If the seller is fifth in line above, then that $500,000 had been lent to several others before him. It's like renting a one BR apartment to several individual renters. Now that is typically considered to be fraud.
I don't think so. Look--our current banking system has many issues. It is way too big and adds very little value to the overall economy. But, fractional reserve lending is nothing like renting a 1BR apartment to several individual renters. The money being leant out is real and tangible. It's the deposit that isn't really there on demand.
Yes, they get the check that says $500,000. And the receiving bank recognizes the money as being there. But in the above example, only $100,000 was ever really there. You seem to be arguing that the $900,000 of created money is also there. In the case of the condo sale, that $500,000 likely had been lent to others already before the seller receives it.
Nope--I'm saying that that money is there. The $500K is real and truly there. It's the depositor's money that isn't really in the bank.
Where Bernie has money issues, Trump doesn't have that problem, not to mention where Trump sits in the polls... Biden is catching up to Bernie in the polls, and Biden isn't officially running yet...
Do you take that as a hint?
Bernie was always an extreme longshot. He's leading New Hampshire, which is much more than anyone expected from him. If he wins there, it will be interesting where it goes next, but he is still an extreme longshot. His only real chance is if Hillary implodes.
Which is why it's become eerily quiet here by a certain group of people.
Do I have to come in to every thread about Donald and cheer him on? I'm ecstatic that he's doing so well. The Donald is getting loads and loads of press coverage, so I'm not sure what Mr. Happy is complaining about--I'm sure many of the other candidates would love to get covered like he has been...
I think I understand what you are saying....If it is something that you believe in, then findings can be well within the range of statistical noise, no where close to an own organization's standards for statistical significance, but it is still not "meaningless." You know it, therefore it's true. Or in other words, "Look, a squirrel!"
You would only think that if you were trying to be cute or disingenuous. The point is that just because something doesn't meet the criteria for statistical significance at a 99% confidence level doesn't mean that there the temperature measurement is meaningless or that you can't notice a trend.
The data is available on Redfin. You can see sales records with dates, and listings with # days on Redfin. Simple arithmetic, if more homes are coming on the market than are being sold or pulled off market then the # for sale will increase over time.
I think the disconnect between the data sets is your using of "new" listings and assuming they are all different houses coming to market. In reality, I expect that many of them are old listings being refreshed. Realtors like to do this so that people who are looking online for only new listings will see older listings.
Translation: 'Since I know absolutely nothing about basic statistics, therefore neither can you. That's why I read neither the article nor the OP itself mentioning the 'uncertainty' [site note for Tat: Also known as statistical significance] in the data. I certainly don't understand it, so I will react by indignant bluffing - saying that it is you who doesn't understand it. That's what adults do.'
lol--nope, I understand that saying it's not statisitically significant to a 95% confidence level is NOT the same as saying:
"So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set."