Welcome!
Who said there are statistics, damned statistics and lies? Harsh words, perhaps, but indicative of how statistics can be used to any purpose or in a sloppy fashion. I would point out that on April 20, 2008, the Los Angeles Times printed an article (link below) based on Dataquick Statistics, comparing 2007Q1 to 2008Q1: Laguna Beach +66%; West Hollywood +25.5%; Rancho Palos Verdes +17.6%; PV Peninsula +16.5%; Brentwood +15.7%; all relatively desirable areas. Outlying inland areas, hit with over construction and where it is not as desirable to live (for most folks), are down: Hemet -40%; Twenty-Nine Palms -43.3%; Moreno Valley -43.2%, etc. So which statistics are correct? Both? Neither? Perhaps localized statistics might produce more meaningful results? Link: http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/news/la-re-marketchart20apr20,0,1664084.story
I'm holding out for the franchise that touts agents commuting on psychedelic-painted skateboards. This will truly be the cutting edge for the current millennium (the bug is, well, 60ish) and will speak volumes toward professionalism, getting it on, happy times around the table at Der Wienershnitzel and all the other attributes one looks for in a real estate agent. And please don't tell me there is no correlation between an agent's qualifications and skateboarding talents, it will just show how ignorant and old fashioned you are.
'"Fear of imminent economic recession may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, according to the latest Anderson Forecast report by University of California, Los Angeles forecasters. While the report by Edward Leamer, director for the forecast, clings to earlier predictions that the U.S. economy will avoid a recession in the short term, it also details the dangers that are stressing consumers and challenging the economy." And how is it that consumers have come to develop such "fears"; is it from a media that sells its product by playing up its stories rather than providing balance?