[Rt.66]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=Rt.66]SDEngineer:

That chart is of questionable origins don’t you think? Its a bubble bloggers homemade chart from what I can see. Still, nationally it even shows Japans price run up was worse than ours.

Our RE bubble certainly includes land and also CR just like Japan’s bubble did. So if we could find a US chart that shows just land I’m guessing we’d have the a similar chart to the Economist’s chart.[/quote]

The bubble bloggers’ homemade charts were FAR more accurate than the MSM’s charts all throughout this bubble. They appear to be more indepth and accurate in this one as well.

The Economist used this chart to attempt to show that Japan’s runup in prices was MUCH lower than the U.S.’s, when in fact comparing similar indices showed a similar runup in prices nationwide between the U.S. and Japan in terms of housing prices, and a significantly LARGER bubble when compared to large bubble cities (like San Diego or Miami compared to Tokyo or Kyoto).

[/quote]

Still, even your chart shows a higher national price run up in the US than Japan. The homemade, pulled out of a bloggers butt chart says it was worse here too. They just tried to skew it to suit their arguement. But that chart is wrong anyway.

Japan looks at the value of the land under the building in their report. Not raw land. They publish a second report entitled:
“National Wooden House Market Value Index” which appears to be nothing more than a cost of building index.

Maybe that is because in Japan land is scarce and therefore it is common when you want a bigger or better house to tear down the old one and build on the same lot.

So, Japan’s version of our housing price index IS the “Urban Land Prices” report shown in the Economist/Case-Shiller chart.

Dude, go here:
http://www.reinet.or.jp/en/data.html

Tell me were your reliable bubble blogger got his stats? Japan’s Real Estate institute does not publish housing stats like those shown on the blogger’s homemade chart. I am not for a minute implying that a blogger may make a less than accurate chart in order to support a point they are trying to defend or make, certainly not!

But where did he cobble together figures on the structures alone to add to the Urban Land Prices Chart?

It appears to me that proffesor Shiller, by using Japan’s own reports, used the most comparable chart. In which case we are much, much more screwed than Japan.

[Rt.66]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=Rt.66]SDEngineer:

That chart is of questionable origins don’t you think? Its a bubble bloggers homemade chart from what I can see. Still, nationally it even shows Japans price run up was worse than ours.

Our RE bubble certainly includes land and also CR just like Japan’s bubble did. So if we could find a US chart that shows just land I’m guessing we’d have the a similar chart to the Economist’s chart.[/quote]

The bubble bloggers’ homemade charts were FAR more accurate than the MSM’s charts all throughout this bubble. They appear to be more indepth and accurate in this one as well.

The Economist used this chart to attempt to show that Japan’s runup in prices was MUCH lower than the U.S.’s, when in fact comparing similar indices showed a similar runup in prices nationwide between the U.S. and Japan in terms of housing prices, and a significantly LARGER bubble when compared to large bubble cities (like San Diego or Miami compared to Tokyo or Kyoto).

[/quote]

Still, even your chart shows a higher national price run up in the US than Japan. The homemade, pulled out of a bloggers butt chart says it was worse here too. They just tried to skew it to suit their arguement. But that chart is wrong anyway.

Japan looks at the value of the land under the building in their report. Not raw land. They publish a second report entitled:
“National Wooden House Market Value Index” which appears to be nothing more than a cost of building index.

Maybe that is because in Japan land is scarce and therefore it is common when you want a bigger or better house to tear down the old one and build on the same lot.

So, Japan’s version of our housing price index IS the “Urban Land Prices” report shown in the Economist/Case-Shiller chart.

Dude, go here:
http://www.reinet.or.jp/en/data.html

Tell me were your reliable bubble blogger got his stats? Japan’s Real Estate institute does not publish housing stats like those shown on the blogger’s homemade chart. I am not for a minute implying that a blogger may make a less than accurate chart in order to support a point they are trying to defend or make, certainly not!

But where did he cobble together figures on the structures alone to add to the Urban Land Prices Chart?

It appears to me that proffesor Shiller, by using Japan’s own reports, used the most comparable chart. In which case we are much, much more screwed than Japan.

[Rt.66]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=Rt.66]SDEngineer:

That chart is of questionable origins don’t you think? Its a bubble bloggers homemade chart from what I can see. Still, nationally it even shows Japans price run up was worse than ours.

Our RE bubble certainly includes land and also CR just like Japan’s bubble did. So if we could find a US chart that shows just land I’m guessing we’d have the a similar chart to the Economist’s chart.[/quote]

The bubble bloggers’ homemade charts were FAR more accurate than the MSM’s charts all throughout this bubble. They appear to be more indepth and accurate in this one as well.

The Economist used this chart to attempt to show that Japan’s runup in prices was MUCH lower than the U.S.’s, when in fact comparing similar indices showed a similar runup in prices nationwide between the U.S. and Japan in terms of housing prices, and a significantly LARGER bubble when compared to large bubble cities (like San Diego or Miami compared to Tokyo or Kyoto).

[/quote]

Still, even your chart shows a higher national price run up in the US than Japan. The homemade, pulled out of a bloggers butt chart says it was worse here too. They just tried to skew it to suit their arguement. But that chart is wrong anyway.

Japan looks at the value of the land under the building in their report. Not raw land. They publish a second report entitled:
“National Wooden House Market Value Index” which appears to be nothing more than a cost of building index.

Maybe that is because in Japan land is scarce and therefore it is common when you want a bigger or better house to tear down the old one and build on the same lot.

So, Japan’s version of our housing price index IS the “Urban Land Prices” report shown in the Economist/Case-Shiller chart.

Dude, go here:
http://www.reinet.or.jp/en/data.html

Tell me were your reliable bubble blogger got his stats? Japan’s Real Estate institute does not publish housing stats like those shown on the blogger’s homemade chart. I am not for a minute implying that a blogger may make a less than accurate chart in order to support a point they are trying to defend or make, certainly not!

But where did he cobble together figures on the structures alone to add to the Urban Land Prices Chart?

It appears to me that proffesor Shiller, by using Japan’s own reports, used the most comparable chart. In which case we are much, much more screwed than Japan.

[Rt.66]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=Rt.66]SDEngineer:

That chart is of questionable origins don’t you think? Its a bubble bloggers homemade chart from what I can see. Still, nationally it even shows Japans price run up was worse than ours.

Our RE bubble certainly includes land and also CR just like Japan’s bubble did. So if we could find a US chart that shows just land I’m guessing we’d have the a similar chart to the Economist’s chart.[/quote]

The bubble bloggers’ homemade charts were FAR more accurate than the MSM’s charts all throughout this bubble. They appear to be more indepth and accurate in this one as well.

The Economist used this chart to attempt to show that Japan’s runup in prices was MUCH lower than the U.S.’s, when in fact comparing similar indices showed a similar runup in prices nationwide between the U.S. and Japan in terms of housing prices, and a significantly LARGER bubble when compared to large bubble cities (like San Diego or Miami compared to Tokyo or Kyoto).

[/quote]

Still, even your chart shows a higher national price run up in the US than Japan. The homemade, pulled out of a bloggers butt chart says it was worse here too. They just tried to skew it to suit their arguement. But that chart is wrong anyway.

Japan looks at the value of the land under the building in their report. Not raw land. They publish a second report entitled:
“National Wooden House Market Value Index” which appears to be nothing more than a cost of building index.

Maybe that is because in Japan land is scarce and therefore it is common when you want a bigger or better house to tear down the old one and build on the same lot.

So, Japan’s version of our housing price index IS the “Urban Land Prices” report shown in the Economist/Case-Shiller chart.

Dude, go here:
http://www.reinet.or.jp/en/data.html

Tell me were your reliable bubble blogger got his stats? Japan’s Real Estate institute does not publish housing stats like those shown on the blogger’s homemade chart. I am not for a minute implying that a blogger may make a less than accurate chart in order to support a point they are trying to defend or make, certainly not!

But where did he cobble together figures on the structures alone to add to the Urban Land Prices Chart?

It appears to me that proffesor Shiller, by using Japan’s own reports, used the most comparable chart. In which case we are much, much more screwed than Japan.

[Rt.66]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=Rt.66]SDEngineer:

That chart is of questionable origins don’t you think? Its a bubble bloggers homemade chart from what I can see. Still, nationally it even shows Japans price run up was worse than ours.

Our RE bubble certainly includes land and also CR just like Japan’s bubble did. So if we could find a US chart that shows just land I’m guessing we’d have the a similar chart to the Economist’s chart.[/quote]

The bubble bloggers’ homemade charts were FAR more accurate than the MSM’s charts all throughout this bubble. They appear to be more indepth and accurate in this one as well.

The Economist used this chart to attempt to show that Japan’s runup in prices was MUCH lower than the U.S.’s, when in fact comparing similar indices showed a similar runup in prices nationwide between the U.S. and Japan in terms of housing prices, and a significantly LARGER bubble when compared to large bubble cities (like San Diego or Miami compared to Tokyo or Kyoto).

[/quote]

Still, even your chart shows a higher national price run up in the US than Japan. The homemade, pulled out of a bloggers butt chart says it was worse here too. They just tried to skew it to suit their arguement. But that chart is wrong anyway.

Japan looks at the value of the land under the building in their report. Not raw land. They publish a second report entitled:
“National Wooden House Market Value Index” which appears to be nothing more than a cost of building index.

Maybe that is because in Japan land is scarce and therefore it is common when you want a bigger or better house to tear down the old one and build on the same lot.

So, Japan’s version of our housing price index IS the “Urban Land Prices” report shown in the Economist/Case-Shiller chart.

Dude, go here:
http://www.reinet.or.jp/en/data.html

Tell me were your reliable bubble blogger got his stats? Japan’s Real Estate institute does not publish housing stats like those shown on the blogger’s homemade chart. I am not for a minute implying that a blogger may make a less than accurate chart in order to support a point they are trying to defend or make, certainly not!

But where did he cobble together figures on the structures alone to add to the Urban Land Prices Chart?

It appears to me that proffesor Shiller, by using Japan’s own reports, used the most comparable chart. In which case we are much, much more screwed than Japan.

[Rt.66]

[quote=4plexowner]
“nominal prices”, “inflation adjusted”, “peak prices” – too confusing for my simple mind and, IMO, if you have to play these mental masturbation games you are trying to rationalize something that probably doesn’t make sense [/quote]

Very well put! I was just offering a contrarian spin on the whole “inflation adjusted” angle. In the end I agree with you on the issue.

What I can afford today is what I can afford today, inflation stats don’t change that any. And so many other factors change over time.

[Rt.66]

[quote=4plexowner]
“nominal prices”, “inflation adjusted”, “peak prices” – too confusing for my simple mind and, IMO, if you have to play these mental masturbation games you are trying to rationalize something that probably doesn’t make sense [/quote]

Very well put! I was just offering a contrarian spin on the whole “inflation adjusted” angle. In the end I agree with you on the issue.

What I can afford today is what I can afford today, inflation stats don’t change that any. And so many other factors change over time.

[Rt.66]

[quote=4plexowner]
“nominal prices”, “inflation adjusted”, “peak prices” – too confusing for my simple mind and, IMO, if you have to play these mental masturbation games you are trying to rationalize something that probably doesn’t make sense [/quote]

Very well put! I was just offering a contrarian spin on the whole “inflation adjusted” angle. In the end I agree with you on the issue.

What I can afford today is what I can afford today, inflation stats don’t change that any. And so many other factors change over time.

[Rt.66]

[quote=4plexowner]
“nominal prices”, “inflation adjusted”, “peak prices” – too confusing for my simple mind and, IMO, if you have to play these mental masturbation games you are trying to rationalize something that probably doesn’t make sense [/quote]

Very well put! I was just offering a contrarian spin on the whole “inflation adjusted” angle. In the end I agree with you on the issue.

What I can afford today is what I can afford today, inflation stats don’t change that any. And so many other factors change over time.

[Rt.66]

[quote=4plexowner]
“nominal prices”, “inflation adjusted”, “peak prices” – too confusing for my simple mind and, IMO, if you have to play these mental masturbation games you are trying to rationalize something that probably doesn’t make sense [/quote]

Very well put! I was just offering a contrarian spin on the whole “inflation adjusted” angle. In the end I agree with you on the issue.

What I can afford today is what I can afford today, inflation stats don’t change that any. And so many other factors change over time.

[Rt.66]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][ One thing I would add here is, I think a lot of people on this board keep comparing this bubble to (thinking is like) 1991-1997 .

This bubble is nothing like 1991-1997, in that burst a large part of the industry picked up and left taking a lot of the most talented people in the region with them. That’s not happening this time.

I would guess that when the economy turns, the market will SLOWLY start to recover, That being said I would think by 2017 we would be back close to peak price …

OK everyone go ahead take your best shot ,,, Just kidding.

[/quote]

You are correct. In 1991-1997 “a large part of “the” industry picked up and left”. Today ALL employers are cutting back. Worst unemployment in 25-30 years, right now and gaining steam fast.

As for this depression versus previous ones?

” The state’s economic decline is sweeping, making the recession the “worst in the postwar period,” DeVol director of regional economics for the Milken Institute in Santa Monica said”

As for losing talented people we can check that off too. Last few reports I read showed CA is losing upper-middle class educated people in droves and growing only through immigration.

Thanks for playing:)

[Rt.66]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][ One thing I would add here is, I think a lot of people on this board keep comparing this bubble to (thinking is like) 1991-1997 .

This bubble is nothing like 1991-1997, in that burst a large part of the industry picked up and left taking a lot of the most talented people in the region with them. That’s not happening this time.

I would guess that when the economy turns, the market will SLOWLY start to recover, That being said I would think by 2017 we would be back close to peak price …

OK everyone go ahead take your best shot ,,, Just kidding.

[/quote]

You are correct. In 1991-1997 “a large part of “the” industry picked up and left”. Today ALL employers are cutting back. Worst unemployment in 25-30 years, right now and gaining steam fast.

As for this depression versus previous ones?

” The state’s economic decline is sweeping, making the recession the “worst in the postwar period,” DeVol director of regional economics for the Milken Institute in Santa Monica said”

As for losing talented people we can check that off too. Last few reports I read showed CA is losing upper-middle class educated people in droves and growing only through immigration.

Thanks for playing:)

[Rt.66]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][ One thing I would add here is, I think a lot of people on this board keep comparing this bubble to (thinking is like) 1991-1997 .

This bubble is nothing like 1991-1997, in that burst a large part of the industry picked up and left taking a lot of the most talented people in the region with them. That’s not happening this time.

I would guess that when the economy turns, the market will SLOWLY start to recover, That being said I would think by 2017 we would be back close to peak price …

OK everyone go ahead take your best shot ,,, Just kidding.

[/quote]

You are correct. In 1991-1997 “a large part of “the” industry picked up and left”. Today ALL employers are cutting back. Worst unemployment in 25-30 years, right now and gaining steam fast.

As for this depression versus previous ones?

” The state’s economic decline is sweeping, making the recession the “worst in the postwar period,” DeVol director of regional economics for the Milken Institute in Santa Monica said”

As for losing talented people we can check that off too. Last few reports I read showed CA is losing upper-middle class educated people in droves and growing only through immigration.

Thanks for playing:)

[Rt.66]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][ One thing I would add here is, I think a lot of people on this board keep comparing this bubble to (thinking is like) 1991-1997 .

This bubble is nothing like 1991-1997, in that burst a large part of the industry picked up and left taking a lot of the most talented people in the region with them. That’s not happening this time.

I would guess that when the economy turns, the market will SLOWLY start to recover, That being said I would think by 2017 we would be back close to peak price …

OK everyone go ahead take your best shot ,,, Just kidding.

[/quote]

You are correct. In 1991-1997 “a large part of “the” industry picked up and left”. Today ALL employers are cutting back. Worst unemployment in 25-30 years, right now and gaining steam fast.

As for this depression versus previous ones?

” The state’s economic decline is sweeping, making the recession the “worst in the postwar period,” DeVol director of regional economics for the Milken Institute in Santa Monica said”

As for losing talented people we can check that off too. Last few reports I read showed CA is losing upper-middle class educated people in droves and growing only through immigration.

Thanks for playing:)

[Rt.66]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][ One thing I would add here is, I think a lot of people on this board keep comparing this bubble to (thinking is like) 1991-1997 .

This bubble is nothing like 1991-1997, in that burst a large part of the industry picked up and left taking a lot of the most talented people in the region with them. That’s not happening this time.

I would guess that when the economy turns, the market will SLOWLY start to recover, That being said I would think by 2017 we would be back close to peak price …

OK everyone go ahead take your best shot ,,, Just kidding.

[/quote]

You are correct. In 1991-1997 “a large part of “the” industry picked up and left”. Today ALL employers are cutting back. Worst unemployment in 25-30 years, right now and gaining steam fast.

As for this depression versus previous ones?

” The state’s economic decline is sweeping, making the recession the “worst in the postwar period,” DeVol director of regional economics for the Milken Institute in Santa Monica said”

As for losing talented people we can check that off too. Last few reports I read showed CA is losing upper-middle class educated people in droves and growing only through immigration.

Thanks for playing:)

[Author]

Posts