« First « Previous Comments 56 - 95 of 176 Next » Last » Search these comments
Misc says
The 9000 banks that failed during the Great Depression did so when the dollar was convertible to gold.
Funny thing, they were flourishing prior to 1913. If trend had continued without a new central bank, the NY banks would have gone out of business. The Great Depression was caused by government policies, NOT the stock crash as people who don't study history claim. Of course this all benefited the central bank, and it's NY owners. But forget about all of that, and try blaming gold right?
Misc says
Still today, a large percentage of people have their houses paid off. It is about 40%. It is about 33% of homeowners with no mortgage in California.
You never provide sources for any of your stats, guessing because they all come from government websites? You definitely haven't accounted for people who borrow against the value their home after paying off, which really means, they return to being debtors, not owners. I can see many examples where I live outside the city. People who have multiple cars, toys, etc sitting outside their homes, where they've lived for at least 20 years. This isn't a wealthy area. They just bought when no one was here, and have borrowed against inflationary home values, thinking things won't change. When they do, they'll lose everything. If the average American has no savings, lives check to check, and has debt, how the FUCK would they al...
Misc says
Still today, a large percentage of people have their houses paid off. It is about 40%. It is about 33% of homeowners with no mortgage in California.
You never provide sources for any of your stats, guessing because they all come from government websites? You definitely haven't accounted for people who borrow against the value their home after paying off, which really means, they return to being debtors, not owners. I can see many examples where I live outside the city. People who have multiple cars, toys, etc sitting outside their homes, where they've lived for at least 20 years. This isn't a wealthy area. They just bought when no one was here, and have borrowed against inflationary home values, thinking things won't change. When they do, they'll lose everything. If the average American has no savings, lives check to check, and has debt, how the FUCK would they al...
RWSGFY says
And yet, if we compare ourselves with our fathers, grandfathers and grand grand fathers are most of us really impoverished compared to them?
Most of them grew their own food, had farms, owned land. And when it comes to health, not even comparable unless you go back to the Dark Ages. In quantity, and quality of life, we are losing. But maybe some of you are more Bread and circus's types? As long as your entertained, you will continue to Eat Ze Bugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873
It takes less than 15 seconds to run a check. Here is a google search that lists many sources.
They also were tied to their land and never ventured farther away from it than next regional town, if that.
One generation before that TB would've been a death sentence, BTW, so don't really have to venture into "ze dark ages" to feel some positive difference.
Then there's the issue of child mortality 3-4 generations ago... How many kids tge average rural family had and how many made it to adulthood. The ratio is not 1:1, far from it.
Read the articles. They clearly state the percent of homeowners without a mortgage is about 40%. It varies a little from source to source. I believe there were over 20 different sources.
So using 40% as a baseline, and attributing the 20% increase to debt, you can see ownership at best has remained steady for 100 years, but in all likelihood has significantly decreased, along with the size of the land owned by individuals. Even google will tell you we have record debt at all levels of society. Yet you continue to persist in the face of these facts that somehow we only have debt in other areas of our lives, not in housing...
Misc says
The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.
What? In cash or t-bills?
R/E is only worth what it can be liquidated for. Stocks are far more liquid.
As far as those Central bankers trying to enslave everyone, they are going about it in government fashion. The largest holders of those sub 3% mortgages is the Federal Reserve. SO with inflation running about 8% and wages going up about 7% they are taking a loss on those holdings of mortgages, and treasuries each and every year.
The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.
Misc says
The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.
Your source?
The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.
Misc says
The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.
What? In cash or t-bills?
R/E is only worth what it can be liquidated for. Stocks are far more liquid.
Misc says
The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.
What? In cash or t-bills?
R/E is only worth what it can be liquidated for. Stocks are far more liquid.
Misc says
The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.
'Averages' are EXTREMELY misleading. Here's why:
Let's say you have the following statistics derived from a group regarding their net wealth:
1. 82,000
2. 125,000
3. 98,000
4. 32,000
5. - 240,000
6. 875,000
7. 4,500,000
8. 1,250,000
9. 3,000,000
In the above scenario, the AVERAGE net worth of this group would be $1,080,000 ... a VERY misleading statistic.
One more thing; 'Nerdwallet' is hardly a source that I would go to if I wanted accurate statistics.
it's misleading because it takes into account the 21.3% of the population on government social services that have nothing.
The end of these free money giveaways should help bring down inflation for the regular folk.
record profits because Walmart is the largest grocer in America
wage increases increase the affordability.
We also have the highest number of houses without a mortgage. Something you have been denying.
So using 40% as a baseline, and attributing the 20% increase to debt, you can see ownership at best has remained steady for 100 years, but in all likelihood has significantly decreased, along with the size of the land owned by individuals.
You seem to think that Americans are in financial straights, but American households have near record amounts of cash, and other financial assets.
The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.
cisTits says
Misc says
The average net wealth of US families aged 55-75 is over $1 million. ---- Hardly broke.
What? In cash or t-bills?
R/E is only worth what it can be liquidated for. Stocks are far more liquid.
All assets less all liabilities.
US households are waiting for government fuckery that's why they hold $15 trillion in cash --- not stock or bonds or bitcoin ---- cash
As far as those Central bankers trying to enslave everyone, they are going about it in government fashion. The largest holders of those sub 3% mortgages is the Federal Reserve. SO with inflation running about 8% and wages going up about 7% they are taking a loss on those holdings of mortgages, and treasuries each and every year.
Yes, it's misleading because it takes into account the 21.3% of the population on government social services that have nothing.
Real Americans that worked their 45 years, bought a home and saved a little are way above the $1 million, and this doesn't include any pensions they may have. Regular folks end up quite well off.
That is a $3 trillion gain for America's households and a loss of that amount for the bankers.
The median (since you seem to like that better) house price is $392k. Since 40% have their house paid off, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch to have saved $600k in financial assets over 45 years. Again this doesn't include any pensions they may have.
They could just as easily construct a debt jubilee by cancelling the Treasury debt the Fed holds. That's the power of having a fiat currency.
I'm old enough to recall 'mortgage burning parties,' which were, when I was a very young boy, quite common. Once the borrower paid off their home, they would celebrate with their family and friends by burning the mortgage.
If we marked to market the Fed's balance sheet, it ends up about a negative $3 trillion.
That is a $3 trillion gain for America's households and a loss of that amount for the bankers. Right now it looks like they are government competent not anything to worry about.
danger of being farmed like animals (i.e. animals to be slaughtered after being fattened up).
« First « Previous Comments 56 - 95 of 176 Next » Last » Search these comments
This is kind of funny because "peso" literally means "weight" of silver. But there is no silver in the peso anymore.
The US dollar has lost about 97% of its value from the time the Federal Reserve was created.
Why do we bother with their shit fiat currency at all? There is plenty of silver to use as currency, no shortage. And you can be sure its value won't go to zero like it does with all fiat currency eventually.
Would be nice if there were easily available small weights of pure silver available, but in the meantime, we could just use old US silver coins.
The important thing is to value currency by weight of pure silver, not bullshit pesos or dollars.