Thanks for posting that. Indeed, there’s nothing like good comedy to spruce up my Tuesday morning!
The absolute best part is, take a look at the very CNN article that the author refers to, and look at the right side of the page, under the list “Where NOT to buy”, and guess what, the glorious Inland Empire (which is where I live, by the way), is listed smack dab at number 5!! Even thought the author confidently states “the Inland Empire and Los Angeles, are in my opinion going to be just fine”. The author should have read the source he was referring to.
So while Los Angeles, New York City etc. may be good LONG-TERM investments, the article says nothing about short or medium term investments. Point is that most if not all of these markets are already correcting downwards, and will continue to do so. I’m sure over 57 years (the time frame that the article is based on, 1949-2006), all properties will be generally worth more than they are now….that’s not-bubble proof in my opinion, that’s simply stating that housing CAN be (not necessarily is), a good LONG term investment. But during the previous and upcoming 57 years or so, all these markets will inflate and deflate a number of times, that is what history has proven to us, and that is what we are currently experiencing, the deflation of the bubble. LA and New York are no exceptions.