Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. :)

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. :)

Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.

On Jan 2, 8:41*am, DownTime wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. *Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. *Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. *:)

Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, what is the difference between a slump and a logical correction?
Does it depend on who is in the Whitehouse??

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:47:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


So, what is the difference between a slump and a logical correction?
Does it depend on who is in the Whitehouse??

Perhaps, if Republicans hadn't gutted the Glass-Steagall Act we wouldn't
have had this sub-prime fiasco. But you are right, Clinton did sign the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:38:03 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:47:17 -0800, justwaitafrekinminute wrote:


So, what is the difference between a slump and a logical correction?
Does it depend on who is in the Whitehouse??

Perhaps, if Republicans hadn't gutted the Glass-Steagall Act we wouldn't
have had this sub-prime fiasco. But you are right, Clinton did sign the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

A classic example of public policy gone wrong.

Competition is a great and wonderous thing - it will build bigger,
better and stronger economies. In this case, it produced CDOs and
DIVs which produced the real culprit in the real estate problem which
is the CDO-Squared or CDO-N which is CDO-Cubed, Quad, etc., based on
sub-prime risk which encouraged complex SIVs - yada, yada, yada.

wrote:
On Jan 2, 8:41 am, DownTime wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.
Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.
I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.
Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.
Now I need to call my bookie. :)
Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, what is the difference between a slump and a logical correction?
Does it depend on who is in the Whitehouse??

I guess it depends on one's perspective. I see it as more a logical
correction, as the prices, especially here in SW Florida were just plain
ridiculous. Slump could be used to describe it by anyone who maybe has
suffered financially, which thankfully does not include me directly.

Not sure I am smart enough to know exactly who may be at fault, besides
I doubt everyone else but me cares about my opinion.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:48:47 -0500, DownTime
wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 2, 8:41 am, DownTime wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.
Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.
I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.
Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.
Now I need to call my bookie. :)
Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, what is the difference between a slump and a logical correction?
Does it depend on who is in the Whitehouse??

I guess it depends on one's perspective. I see it as more a logical
correction, as the prices, especially here in SW Florida were just plain
ridiculous. Slump could be used to describe it by anyone who maybe has
suffered financially, which thankfully does not include me directly.

Not sure I am smart enough to know exactly who may be at fault, besides
I doubt everyone else but me cares about my opinion.

Blame (fault) is a tricky subject in this instance. There is a point
where growth eventually rises to a point where it is unsustainable -
it's not directly anybody's fault in one sense and it's exactly
everybody's fault in another.

The positive thing in this whole deal is that over the next two/three
years, real estate in the US will be viewed as an emerging market and
prices will rebound quickly.

It will be interesting to watch.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:48:47 -0500, DownTime
wrote:

I guess it depends on one's perspective. I see it as more a logical
correction, as the prices, especially here in SW Florida were just plain
ridiculous. Slump could be used to describe it by anyone who maybe has
suffered financially, which thankfully does not include me directly.

Not sure I am smart enough to know exactly who may be at fault, besides
I doubt everyone else but me cares about my opinion.

You are overlooking the root cause of inflated SWFL prices in the
first place: Easy lending standards which encouraged/fueled rampant
speculation. That started in the mid to late 90s and continued until
this year. The bubble began to burst 2 years ago after hurricane
Wilma convinced a lot of people to sell, and dried up the buyer pool.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:46:08 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:


You are overlooking the root cause of inflated SWFL prices in the first
place: Easy lending standards which encouraged/fueled rampant
speculation. That started in the mid to late 90s and continued until
this year. The bubble began to burst 2 years ago after hurricane Wilma
convinced a lot of people to sell, and dried up the buyer pool.

This graph of historical home values, reminds me of the infamous Global
Warming Hockey Stick Graph. Something was obviously out of whack.

http://www.investingintelligently.co...ome_values.png

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:47:17 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 2, 8:41*am, DownTime wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. *Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. *Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. *:)

Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, what is the difference between a slump and a logical correction?
Does it depend on who is in the Whitehouse??

They are both at the same time - it's a definition thing.

Having said that, a slump is defined as a 20% long term drop in market
prices - long term being more than two quarters. A correction is
defined as 10% at any one given time, but considered as proper when it
lasts a quarter.

There is also a hindsight factor in determining a correction - a
day/week drop isn't a correction - month drop of 10% of market prices
is a correction when viewed from the future.

Market psychology is an odd and fascinating subject.

Does it matter who is in the White House? Not really - markets seek
stability - that can be either higher or lower and the net result
generally has nothing to do with politics no matter how many people
try to take credit for a rising economy or assign blame for a
declining economy. When you compare the eight years of the Clinton
Presidency and the upcoming eight years of the Bush Presidency, the
economy acted about the same over time.

The caveat is when political policy affects markets in ways not
foreseen - unintended consequences if you will. During the Clinton
years it was the advent of EBITA depreciation/amortization of the
perceived value of a company's name and trademarks which caused the
tech bubble. For Bush, it will be the appointment of Bernacke to head
the Fed during a time when the Fed needed a seat-of-the-pants
financial operator like Yellen rather than an academic theorist like
Bernacke.