Bubble Bubble. can you spot the bubble [W:153]

[specklebang]

Vern. I'm a businessman and you're an engineer. To you, it's the diagram, to me it's the event. The data from your charts is flawed because it is based entirely on the dates of recording, not the original transactions. You're obviously not here to learn anything, you've chosen to be a hyper-partisan and your mind is completely closed. So, I won't waste any more of our time trying to explain this to you.

I see you are fixated on the "Bush Mortgage Bubble". Why? Did you buy a house in 2005? Car repair and "Bush Mortgage Bubble"? You really are an "odd duck"

You've been polite enough. However, you are too resistant to learning for us to hold a fruitful conversation. Please don't ask me to represent you in your conversation with Fenton. That's your responsibility, not mine. Also, please put me on your ignore list and I will do the same for you.

Thank you.

now you're disputing Case Shiller and OFHEO data? You've "illustrated it" (my choice of words is "flailed at it"). Now back it up.

speaking of flailing, maybe you can tell Fenton his irrelevant quotes don't change the facts.

 

[dnsmith]

Oh dn, you cling to that graph as your life depended on it. You have yet to explain how the one metric " home prices vs OER" is the proof of a bubble. You have some theory about "housing inflation" but you've supplied no details. Also you refuse to acknowledge the graphs in this thread showing exactly what a bubble looks like. the graphs clearly show a bubble starting in 2004. and thats in addition to Bush's working group telling you it started late 2004 , the actual mortgage data showing it started in 2004 and Fannie mae's mortgage data showing it started 2004. And you have to ignore that defaults started rising in mid 2005. your silly theory about "housing inflation" has to pretend the dramatic rise in defaults started in 2008.

so dn, I dont ignore your price vs OER graph, I just dismiss it as irrelevent (if its even true). Home price appreciation (or as you like to say "housing inflation" as if it makes it sound more evil) doesnt destroy the economy of the planet. We now know home price appreciation based on an influx of unqualified buyers does destroy the economy of the planet.

Price vs Owner-equivalent rent is the price to value method of determining inflation in real estate. If you are not aware of it, you are trying to discuss a subject without sufficient knowledge. The best evaluation for any piece of housing real estate is OER.

Definition of 'Owners' Equivalent Rent - OER'
The amount of rent that could be paid to substitute a currently owned house for an equivalent rental property. Owners' equivalent rent (OER) is a dollar amount that is published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure the change in implicit rent, which is the amount a homeowner would pay to rent or would earn from renting his or her home in a competitive market.

Investopedia explains 'Owners' Equivalent Rent - OER'
When evaluating housing and shelter, owners' equivalent rent of a primary residence is one of the two main components of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures the average change over time in the prices paid by consumers for a market basket of goods and services. The other component is rent of a primary residence.

Homeownership equivalents attempt to include monetary factors such as prevailing interest rates, property taxes, available mortgage products and insurance to estimate changes in shelter costs.

 

[Vern]

Vern. I'm a businessman and you're an engineer. To you, it's the diagram, to me it's the event. The data from your charts is flawed because it is based entirely on the dates of recording, not the original transactions. You're obviously not here to learn anything, you've chosen to be a hyper-partisan and your mind is completely closed. So, I won't waste any more of our time trying to explain this to you.

I see you are fixated on the "Bush Mortgage Bubble". Why? Did you buy a house in 2005? Car repair and "Bush Mortgage Bubble"? You really are an "odd duck"

You've been polite enough. However, you are too resistant to learning for us to hold a fruitful conversation. Please don't ask me to represent you in your conversation with Fenton. That's your responsibility, not mine. Also, please put me on your ignore list and I will do the same for you.

Thank you.

Speckle, see how you made it about me instead of the facts. oh, you did it more smoothly than the other cons but you did it . It’s a classic conservative dodge and you did it well. But its only purpose is to deflect from the facts I’ve posted. Humor me Speckle, how does me posting actual facts and disputing your easily disputed anecdotal ‘stories’ make me “hyper partisan”?

Now speckle, you made a statement about the data in Case Shiller and OFHEO data being a year old. I asked you to back it up. You simply reiterated it. No shock to me, that’s just another classic conservative maneuver. (I’ve seen them all and you’ve pretty much done them all responding to me).

and fyi, as I already stated I bought my house in the 90s in NY and it pretty much follows the HPI I posted for NY.

 

[Vern]

Price vs Owner-equivalent rent is the price to value method of determining inflation in real estate. If you are not aware of it, you are trying to discuss a subject without sufficient knowledge. The best evaluation for any piece of housing real estate is OER.
.

no Dn, you dont have to explain OER to me. You have to explain how that proves a bubble (you just reiterated it proves a bubble). And you have to explain how why your 'theory' has to ignore defaults shooting up mid 2005 (your theory is defaults strarted after the recession). You have to explain how you get to ignore Bush's working group, the fed, actual mortgage data concerning subprime and No Docs and actual loan data from Fannie mae. Oh and you have to explain those spectacular graphs at the start of the thread clearly showing what a bubble looks like.

But like all cons, you simply ignore the facts. I especially like the way you dont want to discuss foreclosures anymore.

 

[Fenton]

now you're disputing Case Shiller and OFHEO data? You've "illustrated
it" (my choice of words is "flailed at it"). Now back it up.

speaking of flailing, maybe you can tell Fenton his irrelevant quotes don't change the facts.

Oh I responded with MUCH MORE than a quotes ( you cried like a little girl that they were too wordy ) ,and your " facts " only work in VERN world.

A pathetic sliver of delusion that blames Bush for the Democrat mandated Bubble and Obama's economic failure.

You said Bush did nothing, and I showed you multiple attemps by his administration that proved he was the ONLY person who TRIED to do anything.

Then I posted the Slimey Democrats and their lies as they sat in front of Republican Chaired committees and swore Fannie and Freddie were solvent .

Scumbags. Lowlifes.

So why don't you post another silly graph, or the same 3 links youv'e been posting for months now.

I'll keep posting the truth, just so I can make you just a little more miserable than you already are.

 

[Fenton]

Vern. I'm a businessman and you're an engineer. To you, it's the diagram, to me it's the event. The data from
your charts is flawed because it is based entirely on the dates of recording, not the original transactions. You're obviously not here to learn anything, you've chosen to be a hyper-partisan and your mind is completely closed. So, I won't waste any more of our time trying to explain this to you.

I see you are fixated on the "Bush Mortgage Bubble". Why? Did you buy a house in 2005? Car repair and "Bush Mortgage Bubble"? You really are an "odd duck"

You've been polite enough. However, you are too resistant to learning for us to hold a fruitful conversation. Please don't ask me to represent you in your conversation with Fenton. That's your responsibility, not mine. Also, please put me on your ignore list and I will do the same for you.

Thank you.

I have my suspicions about the nature of VERNs odd behaviour simply because he reminds me of another poster on another forum.

Lets just say IF he is truly a engineer, that it only reinforces my suspicion.

If I'm correct, you could have a better and more constructive argument with a mail box.

 

[Vern]

Oh I responded with MUCH MORE than a quotes ( you cried like a little girl that they were too wordy ) ,and your " facts " only work in VERN world. .

No fenton I just point out that you go on and on and don’t say anything. You refuse to acknowledge not only the Bush quotes but the Bush policies. And you refuse to acknowledge that Bush told you the mortgage bubble started late 2004 because of lower lending standards. You refuse to acknowledge that the fed said the same thing. You refuse to acknowledge that mortgage data says the same thing (including those spectacular graphs I posted) . And you refuse to acknowledge the Fannie mae loan data.

You said Bush did nothing, and I showed you multiple attemps by his administration that proved he was the ONLY person who TRIED to do anything.

Wow fenton, your Fenton Facts [SUP]©[/SUP] get more ridiculous. Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again. A million quotes cant change that. And you just cant get over the quote where Bush told the dems Freddie and Fannie were perfectly fine

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s
“
“
Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
“

- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

I just don’t understand how you can leave out this quote in your 50,000 word narratives. If you’re afraid its already too long to include it, don’t sweat it, nobody is going to complain about a 50,025 word narrative.

 

[Vern]

I have my suspicions about the nature of VERNs odd behaviour simply because he reminds me of another poster on another forum.

Lets just say IF he is truly a engineer, that it only reinforces my suspicion.

If I'm correct, you could have a better and more constructive argument with a mail box.

Its really funny you say that fenton because speckle reminds me of you. He posts made up stuff as fact. And when you ask him to back it up, he just repeats it. Case in point, he posted some made up numbers about housing prices in Vegas. I posted the Case Shiller data showing how far off his made up numbers were and just like you he attacked the data I posted. “oh Case Shiller data is a year old” he says. Just like you he made something up rather than admit he was wrong. I asked him to back it up. And exactly like you he simply repeated it. The similarities are eerie. But that’s not all. He then started insulting me as if it was my fault he posted something completely made up. And continued to post about me to divert attention away from him refusing to back up his point. But just like you, we know he can’t back it up. Seriously the coincidences are amazing. And those coincidences would be 'beyond amazing' if every con didn’t do the exact same thing.

 

[dnsmith]

Vern, If you are not smart enough to understand that the price to owner-equlvalent rents is the best way to reflect the rate of inflation I can't help you. The absolute facts are the chart below proves conclusively that the housing bubble started in 1999. If you don't believe that you are obviously not smart enough to understand the housing bubble and its history. Sayonara and good luck with your anti bush rhetoric which means nothing except to you.

Speaking of making it up as you go along, you take the cake.

 

[Vern]

Vern, If you are not smart enough to understand that the price to owner-equlvalent rents is the best way to reflect the rate of inflation I can't help you.

I have no idea if it’s the best way to reflect “housing inflation”. You ‘ve repeated it is but have in no way substantiated it. I do however know it’s a terrible way to ‘reflect’ a mortgage bubble because Bush, the fed, actual mortgage and loan data say the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. (and don't forget those spectacular graphs I posted for the Bush Bubble states)

The absolute facts are the chart below proves conclusively that the housing bubble started in 1999. If you don't believe that you are obviously not smart enough to understand the housing bubble and its history.

And there it is again, another post from you that simply ignores all the facts I posted and requires me to ignore that you have not substantiated your silly narrative and it requires me to ignore that defaults started mid 2005. Remember, you said the recession from “housing inflation” caused the defaults. But you now know that defaults started shooting up mid 2005. But your silly narrative requires you to “pretend” not to know that. So obviously you are not smart enough to understand the housing bubble and its history and are quite possibly illiterate. [/QUOTE]

Speaking of making it up as you go along, you take the cake.

Ah the classic conservative “one more insult for the road” . Oh Dn, you’re only trying to insult your way out of the mess you created clinging to your silly failed narrative. Post one thing I made up otherwise I will simply conclude you’re just another lying conservative who wants to cut and run from the facts.

 

[JRSaindo]

Maybe when people start realizing presidents don't create bubbles, then we can have a real conversation. Who spends the most money lobbying to congress? Who always votes to deregulate? Money corrupts people, DUH!

 

[dnsmith]

I have no idea if it’s the best way to reflect “housing inflation”. You ‘ve repeated it is but have in no way substantiated it. I do however know it’s a terrible way to ‘reflect’ a mortgage bubble because Bush, the fed, actual mortgage and loan data say the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. (and don't forget those spectacular graphs I posted for the Bush Bubble states)


And there it is again, another post from you that simply ignores all the facts I posted and requires me to ignore that you have not substantiated your silly narrative and it requires me to ignore that defaults started mid 2005. Remember, you said the recession from “housing inflation” caused the defaults. But you now know that defaults started shooting up mid 2005. But your silly narrative requires you to “pretend” not to know that. So obviously you are not smart enough to understand the housing bubble and its history and are quite possibly illiterate.

Ah the classic conservative “one more insult for the road” . Oh Dn, you’re only trying to insult your way out of the mess you created clinging to your silly failed narrative. Post one thing I made up otherwise I will simply conclude you’re just another lying conservative who wants to cut and run from the facts.[/QUOTE]No matter how much you deny it, the housing bubble started with poor monetary and fiscal policy from Clinton through Bush and inflation started to be prominent during 1999 and continued to rise until it exploded. Oh, and I was a Clinton fan, still am, but for there was to like about him, his housing policies was not a good subject.

 

[washunut]

I see cons really like posting a Case shiller graphs based on an 1890 purchase price. They claim it proves the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in 1997 (or any year other than 2004). It does show home prices going up. (I wonder if it factors out indoor plumbing?). But prices simply going up doesn’t prove a bubble especially since Bush, the fed and mortgage data say the Bush Mortgage Bubble started in late 2004. Home prices did seem to go up a little faster in the Bush Mortgage Bubble timeframe but nothing really is jumping off the page. Lets look at some graphs. This shows Case Shiller 20 city index and the OFHEO nationwide index. For some reason Case Shiller USA index is not available at FRED and only goes back to 2000 but as you see its pretty much the same graph. The OFHEO data is higher because its based on 1975 dollars and CS is 2000 dollars

View attachment 67150672


Well those that have actually researched the Bush Mortgage Bubble know that California, Arizona, Nevada and Florida were ground zero for the Bush mortgage bubble (how many ground zeroes can one president have?) mmmmm, I wonder what California looks like


View attachment 67150673

Holy Cow. So that's what a bubble actually looks like. Maybe somebody can find a Case Shiller graph of just California going back to 1890. mmmm, probably not, it wouldn't support the conservative narrative.

Maybe you are looking for a bubble in the wrong place. Perhaps try the bond market, which is clearly overvalued, even after the recent haircut. Might also want to check into the price of oil while you are at it.

 

[Geoist]

I dont really care which political party gets the blame these days.

And you shouldn't because both parties deserve blame.

I care more about who is trying to fix the root causes of the crash and wants to reform the system to prevent it from happening again.

Unfortunately, many are trying the 'reform' before they finding out what the root cause is.

 

[Vern]

No matter how much you deny it, the housing bubble started with poor monetary and fiscal policy from Clinton through Bush and inflation started to be prominent during 1999 and continued to rise until it exploded.

that’s just it Dn, you’re the one denying the facts. I’ve posted Bush’s Working Group on Financial Markets, the Fed, actual mortgage and loan data (including those spectacular graphs I posted) telling you THE Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. you’re just repeating your silly “housing inflation is evil” narrative over and over. And you’re silly narrative makes you pretend that defaults didn’t start shooting up mid 2005. So your silly narrative requires denial, one graph and no facts. Another great conservative narrative.

Anyhoo, I couldn’t help notice you couldn’t document something I made up. Do you know what that means?

And you shouldn't because both parties deserve blame.

Geoist, one president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress. You should read my FAQ thread. Let me know what I’m leaving out.

I still see alot of misconceptions about the Bush Mortgage Bubble and the Bush policies that encouraged, funde and protected it so I thought I would start an FAQ section. Since the resulting destruction of the housing and financial sector are still a drag on the economy today, it seems relevent

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/fin-mkts/Documents/q4progress update.pdf

 

[Geoist]

Geoist, one president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress. You should read my FAQ thread. Let me know what I’m leaving out.

You speak as if the land cycle is something new. This has gone on for many many years.

 

[Vern]

You speak as if the land cycle is something new. This has gone on for many many years.

your power point presentation was interesting but you speak as if the Bush mortgage Bubble is not something new. Allowing unqualified borrowers to buy homes seems to be a new twist on an old classic.

 

[dnsmith]

your power point presentation was interesting but you speak as if the Bush mortgage Bubble is not something new. Allowing unqualified borrowers to buy homes seems to be a new twist on an old classic.

Yep! And the "Bush Mortgage Bubble" started in Clinton's term.

 

[Vern]

Yep! And the "Bush Mortgage Bubble" started in Clinton's term.

Oh that evil "housing inflation". anyhoo Dn, you got the repeating part down perfect but I'm still waiting for the 'splaining' part. And your 'splaining' has to take into account that Bush, the fed, actual mortgage data (including those spectacular graphs I posted) and loan data say it started in 2004. Oh that's right, you just pretend it those facts don't exist.

 

[dnsmith]

Oh that evil "housing inflation". anyhoo Dn, you got the repeating part down perfect but I'm still waiting for the 'splaining' part. And your 'splaining' has to take into account that Bush, the fed, actual mortgage data (including those spectacular graphs I posted) and loan data say it started in 2004. Oh that's right, you just pretend it those facts don't exist.

You have ignored an earlier post when I "splained" it in detail. Suffice it to say poor monetary and fiscal policies were the issue. The push by the Clinton and Bush administrations to expand housing even to the poor, the artificially low interest rates which helped to heat up the housing market as far back as 1999 and speculators and home buyers using ARMs (also low initial interest) help heat up the housing market. We can all see the inflation curve very clearly, except you who wants to insist it didn't start until 2004 or 5.

So there you have it. The inflationary curve and the explanation, one more time. Do you think you can read it and understand it this time?

Pssst: the inflationary curve IS THE BUBBLE you keep babbling about.And it ended just as Obama was taking office so effectively the bubble was back to a normal inflation/value point on the curve.

 

[Vern]

You have ignored an earlier post when I "splained" it in detail.

Oh Dn, you’ve explained nothing. I remember your failed attempt to explain it. It required you to pretend defaults started after the recession started. So not only have you not explained how declining home prices causes a recession (yes, you have not explained that) you continue to ignore the default data which disproves your first attempt at ‘splaining’

And now you have to pretend its me saying the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. Pretending its me means you dont have to 'splain' why Bush, the Fed and actual data say it started late 2004.

Lets sum up facts that Dn has to ignore to cling to his disproven narrative
1 Mortgage defaults started shooting up mid 2005
2 Bush’s Working Group told you it started late 2004
3 the Federal Reserve gave the same timeframe
4 Actual mortgage data concerning No Doc loans gave the same timeframe
5 Fannie Mae’s loan data gave the same timeframe
6 those spectacular graphs I posted of home prices in the bubble states show the same timeframe.

And I haven’t even listed all the bush policies implemented in 2004 that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble. so cling tightly to your narrative Dn.

 

[dnsmith]

Oh Dn, you’ve explained nothing. I remember your failed attempt to explain it. It required you to pretend defaults started after the recession started. So not only have you not explained how declining home prices causes a recession (yes, you have not explained that) you continue to ignore the default data which disproves your first attempt at ‘splaining’

Whoa Vern, to my knowledge we have been discussing THE BUBBLE, NOT THE DEFAULTS. That the defaults did not start increasing rapidly does not mean that THE BUBBLE did not start in 1999. In fact the curve of price over the value IS THE BUBBLE. If you want to move the goal post as to what we are discussing be my guest, but since we were DISCUSSING THE BUBBLE IT IS CLEAR IT STARTED IN 1999.

And now you have to pretend its me saying the Bush Mortgage Bubble started late 2004. Pretending its me means you dont have to 'splain' why Bush, the Fed and actual data say it started late 2004.

There you go again, talking about the bubble, now when the defaults were at their higher points. Please get your stories straight and decide what you which to discuss; the bubble or the defaults. And while you are at it, recognize too that even if the mortgage default rates were going through the roof in 2004 (which I agree with) it does not mean that THE CAUSE DID NOT START BACK AT THE POINT WHERE CLINTON STARTED TO TRY TO EXPAND HOME OWNERSHIP TO the less credit worthy and it does not mean that the bubble did not start (inflation of price to value) in 1999.

Lets sum up facts that Dn has to ignore to cling to his disproven narrative
1 Mortgage defaults started shooting up mid 2005

Agreed!

2 Bush’s Working Group told you it started late 2004

Agreed!

3 the Federal Reserve gave the same timeframe

Agreed!

4 Actual mortgage data concerning No Doc loans gave the same timeframe

Accept!

5 Fannie Mae’s loan data gave the same timeframe

Agreed!

6 those spectacular graphs I posted of home prices in the bubble states show the same timeframe.

Disagree! Prices to value inflation started in 1999.

And I haven’t even listed all the bush policies implemented in 2004 that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble. so cling tightly to your narrative Dn.

When you learn the difference between "the bubble" and "increased mortgage default rate" let me know. So far you are confusing the two.

 

[Fenton]

No fenton I just point out that you go on and on
and don’t say anything. You refuse to
acknowledge not only the Bush quotes but the Bush policies. And you refuse to acknowledge that Bush told you the mortgage bubble started late 2004 because of lower lending standards. You refuse to acknowledge that the fed said the same thing. You refuse to acknowledge that mortgage data says the same thing (including those spectacular graphs I posted) . And you refuse to acknowledge the Fannie mae loan data.

Wow fenton, your Fenton Facts [SUP]©[/SUP] get more ridiculous. Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary. Bush stopped reform).
And then he stopped it again. A million quotes cant change that. And you just cant get over the quote where Bush told the dems Freddie and Fannie were perfectly fine

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s
“
“
Mr. Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.
“

- THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON THE REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

I just don’t understand how you can leave out this quote in your 50,000 word narratives. If you’re afraid its already too long to include it, don’t sweat it, nobody is going to complain about a 50,025 word narrative.

How many times have you posted that Snow and Frank back and forth ?

2005 Snow's testimony before Congress....( He's telling the truth VERN, not lying like the Scum Bag Democrats that created the bubble under the false pretense of " discrimination".

" Events that have transpired since I testified before this committee in 2003 reinforce CONCERNS over the systemic risk posed by the GSES. "

Now in 2003 the Democrats ( 72 of them ) were penning a letter to George Bush warning him not to REGULATE their Crime Spree at Fannie and Freddie.

Still waiting for you to post Democrat efforts during Bush's Term to get Fannie and Fredie under Control.

Lemme guess, you don't know of any do you and would rather make sh** up than acknowledge the Democrats screwed this Country out of TRILLIONS.

You don't even possess the integrity to realize Obama has started the Sub-Prime fiasco back up.

 

[dnsmith]

How many times have you posted that Snow and Frank back and forth ?

2005 Snow's testimony before Congress....( He's telling the truth VERN, not lying like the Scum Bag Democrats that created the bubble under the false pretense of " discrimination".

" Events that have transpired since I testified before this committee in 2003 reinforce CONCERNS over the systemic risk posed by the GSES. "

Now in 2003 the Democrats ( 72 of them ) were penning a letter to George Bush warning him not to REGULATE their Crime Spree at Fannie and Freddie.

Still waiting for you to post Democrat efforts during Bush's Term to get Fannie and Fredie under Control.

Lemme guess, you don't know of any do you and would rather make sh** up than acknowledge the Democrats screwed this Country out of TRILLIONS.

You don't even possess the integrity to realize Obama has started the Sub-Prime fiasco back up.

In addition to which, who on earth would believe anything Barney had to say but a left wing fanatic?

 

[Vern]

if the mortgage default rates were going through the roof in 2004 (which I agree with)

No, mortgage defaults started shooting up mid 2005. Because of the lower lending standards that started late 2004 Your original 'narrative' tried to explain that mortgage defaults started after the recession started. So please let me know where you agreed to something I didn't say and you never acknowledged.

Disagree! Prices to value inflation started in 1999.

Home prices going up is not a bubble. and Home prices going up faster than OER is not a bubble. Prices rising dramatically because Bush artificially increased the number of home buyers with lower lending standards is a bubble. Bush told. The fed told. the mortgage and loan data told you it started in late 2004. The spectacular graphs of the bubble states show what a bubble looks like. And if you agree with Bush, the fed, mortgage and loan data, why do you cling to 1999? it makes no sense. well it probably does to you.

When you learn the difference between "the bubble" and "increased mortgage default rate" let me know

I know the difference. Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Putting in people in homes they couldn't afford caused the default rate to start its dramatic increase in mid 2005. the increased defaults were so bad, the OCC started tracking people who defaulted on their first mortgage payments. this froze the credit markets in 2007. this caused the Great Bush Recession.

I don't have to ignore facts. I don't have to make up facts. I don't have to 'weave a tale'. I simply post the facts