Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The world's so-called "ultra high net worth individuals" – those with $30m (£21m) or more in assets apart from their main home – number 167,669, according to a report from estate agents Knight Frank – up 59% over the past decade.
Roughly equal to the population of the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea – and many of them do indeed have a place there – they control more than $20tn in assets – more than the national output of the US and Germany put together.
I understand you cannot differentiate between theoretical value and real value.
The theoretical value of stocks and houses is worthless, since it isn't real.
It would appear you also don't understand that this is not cash, rather it's the theoretical value of equity in stocks and housing as estimated from residuals derived from data from other sectors, dependent on the availability of other data.
In order convert it to cash to be used, the stocks or houses have to be sold, or the owners have to borrow against the equity.
So it's meaningless.
You think only cash is meaningful when calculating net worth? Go back to school.
I'm not twisting this into bad news so much as making it clearer that these figures do not affect the average person. It's another case of the rich getting richer being portrayed as benefiting everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo
This sure confirms the wisdom of my decision to not be an average person. And it makes me wonder why the president spends so much time stoking the green monster, instead of promoting the personal qualities that lead to greater wealth.
Unfortunately, he is part of the liberal progressive party which relies on ignorant dependence. If you take away those on welfare and working for the government, they'd only have the Hollywood crowd and students left, though they are losing the student demography rapidly.
They have to keep racism, and the war on women, and the war on immigrants, and homophobic rhetoric escalated... in order to keep their voter base. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to be a member of such a tolerant party.
Originally Posted by Mircea I understand you cannot differentiate between theoretical value and real value.
The theoretical value of stocks and houses is worthless, since it isn't real.
It would appear you also don't understand that this is not cash, rather it's the theoretical value of equity in stocks and housing as estimated from residuals derived from data from other sectors, dependent on the availability of other data.
In order convert it to cash to be used, the stocks or houses have to be sold, or the owners have to borrow against the equity.
So it's meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You think only cash is meaningful when calculating net worth? Go back to school.
You're arguing the theory of capital and finance with Mircea? More schooling would do you better, honestly.
US government spending is what, $3.5 trillion a year or so? More than the entire combined net worth of every single person in the country...spent every year. Does anyone think this just might be a problem?
The only problem is you making statements without bothering to check facts on your own!
Originally Posted by Mircea I understand you cannot differentiate between theoretical value and real value.
The theoretical value of stocks and houses is worthless, since it isn't real.
It would appear you also don't understand that this is not cash, rather it's the theoretical value of equity in stocks and housing as estimated from residuals derived from data from other sectors, dependent on the availability of other data.
In order convert it to cash to be used, the stocks or houses have to be sold, or the owners have to borrow against the equity.
So it's meaningless.
You're arguing the theory of capital and finance with Mircea? More schooling would do you better, honestly.
Mircea talks pretty well, but he misses the point while arguing unimportant details. The value of property is real. Yes I understand that if suddenly everyone had their own planet somewhere else that the value would change, or if we had a nuclear war that all the value would be meaningless. I even understand that the drop in real estate values didn't delete X dollars. But really, the "theoretical value" is STILL value if it has a basis in reality.
Guess what. It does. Stocks have a value because thats what people will pay-same with real estate. Its not like I can claim im a trillionaire because of the value of my house, its got a pretty well estimated value right now. Until I sell it I don't know if im 100% right or not. That doesn't mean I will sell it for a penny. I can very easily say its more valuable then my car and be right. EVEN if it burned down as I have insurance.
So yeah, lets not get sidetracked by nonsense like this from Mircea.
I'm not twisting this into bad news so much as making it clearer that these figures do not affect the average person. It's another case of the rich getting richer being portrayed as benefiting everyone...
When a MAJORITY of your fellow citizens either own a home or stock (or even both) - WHICH IS THE CASE, then yeah, it DOES affect the "average person" (pretty much by definition).
The fact that it may not affect YOU is not really relevent. Maybe you should have had the wisdom of the "average person" and invested in either one or the other or both.
Like I said, it skews the data, and the whole thing is meaningless anyway.
Estimates are residuals derived from other data for which the availability depends on still yet more data from elsewhere?
Please, you sound like the Enron CFO.
This calculation for household wealth is the same one that was used in previous years.
And as long as they continue to use the same calculations year after year, and we see household wealth on the rise, then we know it's moving in a positive direction. And that is a very good thing.
The fact that you think this number is meaningless, is meaningless in itself. You are just giving one man's opinion.
Quote:
I understand you cannot differentiate between theoretical value and real value.
The theoretical value of stocks and houses is worthless, since it isn't real.
It would appear you also don't understand that this is not cash, rather it's the theoretical value of equity in stocks and housing as estimated from residuals derived from data from other sectors, dependent on the availability of other data.
In order convert it to cash to be used, the stocks or houses have to be sold, or the owners have to borrow against the equity.
So it's meaningless.
The value of cash is not fixed.
The value of U.S. currency goes up and down based on world events and inflation.
So cash is just as meaningless as stocks and home prices.
Which makes your argument meaningless as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
of such a tolerant party.
