Australia Still the Richest Country on Earth

[Renato1 (Renato)]

This year's CreditSwisse Global Wealth Report shows the same result as last year for Australia. On a Median basis of net wealth per adult, we're the world's wealthiest country by a country mile. Next closest is Belgium, followed by Britain, Italy and France at equal third place (with half the net wealth per adult that we have).


Check it out at,
https://publications.credit-suisse.c...41B58C5EA591A4

I feel like buying another telescope.

The following extract from page 57 of the report says it all.

"Despite this recent slowdown,
Australia’s wealth per adult in 2014 is USD 430,800, the
second highest in the world after Switzerland. Its median wealth
of USD 225,400 is the highest in the world.

Interestingly, the composition of household wealth in
Australia is heavily skewed towards real assets, which averaged
USD 319,700 and form 60% of gross household assets. This
average level of real assets is the second highest in the world
after Norway. In part, it reflects a large endowment of land and
natural resources relative to population, but it is also a result of
high urban real estate prices.

Only 6% of Australians have net worth below USD 10,000,
which can be compared to 29% in the USA and 70% for the
world as a whole. Average debt amounts to 20% of gross
assets. The proportion of those with wealth above USD
100,000 is the highest of any country – eight times the world
average. With 1,783,000 people in the top 1% of global wealth
holders, Australia accounts for 3.8% of this wealthy group"

[Solitarian]

I feel like buying another telescope.

Exactly why the money market fabricates meaningless reports like this

[OzStarGazer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...alth_per_adult

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by OzStarGazer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...alth_per_adult

Yes, that shows last years figures. We seem to have gotten nearly US$6000 wealthier in the last year.

Interesting how relatively poorly off the median US adult is.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Solitarian

Exactly why the money market fabricates meaningless reports like this

Not really meaningless. I now know that the amount of money I've spent on telescopes, eyepieces and other accessories is greater than the total net wealth per person in 70% of the rest of the world.

And I don't even own a Tak!
Regards,
Renato

[AndrewJ]

And yet if you look at GDP per person, we are way down.
( who doesnt believe wikipedia :-) )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...%29_per_capita
Does this mean that whilst we may have it now, we probably cant afford to keep it???
Statistics and lists can tell you whatever you want to hear.
( as long as you use the correct list )

Andrew

[RB (Andrew)]

Oh for goodness sakes, let him buy his new telescope......

[JB80 (Jarrod)]

Richest also equates with the most expensive which doesn't bode well for those relying on pensions or low wage jobs.
It's all relative. Maybe when the crash finally comes we can afford to move back.

[DavidU (Dave)]

Sure doesn't feel like it.

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

And yet if you look at GDP per person, we are way down.
( who doesnt believe wikipedia :-) )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...%29_per_capita
Does this mean that whilst we may have it now, we probably cant afford to keep it???
Statistics and lists can tell you whatever you want to hear.
( as long as you use the correct list )

Andrew

Hi Andrew,
Hard to say. Take the case of the USA. If GDP increases because all their millions of multi and mega millionaires makes lots more money, average wealth may increase, but median wealth can still go backwards.

On the other hand, when lots of production winds up more evenly distributed - providing the goose that lays the golden egg isn't killed off - even static GDP will increase median wealth.

One thing to remember is that it is GDP per person rather than GDP per adult. So, as Australia still has a higher birth rate than most other comparable western nations, our GDP per person figure will be lower relative to theirs for an equivalent GDP.
Cheers,
Renato

[AndrewJ]

Gday Renato

On the other hand, when lots of production winds up more evenly distributed - providing the goose that lays the golden egg isn't killed off

Well then, i dont like our chances.
Our current economic model seems to be to kill of all the pesky costly research and manufacturing and just sell dirt.

Andrew

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Gday Renato


Well then, i dont like our chances.
Our current economic model seems to be to kill of all the pesky costly research and manufacturing and just sell dirt.

Andrew

Well, one can be optimistic.

I remember a lecturer at uni back in the 80s saying that when one looks at the parameters of where wealth comes from relative to other countries, Australia wasn't a First world country, but the most advanced Third World country.

As best I can see, things have gotten a lot worse in that respect, but we've gotten richer.

The easiest way to see that the wealth isn't illusory is just to go on an overseas trip. You just keep running into Aussies everywhere, and not just in the main tourist centres. They're everywhere.
Regards,
Renato

[Nikolas (Nik)]

It's because of house prices. Houses are most expensive in Australia than in the USA. Rubbish like that article is meaningless.

[Tandum (Robin)]

My last water bill was more than the rates bill

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

It's because of house prices. Houses are most expensive in Australia than in the USA. Rubbish like that article is meaningless.

Actually, it seems pretty meaningful to me.

With 29% of the adults in the USA owning less than US$10,000, and presumably the 20% of those above them not being all that well off either, one would expect house prices to be cheaper in the USA. People can't afford to pay much for them, or to pay big enough rents to make the houses more valuable.

If one lives in a rich country, one expects house prices and rents to be higher than in poorer places.
Regards,
Renato

[xelasnave]

Land is very cheap $1000 an acre if you look.
We have a secure title system so getting 100 acres is easy really...that is one way to get some wealth.
And even city real estate is cheap.
Investing in real estate is subsidised via negative gearing.
Do we have slums ..no I don't think so.
The poorest guy I know can still buy a lap top and a car while on the dole.
I think we are very well off....just spend less than you get in and you will be ok.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Renato

The easiest way to see that the wealth isn't illusory is just to go on an overseas trip. You just keep running into Aussies everywhere,

I agree partly, and a lot of that is due to our high ( relative ) dollar, and the fact that the cost and time of international transport has dropped dramatically.
Also, ( as mentioned by a friends young daughter ), a holiday cant be repossesed later, whereas trying to buy something real that you cannot afford can :-)
I also agree we are "currently" really well off relative to a lot in the world, but part of me also says thats because we have squandered the legacy of our parents generation to get there, and are starting to steal from the future to stay there.
Sorta like having a party with the credit card.
Somewhere underneath it all, we will need to make "real" money to pay for it, and the current trends for that in this country arent looking as good as they should be.

Andrew

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

yes. I agree, that article is so 1 eyed I almost puked , there are to many non-productive shiny assed middle managers getting to much money for doing nothing while the back bone of this country (the workers.) are getting slowly screwed at every turn .
As said. , the party has to stop!.
Brian.

Originally Posted by Nikolas

It's because of house prices. Houses are most expensive in Australia than in the USA. Rubbish like that article is meaningless.

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

Yes land might be cheap but we get robbed blind to develop it to a stage where the councils allow you to even consider to build a house.
Brian.

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Land is very cheap $1000 an acre if you look.
We have a secure title system so getting 100 acres is easy really...that is one way to get some wealth.
And even city real estate is cheap.
Investing in real estate is subsidised via negative gearing.
Do we have slums ..no I don't think so.
The poorest guy I know can still buy a lap top and a car while on the dole.
I think we are very well off....just spend less than you get in and you will be ok.

[casstony]

High house prices result from easy money and are currently more indicative of the wealth of banks than the wealth of individuals.