3 ms·

I'm not sure "nothing is a bubble" is the proper reaction to "everything is a bubble". Do you have any rebuttals for the specific data mentioned in the article

I'm not sure "nothing is a bubble" is the proper reaction to "everything is a bubble". Do you have any rebuttals for the specific data mentioned in the article (surge in housing inventory, price cuts and falling asking prices)?

vasilipupkin 8y ago
why does specific data need a rebuttal?
- moorhosj 8y ago
  You are contending there is not a bubble, while the data presented indicates that there is a bubble. I was wondering if you had any data or analysis to back up your "no bubble" assertion or rebut the "bubble" assertion?
  - vasilipupkin 8y ago
    sorry, where did I make an assertion that there is no bubble? you must be confusing me with some other article?
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      You said to ignore the person who presented the argument that there is a bubble.
      - Kalium 8y ago
        You're right! The poster did say that. Some might mark a distinction between "there is no bubble" and "this author's predictions of when there is a bubble are not reliable or trustworthy". The former is a pretty strong claim, requiring precisely the sort of clear and specific evidence you have wisely and correctly called for. The latter point suggests that the author should not be taken as authoritative and the evidence they present for their argument is not to be taken seriously. As a side effect, this means that the question at hand - bubble or not - remains unaddressed.
sobellian 8y ago
His data is mostly what you mentioned for the last few time intervals on his graphs, plus highlighting things in red when "underlying dynamics" change (conveniently exactly where he wants to make his point). Markets are never monotonic, and the actual fundamentals for strong house prices (employment, tax advantages, etc) probably haven't changed enough for a huge burst. He could be right, but he's more likely wrong.
masonic 8y ago
Statements like "before the Nasdaq craters (later in 2019)" are not data.

vasilipupkin 8y ago

why does specific data need a rebuttal?

moorhosj 8y ago
You are contending there is not a bubble, while the data presented indicates that there is a bubble. I was wondering if you had any data or analysis to back up your "no bubble" assertion or rebut the "bubble" assertion?
- vasilipupkin 8y ago
  sorry, where did I make an assertion that there is no bubble? you must be confusing me with some other article?
  - moorhosj 8y ago
    You said to ignore the person who presented the argument that there is a bubble.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      You're right! The poster did say that. Some might mark a distinction between "there is no bubble" and "this author's predictions of when there is a bubble are not reliable or trustworthy". The former is a pretty strong claim, requiring precisely the sort of clear and specific evidence you have wisely and correctly called for. The latter point suggests that the author should not be taken as authoritative and the evidence they present for their argument is not to be taken seriously. As a side effect, this means that the question at hand - bubble or not - remains unaddressed.

sobellian 8y ago

His data is mostly what you mentioned for the last few time intervals on his graphs, plus highlighting things in red when "underlying dynamics" change (conveniently exactly where he wants to make his point). Markets are never monotonic, and the actual fundamentals for strong house prices (employment, tax advantages, etc) probably haven't changed enough for a huge burst. He could be right, but he's more likely wrong.

masonic 8y ago

Statements like "before the Nasdaq craters (later in 2019)" are not data.