I’ve been very pleased in general with what’s happened with the article comments and forums. A lot of really smart and sophisticated people have taken to posting, and I myself have learned an awful lot. Additionally, all the conversations have (hopefully) made this site more useful and interesting without me really having to lift a finger. (I don’t always have time to repond to forum posts and comments, but I do read almost all of them).
Lately, as people have no doubt noticed, there have been a lot of disagreements in the forums. I think this is good–the only way to really know what’s going on is to hear both sides of the debate, to make sure you have all the info, and to ensure that your arguments are airtight.
Unfortunately some of these debates have been accompanied by an increasingly negative conversational tenor. People have started to bag on one another and to get fairly combative, and the line between attacking a person’s argument and attacking the person has blurred.
So I’d like to take the opportunity to humbly request that everyone try to keep things positive. The fact that we can have intelligent topical debates without getting into flame wars says a lot about our little community – let’s keep it up!
Lastly, I want to thank everyone for their kind words in the recent forum thread about this site. I am very gratified that the site has been of help to people, as that has always been the #1 purpose of the Econo-Almanac.
April 7, 2006 @ 12:29 PM
Glad to hear it’s working
Glad to hear it’s working out. I’ve often wondered whether my site would benefit from turning comments off altogether, rather than taking on the role of editor and cutting the ones that splinter into ad hominem. Keep up the good work!
Cole @ The Boy in the Big Housing Bubble
April 7, 2006 @ 7:05 PM
Let’s hope everyone gets the
Let’s hope everyone gets the message and tones down the rhetoric. This kind of behavior is pretty common in forums. The overall level of discourse is still high. Great Job Professor!
April 8, 2006 @ 3:09 PM
Thanks for the guidance
Thanks for the guidance Rich. You are right-on (as usual). I watched the only other blog group I ever frequented go down because of political discussion that turned very personal against a man from another country (and this on a website dedicated to playing the flute!). Much like our sdrealtor did, someone on that blog used their resources in another field of work to find out identifying facts about the man from another country and posted them – it was a little scary. Anyway, I was disappointed then and would be to see this one go as well. I hope we can all be a bit more respectful of each other and of each other’s privacy (and I will lay off the spelling jabs – because frankly, I am getting tired of having to check and re-check the spelling in my own posts after making those rude comments).
April 9, 2006 @ 5:08 AM
The great about this blog is
The great about this blog is that it allows both sides’ opinion.
I was an active participant of another downtown condos’ blog created by a realtor, he actually monitors his blog and DELETE comments he doesn’t like, amazing! He also altered the 92101’s condo inventory figure to show only
400+ units are for sale but the actual figure by other realtors MLS shows 610+, his median price always in the high 700k but other realtors’ number is in the mid 600k,
what a misinformation blog that is!
Rich’s articles tell the trueth, he saved me a lot of money because I was planning to buy a downtown condo unit before reading his articles but now I’ll be watching and waiting, I am a lucky guy who is able to read Rich’s articles before making
April 9, 2006 @ 8:08 AM
Professor – You have done a
Professor – You have done a thorough job of documenting the housing situation in San Diego. I have not been there in years and am thus uable to critique any of your findings. “Data” is helpful, but I believe it is also necessary to evaluate nuance, which must be observed first hand, to fully evaluate the circumstances of the marketplace.
However, it is worth noting that, in all “bubble manias,” the top is often marked by anger from participants, directed at those who question the investment du jour, housing, in this case. That doubters, previously dismissed as cranks, who “just didn’t get it,” are now the subject of shrill denounciation, scorn and anger, is, in my view, the final argument in favor of an unsustainable financial mania.
That the tenor of discussion has begun to degrade and reflect the dawning realization from bubble participants that financial trouble may indeed be imminent, is, perhaps, evidence enough to end the debate.