk with yourself. Because the REAL questions are not being asked, and it seems all anyone can do is mentally masturbate to Ronald Reagan.

          He’s dead- and so is the country that once existed at that time.

          • no max, you have missed the issue entirely.

            if nathans or google or whomever gets rich by making others better off, where is the problem?

            who is the loser when free individuals engage in win/win commerce?

            you are, somewhere in your muddled thought process, making the assumption that somehow, recent wealth accumulation has been based on something bad or some form of malfeasance.

            yet you point to nothing. what did google do to you?

            then you delve into this nonsensical rant about how many people Google employs. who cares? what does that have to do with how much better off it made users?

            you have this precisely backwards. not only is it not the job of industry to create jobs, but the very process of learning to make more with less is the halmark and vital bulwark of progress, not its antithesis. you should applaud Google for finding a way to benefit so many while using so few resources as an exemplar or how productivity makes the world better, not excoriate them for needing less stuff than a hot dog seller.

            by your logic, we should burn henry ford in effigy for inventing the assembly line and destroying the economy.

            wrapping economic illiteracy and bad assumptions and logic in vitriol does not make it any more credible max.

            your whole argument is baseless. it just sounds like the angry rantings of someone who wants something for nothing and does not understand how wealth is created.

            not only is this:

            “What made America prosperous was the far greater stake the average American had in a thriving economy- in case you haven’t noticed, its disappearing before your very eyes. ”

            not true in terms of what made america thrive, it’s not disappearing either.

            what does % stake have to do with anyhting?

            nothing. the US gini coefficient soared in the 80′s and 90′s. so did the fortunes of the middle class. there is no correlation between gini and median income of note. if anyhting, they have been positively correlated for 40 years.

            more americans are self employed and run their own businesses now that in the “good old days” you are so mistaken about. how is that a lesser stake?

            the drop in wealth since 2007 was caused by government, not free markets.

          • “no max, you have missed the issue entirely.”

            I have missed nothing, and if you just stop goose stepping for a few minutes, you might get the point.

            “if nathans or google or whomever gets rich by making others better off, where is the problem?”

            Your first asinine assumption: you presumed I believed there WAS a problem.

            “who is the loser when free individuals engage in win/win commerce?”

            Second asinine assumption: assuming I that I intimated that

            “you are, somewhere in your muddled thought process, making the assumption that somehow, recent wealth accumulation has been based on something bad or some form of malfeasance. ”

            Third act of stupidity: never inferred that either.

            “yet you point to nothing. what did google do to you?”

            Unfortunately, it unleashed every schmuck on the planet with a megaphone. Including you.

            “then you delve into this nonsensical rant about how many people Google employs. who cares? what does that have to do with how much better off it made users?”

            The issue I was bringing up, and its not exactly an old one, is WHERE DOES THIS LEAD TO? The current economic morass, which this site and its blind followers never address is where is the prosperity going to come from in the future? There IS such a thing as eliminating the labor component altogether, or simply manufacturing it under horrifyingly bad conditions just to sell it cheaper.

            I brought this up before- compare Boeing’s market cap to Facebook’s- now compare employees. Would you care to take your blinders off and QUESTION OR MEDITATE A BIT on what the implications of that economic model means for the future?

            “by your logic, we should burn henry ford in effigy for inventing the assembly line and destroying the economy.”

            Precisely the wrong analogy, especially since you’re using a firm that produced millions of well paying jobs, as opposed to an industry that collects on little more than mouse clicks. You can’t drive or eat a mouse click.

            “wrapping economic illiteracy and bad assumptions and logic in vitriol does not make it any more credible max.”

            Ahhh, shaddap.

            your whole argument is baseless. it just sounds like the angry rantings of someone who wants something for nothing and does not understand how wealth is created.

            not only is this:

            “not true in terms of what made america thrive, it’s not disappearing either.”

            It’s evaporating NOW. The “hollowing out of the middle class” is not a campaign slogan, its a reality. Start traveling this country and look around at what’s left of post industrial America- the landscape SCREAMS “broken Empire” at you, and at least some of the reporters on the campaign trail were horrified by what they saw in small town America- a wasteland of empty abandoned factories with half occupied down towns and nothing to replace with. Get your head out of those f**king charts and start looking what’s happening to people’s lives.

            “the drop in wealth since 2007 was caused by government, not free markets.”

            It was caused by a government that let the “free market” run wild without limits. Idiot.

          • think of it this way max:

            if nathans can produce a million hotdogs with 1000 employees and, through some clever process redesign, discovers that it can actually produce the same number of hotdogs with 900 employees (or 1.1 million with 1000) are you seriously arguing that that makes the economy worse?

            that seems to be the argument you are trying to make around google and facebook.

            that’s an absurd argument. that would be to claim that increased productivity is harmful, and therefore, we should just take away everyone’s tools and productivity aids and watch the prosperity roll in.

            seriously, where did you (as you claim) study econ? the university of havana class of 1974?

        • The problem with that is despite your rosy scenario, the trade is assymetric. The vendor always has a slight advantage. Since he engages in the same trade many times, he hasmany times the advantage. The buyer is at a disadvantage, but making that trade only once, he is unlikely to raise a fuss.

          The net result of this happening many times is increasing wealth disparity. Wealth disparity cannot increase without end. For one thing, extreme wealth disparity eventually makes the lie that everyone is better off obvious.

          When the lowest rung is better off by a hundredth of a percent, and the highest rung is better of by a hundred %, then the argiment that eberyone is better off rings progressively less true.

          At least for more and more people.

          • The problem with that is despite your rosy scenario, the trade is assymetric. The vendor always has a slight advantage. Since he engages in the same trade many times, he hasmany times the advantage. The buyer is at a disadvantage, but making that trade only once, he is unlikely to raise a fuss.

            Can you rewrite that as an economics argument? One that makes sense?

            The net result of this happening many times is increasing wealth disparity. Wealth disparity cannot increase without end. For one thing, extreme wealth disparity eventually makes the lie that everyone is better off obvious.

            Is this a new subject, unrelated to the 1st paragraph?

          • the trade is assymetric.

            Look. Trade CANNOT be asymmetric. If you know any economics at all, you must know that in a voluntary, uncoerced trade, both parties trade something they want less for something they want more. Both parties are better off after the exchange. you trade money for a hotdog that you want more than the money, and the vendor trades a hotdog for money that he wants more than the hotdog. Everyone’s happy. If the vendor satisfies many customers in this way he can become wealthy. That’s a good thing.

            What the eff is your point here anyway?

    • max-

      that was a pathetic attempt at revisionist history.

      so why did you make such a big deal out of how few people google and facebook employ?

      what were you driving at if not that they were not creating enough jobs and or that that somehow made them less socially useful?

      you then go on to prove that am am right by making this foolish claim:

      “The current economic morass, which this site and its blind followers never address is where is the prosperity going to come from in the future? There IS such a thing as eliminating the labor component altogether, or simply manufacturing it under horrifyingly bad conditions just to sell it cheaper. ”

      this is EXACTLY the stupidity i have been accusing you of. this is precisely the thing you repeatedly just said you did not say.

      it is precisely the anti productivity fallacy that so deeply flaws your whole outlook.

      making production more efficient is not a bad thing. goods get cheaper and more plentiful. more productive workers get paid more. this is how societies become wealthy. any other claim is preposterous.

      your argument seems to amount to “increasing productivity alienates workers from the labor.”

      that’s maybe the dumbest economic idea i have heard.

      it’s also foolish one factor thinking. let’s say i replace your job assembling a microwave with a machine. yup, you lose your job. but the guy who makes those machines gets more work. the price of the microwave drops. this saves all those who consume it money. they spend that on other things that create jobs.

      this is not the simple one factor world you are imagining it is.

      so get a grip maxie. you are flat out making the claim that productivity is bad and harm workers by reducing jobs and then repeatedly denying it as you are either a liar or just flat out do not understand this discussion.

      “post industrial america?”

      what in hell is that? that’s a foolish talking point regurgitated by dogma driven fools.

      manufacturing as a % of GDP has been dropping. that’s true all over the world. the same thing happened with farming. did that make us poor and doom us to famine? nope.

      wake up and smell what you are shoveling max. farms became efficient. they went from employing over 90% of american workers to maybe 2-3%. and what, we all were unemployed and the economy dissolved?

      why is manufacturing any different?

      we make more than ever. we do it with fewer people. that’s productivity. the gains have been massive, just as they were from leaving farming.

      people move to services, to knowledge work.

      you live in a fantasy of zero sum one factor nonsense max.

      % of workers in manufacturing dropped all through the 80′s and 90′s too. so why didn’t this terrible pernicious force harm the middle class then?

      you are just flat out ignoring all the facts here.

      i’m not going to get into the causes of the crash and extended recession with you again as you are a demonstrated liar on the topic who makes up facts and then lobs insults to hide it.

      we get it. you drank the cool aid. seriously, did you get your degree at havana university or what?

      this is some of the most debunked, disproven, and internally inconsistent drivel i have ever seen anyone try to pass off as economic literacy.

      • Your answers are not only incoherent, they are not even on point. You’re indoctrinated to within an inch of your life, so you can’t even take in what I am writing for you, IN PRINT.

        max-

        “that was a pathetic attempt at revisionist history.”

        I’m not revising anything, I am stating the reality of the new economy as it stands right before you. We live in the same country, buffeted by the same events.

        “so why did you make such a big deal out of how few people google and facebook employ?”

        If you don’t see the point of the big deal, I would go see someone who can evaluate your cognitive abilities. You may need some Adderall.

        “what were you driving at if not that they were not creating enough jobs and or that that somehow made them less socially useful?”

        FOURTH LUNACY: I never said they were any less “socially useful.”

        you then go on to prove that am am right by making this foolish claim:

        “it is precisely the anti productivity fallacy that so deeply flaws your whole outlook.”

        It’s not a matter of being “against it” you brainwashed fool. As I said, I’m not cheerleading for production inefficieny. But don’t sit there like an idiot and pretend there are no consequences or that “Mr. Magic Market” will cure the results. It’s not going to.

        “making production more efficient is not a bad thing. goods get cheaper and more plentiful. more productive workers get paid more. this is how societies become wealthy. any other claim is preposterous.”

        Your willful blindness in place of reality is what is preposterous. We’re living with the very results of what you’re championing. Why do you think there’s such a slow job recovery rate? Are you stupid enough to think it must be because of the capital gains rate? You can’t export 30 milllion manufacturing jobs overseas, blow up the economy on 46X leverage and borrow from your home to maintain the standard of living you were used to, and NOT expect the whole think to blow up in your face. You’re so f**king hung up on your theology, you don’t even have a clue as to what is going on in the REAL economy even as you live IN it!

        “what in hell is that? that’s a foolish talking point regurgitated by dogma driven fools.”

        Out of everyone here, you are the most “dogma driven fool” of all. What simplistic nonsense you push.

        The rest of your dogsh&t isn’t worth answering. One day the real world will educate you.

          • Max

            You are truly an amazement with your pretense of great knowledge when it’s painfully obvious your grasp of even basic economics is pretty pathetic. How can you, with no hint of embarrassment, comment on an econ blog without having the slightest idea what you’re talking about?

          • “You are truly an amazement with your pretense of great knowledge when it’s painfully obvious your grasp of even basic economics is pretty pathetic. How can you, with no hint of embarrassment, comment on an econ blog without having the slightest idea what you’re talking about?”

            Who are you kidding, pal? The dead give away that shows what a counterfeit intellect YOU are, is to presume that this stinking cornocopia of third rate propaganda, this feces and urine sodden slurry ditch, written mostly by people who have no economic credentials whatsoever, or are paid mouthpieces for dummied up “policy petitions” (who do you think pays Mr. Pethoukoukis’s salary? Carmelite Nuns?) is an “econ blog.”

            Is that what you tell yourself to flatter your ego that by perusing this site, you’re soaring with the great economic minds of our time, rejoicing in the received wisdom of their “theories” that wrecked the country?

            They’re paid whores, you idiot. And no one in the real world of economics takes these clowns seriously.

            Mr. Pethokoukis chief claim to authenticity is his Jeopardy win. Other than that, the only other pedigree he seems to boast is that of “hack.”

            Ditto Mr. Thiessen- a former speechwriter for America’s most failed administration. His party’s out of power, so he gets a little sinecure here while he bides his time for a REAL job in government, which one prays, for the sake of the nation, he’ll never see again. His swift boating over Benghazi would make Goebbels proud. And what’s really whacked out about him is that his own mother was a ghetto fighter in Warsaw. Today, he gets paid to duplicate the methods of his forebears’ oppressors.

            You better start paying attention to the REAL world, and the real economy, because as far as you blathering on about “economics,” one thing is clear- most of you clowns sure as hell aren’t businessmen.

          • LOL Yeah, yeah, Whatever you say Max.

            Please stop for a moment so I can catch my breath.

            Why are you on about Pethoukoukis and Thiessen? My comments are all about you and your dismal lack of economic education. It’s really astounding that anyone could actually believe the the ignorant shit you express here without crying out for help with basic economic concepts.

            This in particular is hilarious.

            They’re paid whores, you idiot. And no one in the real world of economics takes these clowns seriously.

            One can only wonder how you reached the conclusion you did, as it’s clear you’re not familiar with anyone in the “real world of economics”.

            Only Larry writes comments as devoid of actual content as you do. Other than the comic relief you are now providing, you are a waste of time.

            Get a clue.

          • “Why are you on about Pethoukoukis and Thiessen? My comments are all about you and your dismal lack of economic education.”

            Excuse me, sir. YOU were the one who opened up his response that this forum was an “econ blog.” And it takes a gold plated schmuck like you to believe that. If this is what you think it is, how come none of the contributors have any CREDENTIALS IN THE FIELD?

            And what of your own? Are you like the millions of other idiots who got through “Road to Serfdom” and now considers themselves intellectually superior to others?

            Who are you kidding, pal?

            ” It’s really astounding that anyone could actually believe the the ignorant shit you express here without crying out for help with basic economic concepts.”

            If its “ignorant shit” than refute it. Don’t tell me it’s “ignorant shit” and walk away with a sandbox insult.

            “They’re paid whores, you idiot. And no one in the real world of economics takes these clowns seriously. ”

            One can only wonder how you reached the conclusion you did, as it’s clear you’re not familiar with anyone in the “real world of economics”.”

            Is that right? Apparently, you’re so effing cocooned in your echo chamber, you have absolultely no idea how often hacks like Pethokoukis are routinely pilloried by people who have REAL jobs in the markets and do REAL analysis for REAL companies that make investments with REAL money. Or people who are advising people in government right now. No one takes this crap seriously, because they know their just reading from a script.

            If you’re looking up to this sorry lot of scribblers, you’re not too high on the Bell Curve yourself. You really thought AEI was a “serious” dissembler of economic thought?

            And you’re calling ME “stupid?”

            LOOK AT THE FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE ORGANIZATION MORON- THERE ARE YOUR “ECONOMISTS.”

            What a collection of rubes.

          • Excuse me, sir. YOU were the one who opened up his response that this forum was an “econ blog.” And it takes a gold plated schmuck like you to believe that. If this is what you think it is, how come none of the contributors have any CREDENTIALS IN THE FIELD?

            I see by your quick, thoughtless responses that you suffer from premature ejaculation, but if you took the time check you would realize that this is Mark Perry’s “Carpe Diem” channel at AEI, and it is indeed an econ blog. You can see Prof. Perry’s bio in the side panel at the top, and of course some important people who have REAL jobs in the markets and do REAL analysis for REAL companies that make investments with REAL money are contributers to this blog. Of course you’re too stupid to know that.

            In any case, you haven’t named any names. Who are these people you admire, and how is it possible you even understand them?

            Just PLEASE don’t tell me one of them is Krugman. That once excellent, Nobel prize winning economist has become a mere political hack, and is not to be taken seriously.

            You ask for refutation, but you haven’t presented anything of substance to refute. Your sad little question about unemployment due to automation has been answered.

          • “Just PLEASE don’t tell me one of them is Krugman. That once excellent, Nobel prize winning economist has become a mere political hack, and is not to be taken seriously.”

            I have to laugh at that statement, as just yesterday, two REAL hacks, Mary Matalin and George Will, (both famed economists, of course) tried to contradict Mr Krugman.

            It didn’t work.

            As far as Mr. Perry’s deep insights, all I see are production charts of natural gas, and uncontrolled glee that someone just invented the Lime Rickey, and is now creating a “market” in it.

            His pieces are utterly unsubstantial.

          • I have to laugh at that statement, as just yesterday, two REAL hacks, Mary Matalin and George Will, (both famed economists, of course) tried to contradict Mr Krugman.

            It didn’t work.

            Don’t tell me you take kerfuffles like that seriously. It’s meaningless drivel by political hacks over a federal budget that is beyond imagining. I couldn’t find any actual economic content in any of the several articles I read on the subject.

            At least you addressed him correctly. When he was a respected world class economist he was addressed as Dr. Krugman. Now that he’s given up his serious economic chops and become a mere political hack he’s known as Mr. Krugman.

          • “At least you addressed him correctly. When he was a respected world class economist he was addressed as Dr. Krugman. Now that he’s given up his serious economic chops and become a mere political hack he’s known as Mr. Krugman”

            The fact that YOU call him a “hack” doesn’t make him one.

            Sorry.

          • The fact that YOU call him a “hack” doesn’t make him one.

            It’s not just me, bud, check around. It’s pretty much common knowledge.

          • Hydra:

            “Yes, it is possible to make the same number of hotdogs with fewer people and have the economy be worse off.”

            Ron H.:
            “Either explain how that would work or learn some economics.”

            Plumbing the depths of abject stupidity…..

            Unreal.

          • Still no explanation? It should be easy, right? Help us Max: How is it possible to make the same number of hotdogs with fewer people and have the economy be worse off?

          • “Help us Max: How is it possible to make the same number of hotdogs with fewer people and have the economy be worse off?”

            Here, we have a self proclaimed economic genius telling us there is a correlation between the number of hot dogs produced with the economy.

            I’m not going to indulge your stupidity.

        • Here, we have a self proclaimed economic genius telling us there is a correlation between the number of hot dogs produced with the economy.

          I’m not going to indulge your stupidity.

          As usual you have no answer. It’s really okay to say you don’t know. You don’t need to continue pretending you are the smartest person in the world, because by now everyone – except maybe Hydra – knows you aren’t, and in fact don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground. I suspect Hydra would appreciate your explanation and might even believe it.

          • “As usual you have no answer.”

            As usual you have no real question. You’re just trolling, and you’re irrelevant to the issue I brought up in the first place.

            Try looking at the reality you have around you TODAY- there’s your answer.

          • As usual you have no real question. You’re just trolling, and you’re irrelevant to the issue I brought up in the first place.

            Hydra had a question, and to him it’s a very real question. As it’s your claim that reducing the amount of labor necessary to produce things makes us worse off – the very thing Hydra is concerned with – I would think you would want to impress him with you vast knowledge of the subject instead of just posturing and blustering that it’s not worth your time to respond. That’s obviously not true, as you continue to respond with bullshit.

            Hydra most likely doesn’t yet know how little you actually understand economics, so you still have a chance to impress him. Give it a shot.

            Try looking at the reality you have around you TODAY- there’s your answer.

            The reality is that people worldwide are, on average, better off than they’ve ever been in all of history, and that even with a much larger world population than 50 years ago, there is a smaller number of people actually in danger of starving than 50 years ago.

            In the US people, on average, have more things that make their lives easier or more enjoyable than ever before, they live longer, have better health, and spend less of their time earning basic subsistence.

            You, on the other hand, see only the current recession, one of dozens that have occurred in the US since it’s founding, albeit a severe one due to inept government interference, and think “this time it’s different”.

            You see a zero sum fixed pie world that doesn’t exist and view a job gained in some other political entity as a loss in your political entity. even though national borders have no economic meaning.

            Based on your fixed pie beliefs you should be worried when a job in Illinois moves to Texas or Alabama, or from Dallas to Houston.

            It’s nonsense. Learn some economics and quit reading Krugman. He’s a hack.

          • “Based on your fixed pie beliefs you should be worried when a job in Illinois moves to Texas or Alabama, or from Dallas to Houston.”

            No, you idiot, you should worry when it gets shipped overseas an detracts from American wealth. God are you f**king stupid and hard headed.

            Aside from that, you’re missing the whole point. YOU think an ever expanding wealth is a guarantee. No doubt they though the same in Ninevah and Tyre.

            Just keep ignoring the REAL dynamics that are occuring right under your nose, right here, right now, in your own country.

            Today’s Henry Fords won’t cover the earth in factories.

            Krugman is no “hack.” At least he hasn’t been bought off like the AEI “economists” are like Hubbard.

          • No, you idiot, you should worry when it gets shipped overseas an detracts from American wealth. God are you f**king stupid and hard headed.

            Note to self: Find something to help Max understand the definition of wealth. He’s sadly unprepared to discuss it. he seems to think a job is wealth, when in fact labor is an expense. He also has this delusion that there’s something magical about invisible political lines drawn in the dirt.

            Do you think Americans are worth more than Chinese and other furriners and should have all the jobs? Is that your problem?

            Aside from that, you’re missing the whole point. YOU think an ever expanding wealth is a guarantee. No doubt they though the same in Ninevah and Tyre.

            Wait a minute! You said anything old is no longer valid. The new economy is entirely different, and we have to start over. Only Krugman preaches the true gospel. Are you going to invoke history when it suits YOU? What an effing hypocrite!

            You clown.

          • “Note to self: Find something to help Max understand the definition of wealth. He’s sadly unprepared to discuss it. he seems to think a job is wealth, when in fact labor is an expense.”

            Sir: you’re conflating an argument that once again, I NEVER MADE. If you think you’re being clever, go for it. It doesn’t exactly make for an exchange of views.

            “Do you think Americans are worth more than Chinese and other furriners and should have all the jobs? Is that your problem?”

            Not at all. This is the mental masturbation you seem to be offering as opposed to a genuine counterpoint. If this is your game, take your ball and get lost.

            “Aside from that, you’re missing the whole point. YOU think an ever expanding wealth is a guarantee. No doubt they though the same in Ninevah and Tyre. ”

            “Wait a minute! You said anything old is no longer valid. The new economy is entirely different, and we have to start over.”

            And yes, in history, sometimes we have. If it weren’t for some Irish monks preserving Western Civilization, we may never have come out of the Dark Ages.

            “Only Krugman preaches the true gospel.”

            Krugman only provided charts from the BLS, which I presented to support the original point I was making.
            And unfortunately for you, and the AEI, his assessment was correct, and yours utterly, and tragically, wrong.

            Good day.

          • By the way – as an additional aid to help the mentally disabled as yourself. You may want to follow a man by the name of Bruce Bartlett, who served Reagan, “Poppy” Bush, and worked with Jack Kemp.

            He now knows what he advocated has gone quite wrong, and the lunatics- and corporate donors who pay for Mr. Pethokoukis’s supper- have taken over whay used to be a noble calling: Conservatism.

            http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/?partner=rss&emc=rss

            Bartlett, in addition to American Conservative, are trying to wrest control of the eponymous movement, and bring sanity back to it. When men of GENIUNE ideas, like William F. Buckley, had a say, before Rupert Murdoch hired Roger Aisles and made Glenn Beck the voice of the creed.

            Hopefully that will change. But unfortunately, people of your intellect- and Vangel’s and that six year old Juandos, won’t be along for the ride.

            And that is a good thing.

          • Today’s Henry Fords won’t cover the earth in factories.

            That’s right, they won’t. They’ll just drive some of those buggy whip making jobs offshore, so you can tear your hair about them and complain about “loss of American wealth”.

            Idiot.

          • “That’s right, they won’t. They’ll just drive some of those buggy whip making jobs offshore, so you can tear your hair about them and complain about “loss of American wealth”.”

            Once again: I never conflated “labor” with “wealth.” YOU did, and set up this preposterous set of responses. You’re a jerk-off.

          • Krugman only provided charts from the BLS, which I presented to support the original point I was making.
            And unfortunately for you, and the AEI, his assessment was correct, and yours utterly, and tragically, wrong.

            You are really confused. I agreed that Krugman’s assessment as shown in the BLS chart was correct – that compared to years past more income now comes from capital than from labor. What your pea brain seems unable to grasp is that that’s a GOOD THING. I explained that to you, but it appears your habit is to skip directly to the bottom of my comments so you can disagree with the last line.

            Sir: you’re conflating an argument that once again, I NEVER MADE. If you think you’re being clever, go for it. It doesn’t exactly make for an exchange of views.

            Is that right? Let me refresh your feeble memory:

            Me: “Based on your fixed pie beliefs you should be worried when a job in Illinois moves to Texas or Alabama, or from Dallas to Houston.

            Moron Max: “No, you idiot, you should worry when it gets shipped overseas an detracts from American wealth. God are you f**king stupid and hard headed.

            I assume “it” above, refers to a job, and “wealth” means wealth. Not sure how else to interpret that except that you think JOB=WEALTH.

            When men of GENIUNE ideas, like William F. Buckley, had a say…

            You read Buckley? I’m genuinely surprised. He was a pretty high powered intellect. Do you have someone explain him to you? I can’t believe you are able to handle all those big words he uses on your own.

            Idiot.

          • Me: “Based on your fixed pie beliefs you should be worried when a job in Illinois moves to Texas or Alabama, or from Dallas to Houston.”

            Moron Max: “No, you idiot, you should worry when it gets shipped overseas an detracts from American wealth. God are you f**king stupid and hard headed. ”

            I assume “it” above, refers to a job, and “wealth” means wealth. Not sure how else to interpret that except that you think JOB=WEALTH.”

            Again, you’re writing your own narrative to points I’m not even making, and more to the point, in one respect, YOU’RE STILL WRONG.

            For you to state: “Based on your fixed pie beliefs you should be worried when a job in Illinois moves to Texas”

            Well, if I were in a town in Illinois and a plant that had 800 workers closed, and the plant no longer generated profits to course it’s way through the local economy, property taxes could not be assessed to pay for government services, the unemployed could no longer afford a car from a local dealership, or go to a restaurant, I would say, unequivocally, that for the people in that town in Illinois, those jobs do indeed have a lot to do with “wealth.”

            And you’re calling ME an “idiot” and you fancy YOURSELF the economic expert.

          • Oh my. Your muddled thinking has tripped you up here, Maxie boy.

            There’s this:

            Well, if I were in a town in Illinois and a plant that had 800 workers closed, and the plant no longer generated profits to course it’s way through the local economy, property taxes could not be assessed to pay for government services, the unemployed could no longer afford a car from a local dealership, or go to a restaurant, I would say, unequivocally, that for the people in that town in Illinois, those jobs do indeed have a lot to do with “wealth”.

            And this:

            Me: “Based on your fixed pie beliefs you should be worried when a job in Illinois moves to Texas or Alabama, or from Dallas to Houston.”

            Moron Max: “No, you idiot, you should worry when it gets shipped overseas an detracts from American wealth. God are you f**king stupid and hard headed.

            Which is it, moron? You can’t have it both ways. Does job=wealth or does job/=wealth?

            By the way you seem confused about “profits” also, but that’s a different topic. One thing at a time.

          • You know, Maxie boy, on some topics you are merely obnoxious but when you try to talk economics you become a lot of fun, as your ignorance really shines through.

  1. Ron-
    Median net worth is decreasing, so to suggest that both the rich and poor are getting richer is absolutely ridiculous.

    All the signs point to a struggling economy that is propped up by massive government spending.

    • Tim

      Did you happen to glance at the chart at the top of this post?

      If you have something different, let’s see it.

      All the signs point to a struggling economy that is propped up by massive government spending.

      Yes, the economy is struggling because the government is, after all this time, still trying to “prime the pump”, rather than letting the markets correct themselves. But, that’s not a net worth issue.

  2. [email protected] |

    Here’s a longer-term chart:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graphic.png

    Of course, asset bubbles (in housing, bonds, stocks, gold, etc.), e.g. 1995-00 and 2002-07, increased net wealth.

    Here’s what Bob Brinker said about the Fed (Dec 2012):

    “It’s only because the Federal Reserve has been active that we have any growth at all in the economy….The Federal Reserve is the only operation in Washington doing its job.

    The only person that would criticize Ben Bernanke would be a person who is so clueless about monetary policy and (the) role of the Federal Reserve as to have nothing better than the lowest possible of education on the subject of economics….Anybody going after Ben Bernanke is a certified, documented fool….”

    ESTATE TAXES

    “There are so many tax increases on the table right now, it’s hard to keep track…Estate Taxes…$5,120,000 per person.. But that exemption drops to $1 million on New Year’s Day, and the rate above $1 million per person goes to 55%.”

    http://honeysbobbrinkerbeehivebuzz3.blogspot.com/2012/12/december-2-2012.html

  3. Here’s a longer-term chart:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graphic.png

    Of course, asset bubbles (in housing, bonds, stocks, gold, etc.), e.g. 1995-00 and 2002-07, increased net wealth.

    Here’s what Bob Brinker said about the Fed (Dec 2012):

    “It’s only because the Federal Reserve has been active that we have any growth at all in the economy….The Federal Reserve is the only operation in Washington doing its job.

    The only person that would criticize Ben Bernanke would be a person who is so clueless about monetary policy and (the) role of the Federal Reserve as to have nothing better than the lowest possible of education on the subject of economics….Anybody going after Ben Bernanke is a certified, documented fool….”

    ESTATE TAXES

    “There are so many tax increases on the table right now, it’s hard to keep track…Estate Taxes…$5,120,000 per person.. But that exemption drops to $1 million on New Year’s Day, and the rate above $1 million per person goes to 55%.”

    http://honeysbobbrinkerbeehivebuzz3.blogspot.com/2012/12/december-2-2012.html

  4. “In nominal terms, U.S. households have now gained back almost all of the $15 trillion of net worth that was lost during the Great Recession, financial crisis, and collapse of the housing values in 2008 and 2009. The value of real estate owned by U.S. households has increased by more than a $1 trillion so far this year, and the gain will likely increase even further in Q4. As Scott Grannis commented about today’s Fed report, “No doubt about it, things are getting better.”

    this is not actual a valid logical statement.

    things might be getting better. but scott (and mark) are speaking in nominal terms. we do not live in nominal terms, but in real terms.

    thus, it is quite possible for nominal wealth to be going up while real wealth declines depending upon the rate of wealth accumulation relative to changes in the price level.

    this does not necessarily mean scott is making an untrue claim, but it does mean that he cannot use nominal figures as a basis to make the claim that he is.

    this chart really ought to be in constant dollars to evaluate whether things are improving. i suspect they still will be, but not by as convincing a margin.

    the YOY % figures for q3 look very high, but this seems mostly to be driven by a big drop in wealth in q3 2011 from q2 (any idea what that was?)

    if we take q2 to q2 however, we get a 2.9% nominal gain, which, deflated with roughly 2% CPI, yields us a real gain, but one roughly 2/3 lower than the nominal figures would imply.

    we could also take net worth at the end of 2010 and compare it to now, and see that there was a 9.1% increase in nominal terms. the cpi index was up 5.5%, so once more, we seem to in better real shape, but not by nearly the margin these nominal figures imply as inflation ate about 60% of the gains.

      • that’s an interesting thought.

        i had not considered the effects of population growth.

        if we take the 3.4% real gain from 2010 and adjust it per capita, it drops to a number very close to zero.

        the society has more wealth, than 2010, but it appears to be based all but entirely on population growth and inflation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>