[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

And unless you sold in SD at the top and are renting or moved to a cheaper part of the country, your “timing” was no better.

Well, we got it half right. We happened sold our primary residence in San Diego in June 2005. But we moved to a more expensive city.

But, again, I’m not a financial expert/economist pimping my services to consumers. I’m simply a lay person trying to make educated decisions, mitigate risk and hedge my bets in turbulent times for the good of my family.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

And unless you sold in SD at the top and are renting or moved to a cheaper part of the country, your “timing” was no better.

Well, we got it half right. We happened sold our primary residence in San Diego in June 2005. But we moved to a more expensive city.

But, again, I’m not a financial expert/economist pimping my services to consumers. I’m simply a lay person trying to make educated decisions, mitigate risk and hedge my bets in turbulent times for the good of my family.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Kewp, your point is simply a matter of semantics, so I will issue a correction.

OK. Correction: “I will be just as accurate as those calling a top in 2001.”

Schiff was bearish in 2001, but technically was not calling a top in prices.

If someone was bullish on stocks in late 2001 and said that they were in an unsustainable bear run :

Would you say that they got it wrong ?

Or

Would you say that they were simply early on their prescient call, since stocks did stage a huge rally starting in March 2003 ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Kewp, your point is simply a matter of semantics, so I will issue a correction.

OK. Correction: “I will be just as accurate as those calling a top in 2001.”

Schiff was bearish in 2001, but technically was not calling a top in prices.

If someone was bullish on stocks in late 2001 and said that they were in an unsustainable bear run :

Would you say that they got it wrong ?

Or

Would you say that they were simply early on their prescient call, since stocks did stage a huge rally starting in March 2003 ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Kewp, your point is simply a matter of semantics, so I will issue a correction.

OK. Correction: “I will be just as accurate as those calling a top in 2001.”

Schiff was bearish in 2001, but technically was not calling a top in prices.

If someone was bullish on stocks in late 2001 and said that they were in an unsustainable bear run :

Would you say that they got it wrong ?

Or

Would you say that they were simply early on their prescient call, since stocks did stage a huge rally starting in March 2003 ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Kewp, your point is simply a matter of semantics, so I will issue a correction.

OK. Correction: “I will be just as accurate as those calling a top in 2001.”

Schiff was bearish in 2001, but technically was not calling a top in prices.

If someone was bullish on stocks in late 2001 and said that they were in an unsustainable bear run :

Would you say that they got it wrong ?

Or

Would you say that they were simply early on their prescient call, since stocks did stage a huge rally starting in March 2003 ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

Kewp, your point is simply a matter of semantics, so I will issue a correction.

OK. Correction: “I will be just as accurate as those calling a top in 2001.”

Schiff was bearish in 2001, but technically was not calling a top in prices.

If someone was bullish on stocks in late 2001 and said that they were in an unsustainable bear run :

Would you say that they got it wrong ?

Or

Would you say that they were simply early on their prescient call, since stocks did stage a huge rally starting in March 2003 ?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

some of you are blaming Schiff for not getting the right time-frame?

Please, where’s the logical reasoning???

It’s really quite simple. Time = $.

Last week I predicted we were at the bottom of the housing market in San Diego. If prices decline for the next 4 years and by another 40% I will be precisely as accurate as Schiff.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

some of you are blaming Schiff for not getting the right time-frame?

Please, where’s the logical reasoning???

It’s really quite simple. Time = $.

Last week I predicted we were at the bottom of the housing market in San Diego. If prices decline for the next 4 years and by another 40% I will be precisely as accurate as Schiff.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

some of you are blaming Schiff for not getting the right time-frame?

Please, where’s the logical reasoning???

It’s really quite simple. Time = $.

Last week I predicted we were at the bottom of the housing market in San Diego. If prices decline for the next 4 years and by another 40% I will be precisely as accurate as Schiff.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

some of you are blaming Schiff for not getting the right time-frame?

Please, where’s the logical reasoning???

It’s really quite simple. Time = $.

Last week I predicted we were at the bottom of the housing market in San Diego. If prices decline for the next 4 years and by another 40% I will be precisely as accurate as Schiff.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

some of you are blaming Schiff for not getting the right time-frame?

Please, where’s the logical reasoning???

It’s really quite simple. Time = $.

Last week I predicted we were at the bottom of the housing market in San Diego. If prices decline for the next 4 years and by another 40% I will be precisely as accurate as Schiff.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=kev374]yes, I understand the traditional relationships – that the buying power is decreased.

However, I wanted to determine the value of the currency as how much effort it would take to obtain that money…which is how that $1000 is view as in the effort to obtain it.

I am trying to see if the money would have the same perception of value by people… in the context of how hard it is to obtain it.

If it took you 8 hrs of sweat to obtain $10 today and 5 years from now it is the same then how would you value $10? Regardless of how much things cost.

Yes, if we earned more and things cost more then something of a fixed value, that $10 would be less significant. But what if income was constant.[/quote]

Your question is a bit naive, so let’s do a thought experiment ..

In 1975, Mr. Construction boss made 30K per year in the construction business … about $15 per hour. Mom stays home. They live in a large ranch house with 7 children. They were able to feed and clothe a large family, send to private school and send 6 of the 7 went to college, and two to grad school.

Fast forward to 2008. Joe Dropout has a laborer job in the construction business making $15 per hour. He spends 45% of his income to rent a 2-BR apartment for his wife and baby. He relies on food stamps to buy milk and cannot afford insurance.

In both cases the 8 hours of labor is valued the same in dollar terms. The only difference is inflation.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=kev374]yes, I understand the traditional relationships – that the buying power is decreased.

However, I wanted to determine the value of the currency as how much effort it would take to obtain that money…which is how that $1000 is view as in the effort to obtain it.

I am trying to see if the money would have the same perception of value by people… in the context of how hard it is to obtain it.

If it took you 8 hrs of sweat to obtain $10 today and 5 years from now it is the same then how would you value $10? Regardless of how much things cost.

Yes, if we earned more and things cost more then something of a fixed value, that $10 would be less significant. But what if income was constant.[/quote]

Your question is a bit naive, so let’s do a thought experiment ..

In 1975, Mr. Construction boss made 30K per year in the construction business … about $15 per hour. Mom stays home. They live in a large ranch house with 7 children. They were able to feed and clothe a large family, send to private school and send 6 of the 7 went to college, and two to grad school.

Fast forward to 2008. Joe Dropout has a laborer job in the construction business making $15 per hour. He spends 45% of his income to rent a 2-BR apartment for his wife and baby. He relies on food stamps to buy milk and cannot afford insurance.

In both cases the 8 hours of labor is valued the same in dollar terms. The only difference is inflation.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=kev374]yes, I understand the traditional relationships – that the buying power is decreased.

However, I wanted to determine the value of the currency as how much effort it would take to obtain that money…which is how that $1000 is view as in the effort to obtain it.

I am trying to see if the money would have the same perception of value by people… in the context of how hard it is to obtain it.

If it took you 8 hrs of sweat to obtain $10 today and 5 years from now it is the same then how would you value $10? Regardless of how much things cost.

Yes, if we earned more and things cost more then something of a fixed value, that $10 would be less significant. But what if income was constant.[/quote]

Your question is a bit naive, so let’s do a thought experiment ..

In 1975, Mr. Construction boss made 30K per year in the construction business … about $15 per hour. Mom stays home. They live in a large ranch house with 7 children. They were able to feed and clothe a large family, send to private school and send 6 of the 7 went to college, and two to grad school.

Fast forward to 2008. Joe Dropout has a laborer job in the construction business making $15 per hour. He spends 45% of his income to rent a 2-BR apartment for his wife and baby. He relies on food stamps to buy milk and cannot afford insurance.

In both cases the 8 hours of labor is valued the same in dollar terms. The only difference is inflation.

[Author]

Posts