patrick.net

dunnross says

Bigsby says

Those growth rates dropped 3% pretty quickly.

Yes, I checked the data. There are a few over 8%, but 5% is still much better than where we are right now. We are actually in a negative real growth period, spending $1.6T to grow $300B anually.

It's also a very small number of economies and presumably mainly those starting from a low base or being fueled by a resources boom.

dunnross says

No, the renters are going to benefit from defaults. The losers will be the
banks, the home owners and the bond holders.

OK. Because if you say so, it must be true.

So, let's follow the money then. When banks go bust, where is that money coming from? When bond holders go bust, who actually owned the bonds? Retirement acccounts, perhaps? And might renters be invested in those?

dunnross says

No it's not. The graph below shows the California affordability chart, when
you take into account the loans which were available at the various periods. The
CAR graph doesn't take that into account, which is the BS. This one is for
real:

First--are we only speaking of CA.?

Second--who says that the median income should be able to afford the median home? 40% of the folks rent. So, we're talking about the top 60% who are buyers. And some percentage of those folks bought 20 years ago and probably couldn't afford their home today.

So that whole graphic is nonsense

egads101 says

Meanwhile, how much are home prices up in California? Az is up 68%

But I showed you all that I was shorting gold during that time.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Didn't you just do the same. Just saying...

No. You might notice that I wasn't ignoring the comment by Roberto, I was responding to Dunnross. Just saying. But hey, paint me unsurprised you popped up to start trolling.