These two magazines came out the same week:


The Economist: June 18, 2005



Compare and Contrast:

Time Magazine June 13, 2005


Category: Contrary Indicators, Financial Press, Psychology, Real Estate

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

39 Responses to “Falling Home Price Magazine Cover”

  1. Mannwich says:

    Kind of sums up nicely why magazines like Time, Newsweek, etc. are struggling while others like The Economist seem to be doing much better. Here’s a novel thought – put out a good product (in this case a publication with real journalistic chops and integrity) and people will pay money for it! Go figure.

  2. KevinM says:

    I saved that issue of the Economist for three years. Had just discovered Calculated Risk, started my own similar (but not successful) blog, and started telling friends and family that RE doom was coming.

    The article was not actually very good.

  3. The Curmudgeon says:

    It’s all you need to know about where things are headed. This may actually be more like 2005 in the housing market than 2007, like I posted earlier. But the carousel is tightening its diameter, and we’ll likely be back to 2008 in less than the three years it took before.

  4. deadonarrival says:

    Interestingly, that brick seems to be in the plutosphere (not even a swath of terra firma in sight).

    I suppose in the 2009 version, you’d start to be able to see some land, but you’d also have Benny & Timmy furiously trying to tie a bungee cord onto it.

  5. manhattanguy says:

    The Economist is the only magazine worth reading. Glad it’s not published in this country.

  6. Mark Down says:

    Don’t fight the trend me friend….. pretty boy wynn, up how much, since 3/9/9 lows????

  7. jacobsk says:

    The only interesting news item on the Time cover is “Why Deep throat came out”.
    Economist is the best and is read only by a few in the USA.

  8. Onlooker from Troy says:


    Agreed. It seems we’re doing the whole ’02-’07 cycle all over again but in a much tighter time line. It’s like the last bull market writ small.

  9. dougc says:

    The Economist is written for people with a highschool education, Time is written for a 7th grade education. The people that read Time are the ones buying FNM FRE C TOL. Joe Granville had it right.

  10. Thor says:

    I’ve been reading The Economist for about 15 years. I’ve noticed within the last 5 that they have become increasingly more like Time and Newsweek – more stories that seem to be sloppily written or researched. Still a good magazine, but nowhere near as good as it once was.

    Jacobsk – no, The US is by far the largest market for The Economist.

  11. Mannwich says:

    @Thor: I actually agree with that, which is one reason I why I did not renew my subscription with either them or WSJ (the other reason is lack of time and better quality FREE stuff on the internet). The local Minneapolis Star Tribune and maybe Sunday NYTimes are next on my budget cost-cutting chopping block.

  12. Thor says:

    Interesting -

    Readership up 99% in 10 years – North American readership (more than half total) has gone up 156%.

  13. manhattanguy says:

    I tend to disagree. The Economist still continues to be a great read. I read it online as all the content is available free on their site.

  14. Mannwich says:

    @manhattan: It’s probably the best there is of the traditional print publications, but I think it often still cow-tow’s to the elite on Wall Street a bit too much for my liking.

  15. seneca says:

    The Economist famously ran the cover story “World Awash in Oil” (paraphrase) just as oil bottomed and began its quick march to $140 a barrel. I also notice that “House Prices – After the Fall” arrived TWO YEARS

  16. Thor says:

    Manhattanguy – Definitely think it’s still worth a read and I agree with Mannwich that it’s the best in it’s class. Just think it’s slipped a bit in the last decade.

  17. seneca says:

    The Economist famously ran the cover story “World Awash in Oil” (paraphrase) just as oil bottomed and began its quick march to $140 a barrel. I also notice that the June 2005 issue “House Prices – After the Fall” arrived well before the peak in house prices and TWO YEARS before house prices started to fall in earnest. A market call that’s two years premature isn’t worth a heck of a lot.

  18. Mannwich says:

    @seneca: But I don’t think The Economist is a magazine that you read to determine market swings. They’re not in the business of making market calls, since that’s mostly a fools game, if I’m not mistaken.

  19. deadonarrival says:

    Maybe someone should send an e-postcard to Tim Geithner of that Economist cover.

    Maybe then he would come to his senses and drop his asking price down from 1.4 mil.

  20. manhattanguy says:

    Re: Tim Geithner – He is propping up the market so he can sell his property to the next sucker.

  21. VennData says:

    Re the Economist. After going to Bush in 2000 they switched to Kerry, then Obama in this cycle. Learning that the “Party of No” and now the party of “Nobody can talk when we Shout” isn’t the way forward.

    Congratulations to Pearson PLC.

  22. deadonarrival says:


    I guess he still doesn’t realize that he IS the sucker.

    How does the saying go? If you can’t spot the sucker in the room, the sucker is you!

  23. leftback says:

    If you’ve seen the taxes in Mamaroneck, you’ll know Tiny Tim was indeed the sucker.

  24. deadonarrival says:


    Tiny Tim has no problems with taxes. He doesn’t pay them, remember?

  25. David Merkel says:

    @Thor — The Economist publishes slightly different issues in different countries. America gets more America coverage, Britain more Britain, etc…. That may affect what we get here in the US, because that shift happened about 5 years ago.

  26. Mannwich says:

    @dead: LOL. That is hilarious. True though.

  27. manhattanguy says:

    Right David. U.S edition is more U.S centric. What I like is their Opinion column, International coverage and the Science &Technology section.

  28. beaufou says:

    So I guess their theory about why deep throat came out is also wrong.

  29. call me ahab says:

    mannwich says-

    “But I don’t think The Economist is a magazine that you read to determine market swings.”

    certainly not a periodical for traders- but neither is Time- but at least it points your head in the right direction


    “taxes are for little people”- Leona Helmsley

  30. niclas says:

    @ seneca

    The Economist isn´t a market predictor, and I don´t read it as such. In this case though, it´s sure as hell it´s better as such than the Time Mag.

  31. Thatcher says:

    I would also agree with Thor that The Economist is not was it uses to be but I don’t think poor research or sloppy writing is the problem. To me they started drinking the kool-aid and lost some/much of their scepticism on some of the issues. Their ideology started showing which then tainted much of the analysis. That said it is still a hundred billion times better than Time or anything else.

    Given all there seems to be these days are ideologues posing as experts I guess I can’t expect to much. This is what the blogs are for right?

  32. KevinM says:


    Economist doesn’t actually endorse candidates, they jut talk them up, put them on the cover more often, and use the cheerful-looking-slant cartoon face instead of the dumb-looking-slant cartoon face in caricitures.

    I had the same impression you did, and went back to check. The endorsements were apparent but unquotable.

  33. The Curmudgeon says:

    The Economist lost me when they prattled (nice Brit word per the subject) on glowingly about how good and important was the war in Iraq. It left me thinking they were just hoping we’d reclaim their lost empire for them, and frankly, I’m quite okay with the sun setting on the British, or for that matter, the American empire.

  34. Onlooker from Troy says:


    The housing market did not peak in 2007. You need to go do some more research on this matter.

    Depending on how you look at it, housing peaked in mid ’05- ’06. Housing starts and new home sales peaked in ’05, and housing prices in ’06.

    Plenty of info and charts at Calculated Risk to research that data.

    The $HGX, housing index, peaked in Aug ’05. That’s a pretty damned good call, IMO.

    So I’d say this mid ’05 call on the coming housing drop was about as well timed as you could get for such a large, diverse and relatively slow moving market. If you sold your house in mid to late ’05, I’d say you made out very well and are quite happy with that move. And if you sold your housing related stocks in that time frame, then same result.

  35. call me ahab says:


    you are correct- 2005 is exactly when people should have started evaluating their positions in anything housing related-

    setting stops and locking in profits

  36. Transor Z says:

    I think Maxim’s coverage of the crisis has been excellent. I like publications that allow you to look at subjects in different lights and from many different angles.

  37. investorinpa says:

    Call me a reverse-snob, but I can’t read the Economist at all. There are too many quirky British words, not enough distracting ads, no photos of a cartoon Camel smoking a cigarette, and not enough magazine subscription reply cards falling out of the magazine for me to enjoy it. Sorry!

  38. hop says:

    I vividly remember that Economist cover.