Thanks sdcellar. PS, I have been reading Piggington longer than you have (or at leastlonger than you have been posting on it). I have been using the internet from 1992, when the bulk of the what you could do was read email and newsgroups. So I do know that reading the basic documents is proper netiquette befre piping in with comments. BTW, anyone remember when Mosaic seemed like a breath of fresh air?
You are under the impression that everyone who sees the same set of data should come to the same conclusions. In your case you start ascribing various motives – desperation, being one – to people who do not agree with you conclusions.
Let me give a stock market analogy. Two professors Shiller of Yale and Siegel of Wharton disagree massively on the stock market, but are friends and vacation together. Neither wonders about ulterior motives. Do you know that Shiller who is probably the guru of all kinds of bubbles, still officially only says that you can’t predict how much or when housing will go down? Whereas I see you with exact numbers and timeframes. I am not saying you are incorrect, but I am just pointing out that it’s not easy to justify these things quantitatively.
BTW to whoever wrote that, it’s total BS that Northern Europeans are not “polite”. I had many friends from Germany in grad school and they were unfailingly polite.
The problem I see with the new paradigm model is that it is always in unstable equilibrium. A small push can lead to prices tumbling. And with many factors – macro-economic, political, divorce, etc., – it is highly improbable that people will stay put in their houses till prices pick up. The new paradigm is basically what Jim is advocating. While it is possible, it seems improbable due to the things I mentioned before. 10% yearly appreciation is also NOT normal for hosuing.
Another analogy would be the art market. It is highly illiquid and people who buy Monets for 50 million should be able to hold on to it till prices go back up. But that’s not what happens, does it? Quite often people sell art-work at losses, due to other factors forcing them to sell it.
Why can’t you just say things like that instead of name calling? Just wondering.
