Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (50566)	1/20/2006 11:12:49 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Your "bubble" requires falling prices, but you haven't given the cause of the falling prices. How about 1) falling real wages 2) Home prices above people's ability to pay for them 3) negative savings rate - a sign of stress 4) outsourcing of high paying jobs in favor of jobs at walmart 5) rising defaults - as sign of stress 6) rising bankruptcies - a sign of stress 7) GDP supported by cash out refis - not sustainable 8) lender dropping prices 10% or more overnight 9) rising inventories 10) declining sales 11) massive numbers of people opting for interest only and pay option loans as the only way to "afford" a house 12) declining credit standards - bad enough to even alarm the FED 13) Rampant speculation by the masses 14) Home prices 3+ standard deviations above norm 15) people like you ahhaha who deny the bubble in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary ahhaha point #15 is key. If everyone believed there was a bubble, prices just might keep rising. People like you help make the case. Mish

To: ahhaha who wrote (50566)	1/21/2006 3:36:24 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Doesn't mean RE can't race ahead and do so stably. I agree it is possible. The question is whether it is probable. You probably haven't been aware of it but the US and ROW have been through 20 years of extended recession. Now you are using terms incorrectly to further your point. Not sure exactly what the benefit is to doing that, but it does provide obfuscation? Grace has given so much data arguing against this claim on this thread that it isn't worth addressing. Ok, I'll read it and get back to you. Clearly you fail to understand that it's in the NAR's interest to be absolutely accurate with this kind of information. I am not saying that they don't have some justification for saying this, but that the english language and statistics can do great things to spin facts. And NAR clearly has an agenda to keep RE going up so I guarantee they can and do spin whatever facts are avaibale. Raw data/statistics are less spinable and thus more trustworthy. Bubble" is a concept, by the way, which has no clear definition. Semantics, since by definition a bubble can only be asserted absolutely after the fact. Your semantics. You use the term. How can you validly do that given your above claim? Um, I thought the point of this thread was speculating about whether future events would prove that there was or wasn't a bubble. And I will point out that you are using the term too - to indicate that you do not believe that there will be a sudden and steep slide in asset prices. You merely replace "bubble" with "lubrication". No, I said one of the best indications of a bubble is a structure that forces short term sales when the price goes down. And clearly there is a lot of that going on right now. Your "bubble" requires falling prices, but you haven't given the cause of the falling prices. The name 'bubble' is apt for a variety of reasons - one of which is that, like a soap bubble, it is fragile but it often doesn't pop on its own. Some exogenous, but often very small, disturbance starts the problem and then, poof, the surface tension kicks in and ... . The point being that bubbles are the set up. The trigger for the pop is small and mostly unpredictable. The banks hold the balloon, and they don't want it to burst, so before that comes anywhere near, they will take steps to preclude it from doing so. You're ascribing god-like knowledge and power to 'banks'. Would you, perchance, believe in the Illuminati? (If so, I'd love an explanation of the little pyramid and eye thingee.) I've always wondered where those masters of manipulation hid out - clearly it is not the brokerages since they took a dive in the last bubble. Clark