- This topic has 90 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
kev374.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM #358399March 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM #357840
CostaMesa
Participanthttp://www.newsday.com/business/ny-vpbud016053537mar01,0,6930525.story
Seems that Obama is trying to be honest considerably more than his predecessor.
Gotta agree with JP – neither team has shown much ability to do anything besides produce nonsense.
March 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM #358142Participanthttp://www.newsday.com/business/ny-vpbud016053537mar01,0,6930525.story
Seems that Obama is trying to be honest considerably more than his predecessor.
Gotta agree with JP – neither team has shown much ability to do anything besides produce nonsense.
March 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM #358283Participanthttp://www.newsday.com/business/ny-vpbud016053537mar01,0,6930525.story
Seems that Obama is trying to be honest considerably more than his predecessor.
Gotta agree with JP – neither team has shown much ability to do anything besides produce nonsense.
March 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM #358314Participanthttp://www.newsday.com/business/ny-vpbud016053537mar01,0,6930525.story
Seems that Obama is trying to be honest considerably more than his predecessor.
Gotta agree with JP – neither team has shown much ability to do anything besides produce nonsense.
March 1, 2009 at 3:52 PM #358418Participanthttp://www.newsday.com/business/ny-vpbud016053537mar01,0,6930525.story
Seems that Obama is trying to be honest considerably more than his predecessor.
Gotta agree with JP – neither team has shown much ability to do anything besides produce nonsense.
March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM #358060patientrenter
ParticipantI don’t know exactly how Beck produced his numbers, but he did mention that his numbers were adjusted for inflation, so folks who bought homes for $20K back in the dark ages would show up as a higher number after adjusting to today’s dollars.
For the poster who said that prices were below the (flat) long term trend line for 20 years back in the 30’s and 40’s, so why can’t they be at 170 (above the trend line) for the next 15 – you are right, it is possible. Prices can be above trend for a year, or several years, or decades, or centuries, I suppose. What the trend line implies is that the probability of that happening diminishes as the future period of levitating prices is extended. In other words, don’t bet on it lasting as long as you want it to. Same would apply if prices were below trend.
March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM #358362ParticipantI don’t know exactly how Beck produced his numbers, but he did mention that his numbers were adjusted for inflation, so folks who bought homes for $20K back in the dark ages would show up as a higher number after adjusting to today’s dollars.
For the poster who said that prices were below the (flat) long term trend line for 20 years back in the 30’s and 40’s, so why can’t they be at 170 (above the trend line) for the next 15 – you are right, it is possible. Prices can be above trend for a year, or several years, or decades, or centuries, I suppose. What the trend line implies is that the probability of that happening diminishes as the future period of levitating prices is extended. In other words, don’t bet on it lasting as long as you want it to. Same would apply if prices were below trend.
March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM #358503ParticipantI don’t know exactly how Beck produced his numbers, but he did mention that his numbers were adjusted for inflation, so folks who bought homes for $20K back in the dark ages would show up as a higher number after adjusting to today’s dollars.
For the poster who said that prices were below the (flat) long term trend line for 20 years back in the 30’s and 40’s, so why can’t they be at 170 (above the trend line) for the next 15 – you are right, it is possible. Prices can be above trend for a year, or several years, or decades, or centuries, I suppose. What the trend line implies is that the probability of that happening diminishes as the future period of levitating prices is extended. In other words, don’t bet on it lasting as long as you want it to. Same would apply if prices were below trend.
March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM #358536ParticipantI don’t know exactly how Beck produced his numbers, but he did mention that his numbers were adjusted for inflation, so folks who bought homes for $20K back in the dark ages would show up as a higher number after adjusting to today’s dollars.
For the poster who said that prices were below the (flat) long term trend line for 20 years back in the 30’s and 40’s, so why can’t they be at 170 (above the trend line) for the next 15 – you are right, it is possible. Prices can be above trend for a year, or several years, or decades, or centuries, I suppose. What the trend line implies is that the probability of that happening diminishes as the future period of levitating prices is extended. In other words, don’t bet on it lasting as long as you want it to. Same would apply if prices were below trend.
March 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM #358639ParticipantI don’t know exactly how Beck produced his numbers, but he did mention that his numbers were adjusted for inflation, so folks who bought homes for $20K back in the dark ages would show up as a higher number after adjusting to today’s dollars.
For the poster who said that prices were below the (flat) long term trend line for 20 years back in the 30’s and 40’s, so why can’t they be at 170 (above the trend line) for the next 15 – you are right, it is possible. Prices can be above trend for a year, or several years, or decades, or centuries, I suppose. What the trend line implies is that the probability of that happening diminishes as the future period of levitating prices is extended. In other words, don’t bet on it lasting as long as you want it to. Same would apply if prices were below trend.
March 1, 2009 at 11:27 PM #358281kev374
ParticipantI believe he is using the same chart by Robert Shiller.
The $100,000 price is inflation adjusted to today’s dollars 🙂
March 1, 2009 at 11:27 PM #358583ParticipantI believe he is using the same chart by Robert Shiller.
The $100,000 price is inflation adjusted to today’s dollars 🙂
March 1, 2009 at 11:27 PM #358722ParticipantI believe he is using the same chart by Robert Shiller.
The $100,000 price is inflation adjusted to today’s dollars 🙂
March 1, 2009 at 11:27 PM #358758ParticipantI believe he is using the same chart by Robert Shiller.
The $100,000 price is inflation adjusted to today’s dollars 🙂
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.