Talk:Real-estate bubble

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

How to identify spam links

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

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

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

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 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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?

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

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"

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?

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?

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

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]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanashiwanderer (talk • contribs) 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]