Jump to content

Talk:Real-estate bubble: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Economics}}.
 
(45 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
wow, what an excellent article. Kudos. {{unsigned|65.96.190.185}}
{{WikiProject Economics |importance=High}}
}}
==Untitled==
wow, what an excellent article. Kudos. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:65.96.190.185|65.96.190.185]] ([[User talk:65.96.190.185|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/65.96.190.185|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Research_Process_and_Methodology_-_RPM_Fall_2018_(Fall_2018)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Jl9033|Jl9033]].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Why was the article reverted? ==
== How to identify spam links ==
Monkeyman, why was the article reverted on May 11, 2005? Specifically, why were the IMF articles removed? Doesn't it raise the bar to link to scholarly economic sources, instead of a commercial real estate portal? Also, you added back an Economist article that is already listed under the references section. Does it really need to be in there twice? {{unsigned|130.76.96.15}}
Someone added housepricecrash.co.uk to the external links section again. Is that spam or a legitimate site? How can you tell (besides the fact that it keeps getting added)? [[User:JHP|JHP]] 00:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

:There is a section in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam]] called <b>How to identify spam and spammers</b> that I use as a standard for determining whether or not a link is spam. This particular link I removed because it matched the following critera from the list:
:Hi 130.76.96.15. The edits that took place from April 30 to May 5 were horrid. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_estate_bubble&diff=50909368&oldid=50522698 The earliest edit] was an addition of a google adsense link. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_estate_bubble&diff=51015228&oldid=50909368 next edit] was a link to www.jparsons.net/house/ which redirected to [http://mysite.verizon.net/vodkajim/house/ here] which is a dead link. On [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_estate_bubble&diff=51317625&oldid=51015228 this] edit someone removed one link and gave their's higher priority (one that similarly redirects to http://mysite.verizon.net/vodkajim/housingbubble/ to the other link above). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_estate_bubble&diff=51769573&oldid=51629428 Here] the links were shuffled around here for no apparent reason.

:In short, the only legitimate edit I saw from April 30 to May 5 was the change from "U.S. housing bubble" to "United States housing bubble" which I added back after my revert to Kevin Taylor. I don't see where I broke the link to [[United States housing bubble]]. If I did so, it was unintentional. If you have time please correct it. Also, feel free to add back the IMF links. They must have taken some collateral damage. [[Image:Monkeyman.png]][[User:Monkeyman|Monkeyman]]<sup>([[User_talk:Monkeyman|talk]])</sup> 23:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

::Hi. I'm the guy who made most of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_estate_bubble&diff=51769573&oldid=50909368 changes between May 1st and May 6th]. I think Monkeyman's comments completely misrepresent the changes I made during that time. While I believe he is well-intentioned, I feel insulted by his depiction of my changes. The google adsense link was added by someone else before me, but please let me defend the changes I made during this period:
:::1) I noticed that the various real estate bubble articles use a lot of copyrighted material from [http://www.economist.com/ The Economist]. This appears to me to be a violation of U.S. copyright law and Wikipedia's own copyright policy. It may or may not be [[fair use]]. I am not a lawyer. I created some inflation-adjusted house price graphs myself and then placed them in the [[public domain]]. I didn't want to step on the toes of other Wikipedia editors, and quite frankly I don't know how to add graphics to Wikipedia articles. So, instead of removing existing graphs and replacing them with my own, I added a link to my public domain graphs. I expected that it was most polite to add a link and then let others decide if my content was worthy of inclusion in the article. I have since learned that Wikipedia policy is the opposite of what I expected. Due to problems with spammers, Wikipedia would prefer that people add content, but not add an external link. However, I still need to learn how to add graphics to Wikipedia articles.
:::2) I removed two links to researchworldwide.com, because the links had nothing to do with real estate bubbles. Perhaps they did in the past, but since they no longer do I removed them. Changes 1 & 2 are reflected [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_estate_bubble&diff=51621248&oldid=50909368 here].
:::3) The next changes I made were to correct the links to [[United States property bubble]]. These changes are reflected [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_estate_bubble&diff=51763857&oldid=51621248 here].
:::4) The next change I made was to move my site to the end of the external links, because by this time I had read "How Not to be a Spammer" and I realized that I had unintentionally done wrong. (I would include a link to "How Not to be a Spammer" here, but I can't find it right now. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's collection of rules is a disorganized mess.) "How not to be a spammer" says that each new external link should be added to the end of the list.
:::5) I also added both of the IMF articles to the external links to make it easier for others to use them as references in the future.
:::6) Finally, I removed the external link to an Economist article because it is already listed under the references section. You can view changes 4-6 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_estate_bubble&diff=51769573&oldid=51763857 here].
::I fully appreciate the hard work Monkeyman is doing to remove spam from Wikipedia, however I hope he will keep two Wikipedia guidelines in mind: [[Assume Good Faith]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BITE Please don't bite the newcomers]. [[User:JHP|JHP]] 05:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
::::Hi JHP. I'm sorry you felt insulted by my comments, it was not my intention to do so. Sometimes my replies to other editors are curt and this can be mistaken for rudeness on my part. I appreciate your efforts to improve this article and hope you stick around. [[Image:Monkeyman.png]][[User:Monkeyman|Monkeyman]]<sup>([[User_talk:Monkeyman|talk]])</sup> 16:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

==housepricecrash.co.uk==
Monkeyman, someone added housepricecrash.co.uk to the external links section again. Is that spam or a legitimate site? How can you tell (besides the fact that it keeps getting added)? [[User:JHP|JHP]] 00:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
:Hi JHP. There is a section in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam]] called <b>How to identify spam and spammers</b> that I use as a standard for determining whether or not a link is spam. This particular link I removed because it matched the following critera from the list:
:::*1. User is anonymous (an IP address)
:::*1. User is anonymous (an IP address)
:::*2. User:page and/or User_talk:page are red links (<i>it was until I added the spam1 tag</i>)
:::*2. User:page and/or User_talk:page are red links (<i>it was until I added the spam1 tag</i>)
Line 31: Line 21:
:::*20. Text of the link goes beyond describing the contents to actively encouraging you to read it. For example, including text such as, "Read more about [subject] in [this fascinating article]" (<i>In this case the editor writes, "a good read"</i>)
:::*20. Text of the link goes beyond describing the contents to actively encouraging you to read it. For example, including text such as, "Read more about [subject] in [this fascinating article]" (<i>In this case the editor writes, "a good read"</i>)
:This paticular link isn't too bad as far as ads go. And I do think they have some content (though I think most of their information is already covered in this Wikipedia article). But the fact that they are unwilling to sign up for an account and discuss the link's merits makes me question their intent. [[Image:Monkeyman.png]][[User:Monkeyman|Monkeyman]]<sup>([[User_talk:Monkeyman|talk]])</sup> 17:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
:This paticular link isn't too bad as far as ads go. And I do think they have some content (though I think most of their information is already covered in this Wikipedia article). But the fact that they are unwilling to sign up for an account and discuss the link's merits makes me question their intent. [[Image:Monkeyman.png]][[User:Monkeyman|Monkeyman]]<sup>([[User_talk:Monkeyman|talk]])</sup> 17:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

==List of chronic spammers==
There are several chronic external link spammers. Please remove them if you see them. Please be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, however. The [[International Monetary Fund|IMF]], [[The Economist]], and [[Center for Economic and Policy Research|CEPR]] are all reputable and relevant sources. [[User:JHP|JHP]] 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The chronic spammers are:
* patrick.net
* housingpanic.blogspot.com
* housingbubbleresearch.com
* expertresearch.net
* feedba.cc
* housepricecrash.co.uk
* franteractive.com
* franteractive.net
* investmentu.com

: Agreed, although some of those blogs are included at [[United States housing bubble]] because they were listed in ''Newsweek'' magazine.[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14252223/site/newsweek/page/] I wouldn't be surprised if the journalist included the first few blogs she could find at random, so I don't think that's a sufficient critera for linking them here. But I'm willing to defer to [[User:Frothy]]'s judgment at the US housing bubble article because he's done a great job improving it. [[User:Wmahan|Wmahan]][[User talk:Wmahan|.]] 00:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::I understand [[User:Frothy]]'s judgment and am not suggesting that he remove them from the [[United States housing bubble]] article. Most blogs are about country or local housing bubbles, so don't belong in an article about the real estate bubble phenomenon in general. If housingpanic, for example, is about the U.S. housing bubble, then it belongs at the end of the U.S. housing bubble article, not here. If it is about real estate bubbles in general, then perhaps it belongs here, not in the U.S. housing bubble article. It is also possible for a site to contain useful content, while still being a Wikipedia spammer. Just look at the history to see how many times they keep adding their own site to the external links. Ben Jones' blog is the most widely read housing bubble blog, but it doesn't keep showing up in the external links.
::To be consistent with what I just said, perhaps the two CEPR external links should be removed from this article because of its U.S.-only content? [[User:JHP|JHP]] 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


== My UK perspective ==
== My UK perspective ==
Line 52: Line 61:


Thanks. --[[User:81.104.12.19|81.104.12.19]] 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --[[User:81.104.12.19|81.104.12.19]] 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

== Suggested source ==

Calverley, John P., Bubbles and how to survive them, N. Brealey, 2004
{{ISBN|1857883489}}

== Books in Reference that ought to be deleted ==

These books, ''which I have read'', have got either nothing or so very little I didnt notice it about housing bubbles, and I think they ought to be deleted:

[[Robert Kiyosaki]] (2000). Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money—That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not!, New York: Warner Business Books. {{ISBN|0446677450}}.
Burton R. Malkiel (2004). A Random Walk Down Wall Street, 8th ed., New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. {{ISBN|0393325350}}
John Allen Paulos (2003). A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market, New York: Basic Books. {{ISBN|0465054811}}.

There may be other books which I have not read which also ought to be removed.

== Why no links to news sites? ==

Hi, why is it unacceptable to link to news sites that maintain daily lists of relevant articles? I noticed a large number of links to blogs and other sites under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble United States housing bubble] topic, but it looks like there are different rules for this page...?

Thanks. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:69.107.76.132|69.107.76.132]] ([[User talk:69.107.76.132|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.107.76.132|contribs]]) 2006-07-23 18:31:31 UTC</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

: I reverted the site you added because it was just a list of links, and it appeared that you were were trying to promote the site and its ads rather than to improve the article. In general it's better to add ''content'' rather than ''links'' to articles; see [[WP:EL]].

:The fact one article has links to blogs is not a good reason for adding them to another article. By that argument, as long as there is even one linkspam on Wikipedia, it is OK to add more. Links to blogs are generally discouraged unless they offer especially informative or relevant content, so I removed many of the blog links from the article you mentioned. [[User:Wmahan|Wmahan]][[User talk:Wmahan|.]] 04:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This article seems a bit mangled due to too line breaks in links in the markup. Have fixed some of it, but references still need work. [[User:81.1.104.246|81.1.104.246]] 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

== Research: Housing Bubbles Cannot be the Result of Speculation Alone ==
Refrain from attributing the appearance of housing bubbles to [[Speculation|speculative]]. Recent academic research, discussed in [[Economic bubble]], shows that the phenomenon of price ascension and crash appears even when speculation is not possible or when [[overconfidence effect]] is absent. Hence, speculation cannot be the sole reason for the appearance of bubbles.

== price rent ratio? ==

Maybe I just don't see it... but what is a good or bad price-rent ratio? I see the handy dandy formula, but is a 1 good? a 20? a 100? What ratio indicates if it is over-valued? [[Special:Contributions/63.139.220.200|63.139.220.200]] ([[User talk:63.139.220.200|talk]]) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

== Keep a lookout for link spam ==

The [[Real estate bubble#External links|external links section]] has been filling up with link spam again. I removed most of it. Please be on constant lookout for link spammers adding their sites to the external links section. Thank you. --[[User:JHP|JHP]] ([[User talk:JHP|talk]]) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

== Hyphen in "real-estate bubble" ==

Per [[WP:MOSHYPHEN]], I think the article should be moved to [[real-estate bubble]]. [[User:Hankwang|Han-Kwang]] ([[User talk:Hankwang|t]]) 19:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

== Better historical perspective? ==
Wouldn't it be nice to enrich this article with references to older bubbles, like the one before the [[Long Depression]], the one of the 1920s in [[Florida_land_boom_of_the_1920s|Florida]], and also probably some example from the Middle Ages? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.245.117.235|82.245.117.235]] ([[User talk:82.245.117.235|talk]]) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== What about brazilian real estate bubble? ==

For example, Rio de Janeiro property prices rose almost 100% from jan/2008 to jan/2011, São Paulo prices rose 79,2%, while the official inflation index (IPCA) was just 17% over the period.

Source: http://www.zap.com.br/imoveis/fipe-zap/ (portuguese)


That's because there is much more demand to live in Sao Paulo and Rio De Janeiro. However, if this rise in property prices would be the case for the whole country (and on the condition that it is much higher than the general inflation), then this would mean a real estate bubble. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/178.117.252.112|178.117.252.112]] ([[User talk:178.117.252.112|talk]]) 05:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== List of countries 2007 ==

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_bubble#2007:_many_countries list of countries in 2007] has some unusual places: Antarctica, North Korea, Vatican City to name a few. I removed some of them once but they reappeared. [[User:Raquel Baranow|Raquel Baranow]] ([[User talk:Raquel Baranow|talk]]) 01:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

They have reappeared and Australia (with one the highest property prices in the world) is missing. [[User:dkast|dkast]] ([[User talk:dkast|talk]]) 08:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

== mainstream economics ==
I am deleting the claim that real estate bubbles were not important in main stream economics. It is absolutely, less attention was given to the topic 20 years ago, but modern business cycle theory is about 30 years old. There are several prominent papers written in the past 15 years that stress the importance of real estate on business cycles. One example is Leamer's paper "Housing is the business cycle" which has several hundred citations. Thats a lot in the academic world. Iocavelleo was studying the effect of monetary policy on housing prices in early 2000. Most influential paper on the effect of asset prices such as land on business cycle fluctuation was published in 1997 (Kiyotaki and Moore Credit cycles). Since it is a false claim I see no reason to include. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nanashiwanderer|Nanashiwanderer]] ([[User talk:Nanashiwanderer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nanashiwanderer|contribs]]) 11:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Thank you, it occurred to me that the formulations of the type:
::''Within mainstream economics, it can be posed''
:and
::''Within mainstream economics,'' ... ''are not considered''
:are [[WP:WEASEL]]s, that is ''Unsupported attributions'' and probably also politicized personal opinions of '''some''' editors. Sections where these formulations occur: '''Identification and prevention''' and '''Macroeconomic significance'''. [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] dixit. ([[User talk:Rursus|<span style="color: red; background: #FFFF80"><sup>m</sup><u>bork<sup>3</sup></u></span>]]!) 08:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
== Dr. Shi's comment on this article ==


Dr. Shi has reviewed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_estate_bubble&oldid=722454539 this Wikipedia page], and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


{{quote|text=
1. There is a big literature on real-time bubble detection is missing. Please see reference below.

(1) Phillips, Peter CB, Yangru Wu, and Jun Yu. "Explosive behavior in the 1990s Nasdaq: When did exuberance escalate asset values?." International economic review 52.1 (2011): 201-226.

(2) Phillips, Peter CB, and Jun Yu. "Dating the timeline of financial bubbles during the subprime crisis." Quantitative Economics 2.3 (2011): 455-491.

(3) Phillips, Peter CB, Shuping Shi, and Jun Yu. "Testing For Multiple Bubbles: Limit Theory Of Real‐Time Detectors." International Economic Review 56.4 (2015a): 1079-1134.

(4) Phillips, Peter CB, Shuping Shi, and Jun Yu. "Testing for multiple bubbles: Historical episodes of exuberance and collapse in the S&P 500." International Economic Review 56.4 (2015b): 1043-1078.

(5) Homm, Ulrich, and Jörg Breitung. "Testing for speculative bubbles in stock markets: a comparison of alternative methods." Journal of Financial Econometrics 10.1 (2012): 198-231.

(6) "Warning signs of future asset bubbles", The Strait Times, April 2011, By Peter C.B. Phillips and Jun Yu, http://korora.econ.yale.edu/phillips/news/warning-signs_110426.pdf

(7) "Hot property market … irrational or not?", Sunday Star Times, April 2015, By Peter Phillips and Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy, http://korora.econ.yale.edu/phillips/pubs/op-ed/hot-property_150412.pdf

2. The real time strategy proposed by Phillips, Shi and Yu (2015a,b) has been used to provide "exuberance indicator" for 23 national housing markets by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Reference:
(1) Pavlidis, Efthymios, et al. "Episodes of exuberance in housing markets: in search of the smoking gun." The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics (2013): 1-31.

(2) http://www.dallasfed.org/institute/houseprice/

3. Instead of decomposing the house prices into a valuation component and a leverage component, the aforementioned methods focus on identifying the unique dynamic characteristics of speculative bubbles reflected in housing prices.

}}


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Shi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:



*'''Reference ''': Peter C.B. Phillips & Shu-Ping Shi & Jun Yu, 2013. "Testing for Multiple Bubbles: Historical Episodes of Exuberance and Collapse in the S&P 500," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1914, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.

[[User:ExpertIdeasBot|ExpertIdeasBot]] ([[User talk:ExpertIdeasBot|talk]]) 16:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:08, 8 February 2024

Untitled[edit]

wow, what an excellent article. Kudos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.190.185 (talkcontribs)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jl9033.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to identify spam links[edit]

Someone added housepricecrash.co.uk to the external links section again. Is that spam or a legitimate site? How can you tell (besides the fact that it keeps getting added)? JHP 00:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam called How to identify spam and spammers that I use as a standard for determining whether or not a link is spam. This particular link I removed because it matched the following critera from the list:
  • 1. User is anonymous (an IP address)
  • 2. User:page and/or User_talk:page are red links (it was until I added the spam1 tag)
  • 3. No edit summary (other than, perhaps /* External links */)
  • 4. User has made only one edit, which consisted of inserting a link
  • 6. The majority of user's edits are to external links sections
  • 7. The link is a site that has Google/Yahoo ads (AdSense/SM).
  • 14. User adds links that have been previously removed, without discussing on the talk page.
  • 20. Text of the link goes beyond describing the contents to actively encouraging you to read it. For example, including text such as, "Read more about [subject] in [this fascinating article]" (In this case the editor writes, "a good read")
This paticular link isn't too bad as far as ads go. And I do think they have some content (though I think most of their information is already covered in this Wikipedia article). But the fact that they are unwilling to sign up for an account and discuss the link's merits makes me question their intent. Monkeyman(talk) 17:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of chronic spammers[edit]

There are several chronic external link spammers. Please remove them if you see them. Please be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, however. The IMF, The Economist, and CEPR are all reputable and relevant sources. JHP 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The chronic spammers are:

  • patrick.net
  • housingpanic.blogspot.com
  • housingbubbleresearch.com
  • expertresearch.net
  • feedba.cc
  • housepricecrash.co.uk
  • franteractive.com
  • franteractive.net
  • investmentu.com
Agreed, although some of those blogs are included at United States housing bubble because they were listed in Newsweek magazine.[1] I wouldn't be surprised if the journalist included the first few blogs she could find at random, so I don't think that's a sufficient critera for linking them here. But I'm willing to defer to User:Frothy's judgment at the US housing bubble article because he's done a great job improving it. Wmahan. 00:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand User:Frothy's judgment and am not suggesting that he remove them from the United States housing bubble article. Most blogs are about country or local housing bubbles, so don't belong in an article about the real estate bubble phenomenon in general. If housingpanic, for example, is about the U.S. housing bubble, then it belongs at the end of the U.S. housing bubble article, not here. If it is about real estate bubbles in general, then perhaps it belongs here, not in the U.S. housing bubble article. It is also possible for a site to contain useful content, while still being a Wikipedia spammer. Just look at the history to see how many times they keep adding their own site to the external links. Ben Jones' blog is the most widely read housing bubble blog, but it doesn't keep showing up in the external links.
To be consistent with what I just said, perhaps the two CEPR external links should be removed from this article because of its U.S.-only content? JHP 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My UK perspective[edit]

Please dont take this the wrong way, Monkeyman.

Nice article, but I'm not sure that it is suffiently world rather than US orientated, as most of the various ratios I've never heard of before (despite being involved in housing in the UK for a great many years) and I therefore expect they are in use in the US only - indeed at least one of them only links to USA statistics.

I have added two ratios used in the UK: the rental yield and the Affordability Index. The Affordability Index is published by the Nationwide Building Society and Rowntrees, and when I've got time I will search out these links and add them.

I wrote a dissertation for a master's degree that included evaluating the income/price ratio, and the Building Societys Association (or was it the Council For Mortgage Lenders - cannot remember) economist criticised it by saying it took no account of the actual cost of the mortgage payments (which in the UK usually vary with interest rates), and I agree with him. However it does fluctuate more than the Affordability Index, and thus it helps to add drama and sensation to journalists and book-writers accounts.

Shouldnt the ratios be moved to their own article, Property ratios?

No offence, but I would not have thought that the pop books from the "Rich Dad Poor Dad" author were worth adding to the bibliography, and I have read them.

I've recently read a book about Bubbles by an American banker that includes discussion of UK and US housing bubbles, and when I've found out the name and author will add it.


A seperate comment about rental yields: statistics of these are difficult to get hold of, and it would be great if people would add links to various sites where they can be obtained online.

Thanks. --81.104.12.19 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested source[edit]

Calverley, John P., Bubbles and how to survive them, N. Brealey, 2004 ISBN 1857883489

Books in Reference that ought to be deleted[edit]

These books, which I have read, have got either nothing or so very little I didnt notice it about housing bubbles, and I think they ought to be deleted:

Robert Kiyosaki (2000). Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money—That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not!, New York: Warner Business Books. ISBN 0446677450. Burton R. Malkiel (2004). A Random Walk Down Wall Street, 8th ed., New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. ISBN 0393325350 John Allen Paulos (2003). A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market, New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0465054811.

There may be other books which I have not read which also ought to be removed.

Why no links to news sites?[edit]

Hi, why is it unacceptable to link to news sites that maintain daily lists of relevant articles? I noticed a large number of links to blogs and other sites under the United States housing bubble topic, but it looks like there are different rules for this page...?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.76.132 (talkcontribs) 2006-07-23 18:31:31 UTC

I reverted the site you added because it was just a list of links, and it appeared that you were were trying to promote the site and its ads rather than to improve the article. In general it's better to add content rather than links to articles; see WP:EL.
The fact one article has links to blogs is not a good reason for adding them to another article. By that argument, as long as there is even one linkspam on Wikipedia, it is OK to add more. Links to blogs are generally discouraged unless they offer especially informative or relevant content, so I removed many of the blog links from the article you mentioned. Wmahan. 04:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems a bit mangled due to too line breaks in links in the markup. Have fixed some of it, but references still need work. 81.1.104.246 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research: Housing Bubbles Cannot be the Result of Speculation Alone[edit]

Refrain from attributing the appearance of housing bubbles to speculative. Recent academic research, discussed in Economic bubble, shows that the phenomenon of price ascension and crash appears even when speculation is not possible or when overconfidence effect is absent. Hence, speculation cannot be the sole reason for the appearance of bubbles.

price rent ratio?[edit]

Maybe I just don't see it... but what is a good or bad price-rent ratio? I see the handy dandy formula, but is a 1 good? a 20? a 100? What ratio indicates if it is over-valued? 63.139.220.200 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a lookout for link spam[edit]

The external links section has been filling up with link spam again. I removed most of it. Please be on constant lookout for link spammers adding their sites to the external links section. Thank you. --JHP (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen in "real-estate bubble"[edit]

Per WP:MOSHYPHEN, I think the article should be moved to real-estate bubble. Han-Kwang (t) 19:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better historical perspective?[edit]

Wouldn't it be nice to enrich this article with references to older bubbles, like the one before the Long Depression, the one of the 1920s in Florida, and also probably some example from the Middle Ages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.245.117.235 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about brazilian real estate bubble?[edit]

For example, Rio de Janeiro property prices rose almost 100% from jan/2008 to jan/2011, São Paulo prices rose 79,2%, while the official inflation index (IPCA) was just 17% over the period.

Source: http://www.zap.com.br/imoveis/fipe-zap/ (portuguese)


That's because there is much more demand to live in Sao Paulo and Rio De Janeiro. However, if this rise in property prices would be the case for the whole country (and on the condition that it is much higher than the general inflation), then this would mean a real estate bubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.252.112 (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries 2007[edit]

The list of countries in 2007 has some unusual places: Antarctica, North Korea, Vatican City to name a few. I removed some of them once but they reappeared. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have reappeared and Australia (with one the highest property prices in the world) is missing. dkast (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mainstream economics[edit]

I am deleting the claim that real estate bubbles were not important in main stream economics. It is absolutely, less attention was given to the topic 20 years ago, but modern business cycle theory is about 30 years old. There are several prominent papers written in the past 15 years that stress the importance of real estate on business cycles. One example is Leamer's paper "Housing is the business cycle" which has several hundred citations. Thats a lot in the academic world. Iocavelleo was studying the effect of monetary policy on housing prices in early 2000. Most influential paper on the effect of asset prices such as land on business cycle fluctuation was published in 1997 (Kiyotaki and Moore Credit cycles). Since it is a false claim I see no reason to include. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanashiwanderer (talkcontribs) 11:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it occurred to me that the formulations of the type:
Within mainstream economics, it can be posed
and
Within mainstream economics, ... are not considered
are WP:WEASELs, that is Unsupported attributions and probably also politicized personal opinions of some editors. Sections where these formulations occur: Identification and prevention and Macroeconomic significance. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shi's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Shi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


1. There is a big literature on real-time bubble detection is missing. Please see reference below.

(1) Phillips, Peter CB, Yangru Wu, and Jun Yu. "Explosive behavior in the 1990s Nasdaq: When did exuberance escalate asset values?." International economic review 52.1 (2011): 201-226.

(2) Phillips, Peter CB, and Jun Yu. "Dating the timeline of financial bubbles during the subprime crisis." Quantitative Economics 2.3 (2011): 455-491.

(3) Phillips, Peter CB, Shuping Shi, and Jun Yu. "Testing For Multiple Bubbles: Limit Theory Of Real‐Time Detectors." International Economic Review 56.4 (2015a): 1079-1134.

(4) Phillips, Peter CB, Shuping Shi, and Jun Yu. "Testing for multiple bubbles: Historical episodes of exuberance and collapse in the S&P 500." International Economic Review 56.4 (2015b): 1043-1078.

(5) Homm, Ulrich, and Jörg Breitung. "Testing for speculative bubbles in stock markets: a comparison of alternative methods." Journal of Financial Econometrics 10.1 (2012): 198-231.

(6) "Warning signs of future asset bubbles", The Strait Times, April 2011, By Peter C.B. Phillips and Jun Yu, http://korora.econ.yale.edu/phillips/news/warning-signs_110426.pdf

(7) "Hot property market … irrational or not?", Sunday Star Times, April 2015, By Peter Phillips and Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy, http://korora.econ.yale.edu/phillips/pubs/op-ed/hot-property_150412.pdf

2. The real time strategy proposed by Phillips, Shi and Yu (2015a,b) has been used to provide "exuberance indicator" for 23 national housing markets by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Reference: (1) Pavlidis, Efthymios, et al. "Episodes of exuberance in housing markets: in search of the smoking gun." The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics (2013): 1-31.

(2) http://www.dallasfed.org/institute/houseprice/

3. Instead of decomposing the house prices into a valuation component and a leverage component, the aforementioned methods focus on identifying the unique dynamic characteristics of speculative bubbles reflected in housing prices.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Shi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Peter C.B. Phillips & Shu-Ping Shi & Jun Yu, 2013. "Testing for Multiple Bubbles: Historical Episodes of Exuberance and Collapse in the S&P 500," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1914, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]