Australians are the richest people in the world.

[Tigers!]

I have just emptied my pockets and opened my wallet.

I would love to see a 'grey nurse' ($50) or any paper money for that matter.
I need to find who has my share ask for it nicely.

Is a calm sense of self-satisfaction worth anything?
And Turnbull is gone. that must be worth something.

A grey nurse was $100. And we haven't had paper money for more than twenty years...

My bad typing still lets me down

- - - Updated - - -

What did your last slave die of?

He will probably reply disobedience.

- - - Updated - - -

And here I thought it was Sean Connery and wondering why they would have a bloody Scot on their currency.

As I said, that was the old pre-1996 $100 bill. The newer, plastic one looks like this:

That man of the left concerns me alittle. i would be worried that my money would jump out of my wallet and wrestle any passing person.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't meant to derail the thread with a bad post.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Australians are the richest people in the world - and the USA doesn't even make the Top Ten:

View attachment 18707

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!!

Redo the calculation with dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity.

What did your last slave die of?

What's the relevance?

We've already looked at PPP in regard to Australian data before--it's expensive in your neck of the woods. Specifically, 47.2% more expensive at present.

And remember that our numbers are dragged down by the high number of illegals and the high number of foreign students (who generally have very little wealth of their own, whatever their parents might have.)

 

[bilby]

What did your last slave die of?

What's the relevance?

We've already looked at PPP in regard to Australian data before--it's expensive in your neck of the woods. Specifically, 47.2% more expensive at present.

So what? People don't spend wealth, by and large; they spend income. And wages are high here too.

What you are saying is that, as a wealthy Australian, I might do well to buy imports. Well, that's no surprise to anyone.

 

[ronburgundy]

What did your last slave die of?

What's the relevance?

We've already looked at PPP in regard to Australian data before--it's expensive in your neck of the woods. Specifically, 47.2% more expensive at present.

So what? People don't spend wealth, by and large; they spend income. And wages are high here too.

??? The only reason anyone cares about "wealth" is what one can buy with it. It's value lies in being stored purchasing power for the future. The numbers are largely meaningless without adjustments for costs of living (which need to include home prices that appear to be 4 times higher in Australia). Australia would still come out far ahead of the US, but a bit less so.

 

[bilby]

So what? People don't spend wealth, by and large; they spend income. And wages are high here too.

??? The only reason anyone cares about "wealth" is what one can buy with it. It's value lies in being stored purchasing power for the future. The numbers are largely meaningless without adjustments for costs of living (which need to include home prices that appear to be 4 times higher in Australia). Australia would still come out far ahead of the US, but a bit less so.

If you know what the future purchasing price disparity between Australia and the US is going to be, then you are in a position to become very wealthy indeed.

The 'current best guess' for this future value is provided by the foreign exchange markets - and so the use of the current exchange rate, and not PPP, is indeed the correct calculation (contrary to Loren's claim).

Of course, these exchange rates are just the amalgamated best guess of the market - they are bound to be wildly wrong. But any other guess is likely to be even worse.

PPP differs from the spot rate precisely because the former attempts to estimate the value of current spending, while the latter attempts to estimate the value of wealth - ie future spending.

There are a number of reasons why home prices here are (comparatively) so high. One is that Australians are so wealthy. If you took away the bottom half of the US housing market, your median home prices would be high too. Few Australians live in (or are prepared to consider living in) low value housing. We have no shortage of land - but we all want to live on the best bits, and most of us can afford to.

There are other considerations - political tools like negative gearing, which could disappear at the stroke of a pen; And the opening up of new desirable real estate by the building of infrastructure that makes formerly undesirable locations more liveable.

There's no physical law that says that Australian homes will remain expensive into the future, in comparison with American or European homes.

But a house in Sydney is still a good investment (if you have the money to take advantage of it).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What did your last slave die of?

What's the relevance?

We've already looked at PPP in regard to Australian data before--it's expensive in your neck of the woods. Specifically, 47.2% more expensive at present.

So what? People don't spend wealth, by and large; they spend income. And wages are high here too.

What you are saying is that, as a wealthy Australian, I might do well to buy imports. Well, that's no surprise to anyone.

PPP applies equally to wealth and income.

- - - Updated - - -

So what? People don't spend wealth, by and large; they spend income. And wages are high here too.

??? The only reason anyone cares about "wealth" is what one can buy with it. It's value lies in being stored purchasing power for the future. The numbers are largely meaningless without adjustments for costs of living (which need to include home prices that appear to be 4 times higher in Australia). Australia would still come out far ahead of the US, but a bit less so.

Note that his chart was median wealth. When you look at PPP of mean wealth the USA is ahead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what? People don't spend wealth, by and large; they spend income. And wages are high here too.

??? The only reason anyone cares about "wealth" is what one can buy with it. It's value lies in being stored purchasing power for the future. The numbers are largely meaningless without adjustments for costs of living (which need to include home prices that appear to be 4 times higher in Australia). Australia would still come out far ahead of the US, but a bit less so.

If you know what the future purchasing price disparity between Australia and the US is going to be, then you are in a position to become very wealthy indeed.

The 'current best guess' for this future value is provided by the foreign exchange markets - and so the use of the current exchange rate, and not PPP, is indeed the correct calculation (contrary to Loren's claim).

No. What counts is what it costs to buy things, thus PPP. Exchange rates are utterly irrelevant. (Now, the change in exchange rates can be meaningful.) And there's no issue of a guess, we aren't trying to predict the future, just look at the present.

 

[bilby]

So what? People don't spend wealth, by and large; they spend income. And wages are high here too.

What you are saying is that, as a wealthy Australian, I might do well to buy imports. Well, that's no surprise to anyone.

PPP applies equally to wealth and income.

- - - Updated - - -

So what? People don't spend wealth, by and large; they spend income. And wages are high here too.

??? The only reason anyone cares about "wealth" is what one can buy with it. It's value lies in being stored purchasing power for the future. The numbers are largely meaningless without adjustments for costs of living (which need to include home prices that appear to be 4 times higher in Australia). Australia would still come out far ahead of the US, but a bit less so.

Note that his chart was median wealth. When you look at PPP of mean wealth the USA is ahead.

Mean wealth is a pointless measure - it is hugely distorted by a tiny number of very wealthy people at the top of the distribution.