On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Max B. Sawicky wrote:
It ("wealth") is not fictitious when you draw on it.
Yeah, that was my point. If you can't borrow against it, it's just an
imaginary number.
As for regressions, invariably you can 'explain' something with
different models.
Yeah again. In my little experiments, mortgage debt did more to
"explain" consumption than housing wealth. Which makes sense given the
point above, but that's not the way the point is usually presented.
Doug
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
