According to Economists --Manhattan RE actually undervalued?

"How in teh WORLD does the 12X ratio account for my time horizon? You mean, there are different ratios for different time horizons? You mean, there are different ratios to account for the difference between the interest rates on a comforming and a jumbo mortage? You mean, it's not as simple as 12X ratio?"

BGaria, you're really stretching now - as with the rest of the bulls, you're attempting to turn the ratio into something it isn't. It's not a predictor of future prices. It's the mean to which the trend always reverts.

"Your supporting data for that statement is what exactly, steve?"

http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp14_housing_financial

"Care to define "very much" for us?"

"there is no 30% tax bracket, and I never said there was."

No you didn't. I was referring to your fantastical "marginal tax rate" theory.

Yes. In the country as a whole, since the end of WWII, on a moving average basis, owner-occupied residential real estate has increased in value 1.2% real per year, right along with incomes. (Robert Shiller)

"BGaria, you're really stretching now - as with the rest of the bulls, you're attempting to turn the ratio into something it isn't. It's not a predictor of future prices. It's the mean to which the trend always reverts."

I am a bull? Didn't know that about myself. You are bearish, but the fact that I am arguing with you doesn't make me bullish. I have said that, in my humble opinion, prices are going down and will continue to go down for at least 12-18 months, with at least 15% retracement from the peak... How does that make me bullish?

So, again, if i go out and buy in Manhattan today, at today's prices, with a 50 year-time horizon, I am doing nothing wrong? I am buying my home at a price I can afford... What do I care where prices are in 2 years?

"It's not a predictor of future prices."

Really? Where, in any of my real or hypothetical examples, have I used it as a predictor?

You are using the 12X to "show" that prices are going down because they properties cost more than 12X today. So, are you using the 12X ratio as a "predictor"? Because the 12X ratio is not a predictor, you know...

What in that link supports your theory that most people max out their mortgage capability? That site said that 30% of homes are not mortgaged and the median ownership cost was around 22% of income.

Growth in Manhattan real estate values for the last 40 years - 8-9% annualized. Undeniable.

BGaria: "Where, in any of my real or hypothetical examples, have I used it as a predictor?"

BGaria: "I decieded to cut my losses and offred it at 12 times annual rent, or 331,200. However, nobody can afford to buy it, because at 8%, the monthly expenses of the owner are 2,594. What happened? I followed your method, did nothing wrong... Bought at 12X annual rent because that was the equilibrium, the fail-safe prie to buy... How did I lose money??"

stevejhx: "How did I lose money" = an implied proposition that the 12x ratio would have told you that you were going to make money. It will not.

LICC: "Growth in Manhattan real estate values for the last 40 years - 8-9% annualized. Undeniable."

Yup. From close to the nadir of prices in 1968 to the acme in 2008, for one apartment in what was in 1968 a marginal neighborhood.

UNDENIABLE!

"That site said that 30% of homes are not mortgaged and the median ownership cost was around 22% of income."

Right. The maximum you can finance is usually 28%, sometimes to 32%. Incomes rise over time, so over time the percentage ownership cost will fall. Ergo, lots were maxed out when they bought.

UNDENIABLE!

Not only in the past, but 40 years into the future, as well. Because past performance is an accurate predictor of future performance.

Right?

While I think there is some validity to Steve's 12 X Rent statement, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. What I mean by this is, for the most part, the apartments you rent for 2500/month are in much worse shape and in much worse buidlings than the apartment you may buy and spent 3500/month for. I know that there will always be an apartment somebody can post here to show the exception to the rule, but it really is an exception to the rule.

Clearly some apartments in certain neighborhoods are overpriced and they will be hit harder than reasonably priced apartments in better neighborhoods. I am not talking about the $5 million apartments, more of your $500k to $2 million apartments. Trying to compare crashes of the past need to also be taken with a grain of salt for 2 reasons:

1. NYC is a much better city today than it was in 1985. Crime is nowhere near what it was, tourism is still strong and there is a far better quality of life in NYC now than most people could have imagined in 1985. Will there be some challenges to this quality going forward? Sure. But is Avenue B going to be filled with vacant buildings, crack dens and rubble? No it is not.

2. Rents are going higher at an increased rate than in years past as well. More and more apartments are losing their stabilized status and landlords are giving people as much of an increase as they can. Again, there will be exceptions to this rule, but landlords will push the envelope with rents as far as they possibly can. Owning gives one freedom from this and an opportunity to live in a nicer apartment that is in a ncier building. I don't know where some of you guys rent apartments, but the ones that I rented before buying were all significantly worse building with almost zero ammenities and supers that couldn't be bothered to fix anything. That is the rental apartment of most NYers.

Buying a reasonably priced apartment in a good neighborhood is still a good choice. It just takes more work to find that deal. Thankfully, buyers will have more leverage to negotiate today than 2 years ago. Finally, I do think there will be a little more softening of prices, but the bottom is not going to fall. No one is going to be able to get a 2BR in the West Village for $500k. It is just not going to come apart like that.

"an implied proposition that the 12x ratio would have told you that you were going to make money. It will not."

In that axample, I didn't expect to make money. I didn't expect to lose over 10% in two years either. Why does that matter, you ask.. I bought a home which I could afford and can still afford, so what do I care where prices are two years after the purchase?

So, please, answer: if i go out and buy in Manhattan today, at today's prices, with a 50 year-time horizon, I am doing nothing wrong? I am buying my home at a price I can afford... What do I care where prices are in 2 years?

"if i go out and buy in Manhattan today, at today's prices, with a 50 year-time horizon, I am doing nothing wrong?"

How could anybody possibly answer whether you're doing something wrong with a 50-year time horizon? That would be like asking someone in 1945 what he thought the cell phone business would look like in 1995. It's a stupid question that warrants no answer.

"Not only in the past, but 40 years into the future, as well. Because past performance is an accurate predictor of future performance.

Right?"

By your own logic, yes. How did you get the 12X to begin with? Wasn't that the mean? Isn't the mean based on historical data?

In 1960, when the rent for the avreage home nationwide was $68, it probably would have sounded crazy to suggest that in 2000, the rent for the average home would be $650.

But there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that can happen again. There is NO WAY the rent for an average home nationwide would be about $6200 in 2040.

Right?

BGaria, now you're just getting annoying by asking stupid questions.

How I got the 12x is detailed in the thread. Read it. It was also proven by Fortune magazine. Google it.

"How could anybody possibly answer whether you're doing something wrong with a 50-year time horizon? That would be like asking someone in 1945 what he thought the cell phone business would look like in 1995. It's a stupid question that warrants no answer."

I am 31 years old and I am stupid for asking myself where I would live in 40-50 years, when I am retired? Should I be thinking about my SEP IRA at all, or is that stupid too? Who knows, maybe everything will be a lot cheaper in 50 years, and I will be able to get by on 100 bucks a year...

But anyway, what should my time horizon be? 5 years? 15? 20? 30?

BGaria,

Let me try: next 5 years, it's highly unlikely you'll see nominal prices higher than it is today - likely it will go down and slowly inch back up with inflation.

Given this, it makes little to no sense if your holding time is 5 years (coz you can rent for half the price)

If your holding time is 50 yrs, you'll likely do well with ANY investment class - house, land, equity, hedge funds, etc. So, you're fine. Go invest where you feel most comfortable.

From further up the thread...

"the "12x" ratio is directly correlated to the ratio between PITI and rent: PITI = 30% of gross income for housing expenses; rent = 40x monthly rent."

All this tells me that you can spend no more than 30% of your gross income on housing, be it renting or buying. I don't need Fortune Magazine to prove that to me. It's common knowledge.

I wonder if Fortune Magazine proved that property should be priced in a way that every renter MUST BE ABLE to afford buying it. The way things are now, many people can afford to rent in Manhattan but not every single one of them can afford buying a comp place in Manhattan. And I don't see what's wrong with that.

If your rent a 2-BR in Manhattan at 5,000/month, nobody is stopping you from buying a 720,000-dollar property in Brooklyn. I don't understand why it's the 2-BR in Manhattan that SHOULD cost 720k.

You have tried to explain it by saying that you are effectively getting the same thing (a place to live), and if the output is the same, then the cost must be the same. But that doesn't make any sense, because the output is not the same. After 30 years of living there and paying a mortgage, you own the place, but after 30 years of living there and paying rent, you don't own it. Also, even you admit that 2500 in rent is not the same thing as 2500 in mortgage payment, CC and RE tax. So, even the immidiate nominal cost (the monthly cost to live there in the first year) is not the same.

By the way, your example (the one you post on pretty much every thread), only works because the numbers are picked arbitrarily: 2500 for rent, 300 CC and 350 RE tax.

Let's change it up. Let's say 2500 rent, 600 CC and 400 RE tax. Does the 12X ratio still work? Nope. You can't afford to pay 360,000k for that palce on your income.

Thanks, Eric. I understand that and completely agree with you.

But according to Steve, it's stupid for a 31-year old to have a 40-50 year planning/investment horizon, and that I disagree with 100%.

eric, why do you keep holding to this "you can rent at half the price" mantra? That just isn't true in today's market.

Actually, the "real" price increase for real estate from 1960 to mid-2008 has been fairly modest as inflation for that full period averaged 4.23%.

That said, real estate has still been a fine investment as you have also gotten the imputed rental income as well.

"If your holding time is 50 yrs, you'll likely do well with ANY investment class - house, land, equity, hedge funds, etc. So, you're fine. Go invest where you feel most comfortable."

Wrong according to stevejhx Manhattan RE never really appreciates. If it does, it does so at a very nominal rate, maybe at best .007%

"I wonder if Fortune Magazine proved that property should be priced in a way that every renter MUST BE ABLE to afford buying it."

Rents and property prices are nearly 100% correlated over time.

"The way things are now, many people can afford to rent in Manhattan but not every single one of them can afford buying a comp place in Manhattan. And I don't see what's wrong with that."

Because purchasing a home is a capitalized expense. The reason to capitalize a long-term expense is to lock in a low price. When the price is high, you are locking in an overpayment.

"But that doesn't make any sense, because the output is not the same. After 30 years of living there and paying a mortgage, you own the place, but after 30 years of living there and paying rent, you don't own it."

While true, that is a simplistic argument, because over time you have the opportunity cost of not investing your down payment elsewhere. Using historic long-term yields that exceeds the equity in your home.

"Let's change it up."

Fine. I picked what I believed were market figures for psf common charges & NYC property tax rates. Pick any other numbers you want - all you're proving with your "changed up" example is that the price on a particular unit is too high/low compared to comparable rentals.

There are many other factors, as well, including the increased risk in owning versus renting and the maintenance costs of owning, for instance.

Go BGaria! I have nothing against you Stevejhx, but sometimes it's not what you're saying it how you're saying it that makes you a bit of an ass.

I just have this crazy comical image of a a boxing match where BGaria is just standing there with one hand on your forhead as you try to punch right, punch left, punch right...to no avail.

grunty - the problem as you state it is that I'm an ass because BGaria doesn't understand something that is documented everywhere?

If so, that's okay by me.

"While true, that is a simplistic argument, because over time you have the opportunity cost of not investing your down payment elsewhere."

steve, you keep repeating this argument even though it has been addressed and countered. Your opportunity cost is offset by the appreciation in value of your home. You make a baseless claim that historic long-term yields exceed home equity, buy you can't support that claim.

"While true, that is a simplistic argument, because over time you have the opportunity cost of not investing your down payment elsewhere. Using historic long-term yields that exceeds the equity in your home."

Thank you for at least admitting that much. A few guys on here keep saying how they are paying half the carrying costs of their landlords. Yes, they pay 50% less to rent than it would cost to own, but that's apples to oranges. They pay 50% less for something entirely different.

On a different note, as soon as I say that real estate has appreciated at over 6% in nominal terms since 1960, you question the applicability if that number to the future. For example, if I said that the your 2-BR in Chelsea will rent out at about 42,000/month in 2048, you would probably jump up 3 feet in the air.

But you have no propblem using historical data for your opportunity cost.

Anyway, please name a few asset classes which have out-performed real estate since 1960. And even if you can, how does that exclude RE from a balanced portfolio?

"Because purchasing a home is a capitalized expense. The reason to capitalize a long-term expense is to lock in a low price. When the price is high, you are locking in an overpayment."

100% true. But all that tells me is that on a longer time-line (20, 30+ years), you will not make as much as you would if you bought the place cheaper. And I won't argue on that. No matter when or when or how, it's always better to pay less for something.

However, in no way does it "prove" that buying today is a losing proposition in the "long term". Also, you are "locking in" and overpayment only if you never get a chance to refinance at a cheaper rate.

Anyway, I once again don't see what the problem is. Isn't that the way RE is supposed to work? Aside from potential appreciation, one of the benefits of owning is "locking in" your monthly expense for housing (you have to live somewhere). Doesn't that warrant a premium? Why should a renter be able to lock in today's rent and not his would-be rent in X years.

Prices are headed higher..look for a 15-20% ramp up in 2009 when all the sideline buyers realize the market is heading higher.

BGarcia going back 50 years is not enough for stevejhx. You need to go back 200 years. Stevejhx has shown everyone that for the past 200 years Manhattan RE has hardly appreciated. If of course you consider .007% per year appreciation.

steveF = perfitz

"They pay 50% less for something entirely different."

No - they pay 50% for something entirely the same - a place to live.

"On a different note, as soon as I say that real estate has appreciated at over 6% in nominal terms since 1960, you question the applicability if that number to the future. For example, if I said that the your 2-BR in Chelsea will rent out at about 42,000/month in 2048, you would probably jump up 3 feet in the air."

Two points, okay three: my cat is sitting on my lap so I'm not going to jump.

That was point 3. Point 1 is that I don't know where you get the 6% nominal figure from, what it relates to, or how it's calculated. It may in fact be true - I do not reject it.

Point 2: the price of real estate will go up with incomes over time. But no one can make a projection 50 years into the past. What you can do is go 50 years into the past and analyze the trends, and make short- to medium-term predictions. But 50 years into the future is nonsense.

Sorry.

houser, 0.7% is the Robert Shiller moving average data from 1900, in real terms, not 0.07%. And his data are 1.2% from the end of WWII, real terms. Like it or not, those are the data, and if you look at the chart you will find that real estate is cyclical.

make a projection 50 years into the past = future.

Ooops!

Oh so you are equate Schiller index to Manhattan Real Estate and splashing it all over the place as part of your analysis. I never thought Schiller index applied exclusively to Manhattan.

BGaria, there has been a lot of discussion on these boards whether ownership merits a premium. I'm not sure it's proven over a long period of time. Certain periods, in fact, would appear to warrant a premium for renting: you can get out of your contract within a year, you have no capital at risk, and you can benefit from falling prices. You also don't need to repair / maintain your space. Additionally, owning requires transaction costs, which would suggest if anything that there should be a discount built into the monthly carry. So I don't think there should market-wide be a premium paid for ownership. That said, I understand why an individual buyer might be willing to pay a premium in a particular transaction.

And because you rent you don't have to worry about living with the Landlords taste in appliances, cabinets or pink carpets. You don't need to worry about your rent being bumped up the following year by 20% nor do you have to worry about the rare case that your apt appreciates during the five years you have been renting there. Nor do you have to worry about any tax benefits, equity , and getting called at anytime so your apt can be shown to total strangers for the landlord might want to sell it.

"equate Schiller index to Manhattan Real Estate"

Shiller's data include only single-family homes, so they are immaterial from an absolute standpoint to Manhattan prices. However, it is unlikely that there is a long-term difference between the price of houses and the price of apartments and, if anything, the price of houses would have gone up more since more people think them desirable.

Moreover, Shiller traced the price of a single property in Amsterdam back 350 years, and obtained the same result. This because the price of owner-occupied real estate is constrained by income growth.

"you don't have to worry about living with the Landlords taste in appliances, cabinets or pink carpets."

At what price?

"You don't need to worry about your rent being bumped up the following year by 20% nor do you have to worry about the rare case that your apt appreciates during the five years you have been renting there."

You can also ask for a rent reduction in a falling rental market.

"Nor do you have to worry about any tax benefits, equity"

Nor do you have to worry about a loss of equity in a falling market. Check out Chelsea Stratus and other new developments slashing prices.

"and getting called at anytime so your apt can be shown to total strangers"

Only if you give notice.

"for the landlord might want to sell it."

Most if not all conversion plans are noneviction plans.

So much for your brilliant arguments, houser.

steve, your responses to houser are really weak. Many people place a great value on being able to decide and control for themselves these aspects of their living environment.
You make it sound like you think rents and home prices go down just as often or as much as they go up. That is just ludicrous.
What does "Only if you give notice" mean? If your lease is up and the landlord wants to show the apartment, what does your notice have to do with it?
Conversion plans? Ok, I'll finish laughing . . . now, do you claim that owners of investment properties only sell on conversions? Weird.

"So much for your brilliant arguments, houser." - So you had to include a jackass statement at the end? Because, that's just your style?

"steve, your responses to houser are really weak."

Thank you for your valued opinion!

"You make it sound like you think rents and home prices go down just as often or as much as they go up."

No. I said and have always said that over long periods of time they increase at a very slow rate.

"do you claim that owners of investment properties only sell on conversions?"

No - I said that for the most part if the building you rent in a rent-regulated building, you can't be kicked out.

"jackass statement"

From a man who claims he's never rude unless someone has been rude to him first!

steveF (aka the ponzi guy): you remind me of the guys who spam random fax machines with stock tips in the hope of pumping and dumping stocks. clearly not illegal, but ponzi scheme nonetheless.

btw, how long has your overpriced condo been sitting in the market?

Houser, yes, there are clearly downsides to renting, and they are well-documented! Most people intuitively understand the downsides to renting. But in a flat or rising market, as we've had for the past several years in Manhattan, most people forget that sometimes for some people in some places renting makes more sense. We are entering a period where arguably the attractiveness of renting is on the rise.

steve, you have been rude and obnoxious to me, as well as to just about everyone you disagree with, many, many times before I ever responded back negatively to you. That being said, you made a completely gratuitous sarcastic, jackass statement to someone out of nowhere, and I simply asked why.

"So much for your brilliant arguments, houser." = "you made a completely gratuitous sarcastic, jackass statement to someone out of nowhere"

Wow! Seems I am evil, LICC!

"No - they pay 50% for something entirely the same - a place to live."

Back to square one, I guess...

How exactly is 2500 in rent the same thing as 1850 mortgage + 300 CC + 350 RE tax? For two people with the same income (100k/year), is the 2500 out of their pocket treated differently for tax purposes? Would their tax returns be the same? Would the actual dollar amount of their taxes be the same? If not, they are not paying for the same amount for the same thing.

I am not saying that the owner would necessarily be "better off" than the renter. The renter could invest the money he didn't have to put down as a downpayment/transaction costs and get great returns on it that year. However, it still doesn't change the fact the two $2500-payments are not the same and they don't get you the same thing. Which one is better is an entirely different story...

BGaria, you said, "Yes, they pay 50% less to rent than it would cost to own, but that's apples to oranges. They pay 50% less for something entirely different."

Now you say, "How exactly is 2500 in rent the same thing as 1850 mortgage + 300 CC + 350 RE tax?"

Those are two different questions.

I have NO DOUBT that sometimes it's better to buy than to rent, and vice versa. I do both. But "However, it still doesn't change the fact the two $2500-payments are not the same and they don't get you the same thing" is not the premise you put forth above.

Make up your mind. What do you want to discuss?

Oh sorry, Steve. Did someone get off-topic?

OK, so we are in agreement that 2500 in rent is not the same thing as 1850 mortgage + 300 CC + 350 RE tax?

Let's say that your rent is 4500/month and your landlord's carrying costs are 9000/month (7000 mortgage + 1000 CC + 1000 RE tax). A unlikely scenario, if you have lived there since 2004, but let's go with that.

How is 4500 "half" of 7000 mortgage + 1000 CC + 1000 RE tax? Again, I am not saying that the owner is better off in the short term OR the long term. It seems that the renter is better off this year. But you can't compare the two payments. When you guys file your tax return in 6 months, 4500 in rent will NOT be half of 7000 mortgage + 1000 CC + 1000 RE tax. The output is not the same either. You get to live in that place but the owner doesn't. He gets to own it down the road, you don't.

"How is 4500 "half" of 7000 mortgage + 1000 CC + 1000 RE tax?"

$7,000 + $1,000 + $1,000 = $9,000 = $4,500 x 2.

"But you can't compare the two payments. When you guys file your tax return in 6 months, 4500 in rent will NOT be half of 7000 mortgage + 1000 CC + 1000 RE tax."

No. Because I can't afford a $9,000 monthly payment based on PITI - therefore, I CAN'T take that tax deduction. Therefore it doesn't exist for me.

"A unlikely scenario."

Unfortunately, it's not. Just look at Chelsea Stratus & see the difference between asking prices and rental prices on a cash-flow basis. Twice or more to buy.

And the vast majority of new dev is like that.

"The output is not the same either"

It is if it's owner-occupied; if it's rented out, then the economics are different.

" Because I can't afford a $9,000 monthly payment based on PITI - therefore, I CAN'T take that tax deduction. "

Is that your problem or the owner's problem? Did Fortune Magazine prove that the renter must have the same income as the owner? In the last 7 years, I have had 2 different tenants in the unit that I rent out, and neither one made even close to what to I am making. My current tenant can afford to rent but cannot afford to buy my place. He can afford to buy a smaller one in Manhattan or something outside Manhattan though, and he WILL get a tax deduction if he chooses to buy something within his budget. I don't have to lower the price of my apartment to meet his budget.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this picture.

"Unfortunately, it's not. Just look at Chelsea Stratus & see the difference between asking prices and rental prices on a cash-flow basis. Twice or more to buy."

Even though you only give a single building as an example, I don't doubt it one bit. Again, I don't see what's wrong with that from an economics perspective.

"It is if it's owner-occupied; if it's rented out, then the economics are different."

OK, now you make up your mind what exactly we are discussing.

"I see absolutely nothing wrong with this picture."

BGaria, that's fine - if it's "what you see." However, it is not how the real-estate market behaves over time. It will revert to the mean, as it always does.

"now you make up your mind what exactly we are discussing."

I've always made up my mind - you're the one switching. Owner-occupied residential real estate over time costs out-of-pocket the same as market rents. Therefore, to make money in investment real estate, you have to break even from the get-go, else you're locking in a long-term loss, unless the market keeps going up and up forever, which it can't.

"Therefore, to make money in investment real estate, you have to break even from the get-go, else you're locking in a long-term loss"

Couldn't disagree more. I bought in 2001 and I have most definitely not lost money although I wasn't breaking even in the first year.

Or is 7 years not long-term enough? Please define long term.

"unless the market keeps going up and up forever, which it can't."

It absolutely cannot go up "forever" (whatever that means) IN A STRAIGHT LINE. Will real estate appreciate between now and "forever"? Absoluetly, 100% yes.

It will appreciate "forever" even by your own model. People's incomes will go up over time, they can afford to pay more rent, prices go up because of the 12X ratio...

Unless you assume that we are in recession "forever", of course...

"Owner-occupied residential real estate over time costs out-of-pocket the same as market rents."

Can you please show me what data you are using and how you define "over time". You might have posted it before, but I have only been on here for a couple of weeks and I have missed it. Thanks.

"I bought in 2001 and I have most definitely not lost money although I wasn't breaking even in the first year."

Because you were lucky enough to time a bubble. Try it again.

"Over time" = long-term.

"Owner-occupied residential real estate over time costs out-of-pocket the same as market rents."

Because it has to because they are both correlated to incomes, which set what people can afford to buy or rent.

In another thread long ago I posted the source - can't find it right now & I have a deadline, but it said (intuitively true, as well) that people are not long willing to pay more to own than to rent, and they switch back and forth depending on the affordability.

wow, I didn't know that Manhattan was undervalued in 2008. I clearly missed that boat.

Where's spunky?

"Hand the ball to the ref and get off the field."
- Barry Sanders on his father's instructions for celebrating a touchdown.

West81st, always loved that quote, as well as "Look like you've been there before and like you'll be there again." (think it was, unfortunately, Jason Giambi, about hitting a HR). It seems to fall on deaf ears here though. Oh well.

bjw: I've seen both lines attributed to Jim Brown. IIRC, he was the elder Sanders' hero.

West81st, I got a sense of deja-vu for a reason!

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/5284-anecdotal-evidence-from-someone-in-the-trenches

Wow - eleven months. How time flies. Yet we're still watching the same end zone dances.

No kidding, doesn't seem that long ago. Some people just need to be loved, no?

but they're not really dances in the end zones (ok maybe by some). they're still defensive plays, with big hulking steroidal offensive linemen. and that i think is what keeps me going. i'm so f'ng tired of being a bear i could scream. but i think the media, and the financial firms, and the powers that be, rely upon that. they want people to misbehave, they need people to, at least in the short to mid-term. and it pisses me off that people are being vilified for ostensibly causing the situation at the same time they are being fiscally prodded to perpetuate the situation.

and as someone wise once said, being right early is not the same as being right. but you can't always account for all of the efforts to continue the status quo. naive, that's what i was. weary is what i'm now.