This is reposted, since the original response went to just Brad, since he was first on the reply list, which included Brin-L
>I really wouldn't feed the troll any more, if I were you... I think I have a narrower definition of troll than you do. I accept that folks can have understandings of the world that I see has having internal inconsistencies. I think that John is not putting forth a false front; I think he posts in good faith. So, I'll debate points until I find that I stop seeing the debate going anywhere. Since you are in the discussion now, I'm curious about a couple things. How could people not see that housing went into a bubble. I knew they were overvalued in many places before the bubble burst. I only saw the conclusive evidence, the inflation adjusted house prices shot up 40% after not varying by more than 10% over a century. I'm not an economist, but I crunch numbers for a living, and that certainly looks like an anomaly. How did Greenspan, who saw the stock market bubble, miss that one? And how did folks miss the fact that the Risk Assessment Model was inherently flawed, by ignoring events with low historical probability (<2%) instead of using Monte Carlo techniques to include them properly. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
