About all I will quibble with CO is land retaining value, it presupposes a viable market at some future point in time where it is uncertain as to the availability of buyers and assumes a medium of exchange of real value not eroded by inflation or debasement. Real estate for real need now and into the future yes, for "investment"? That I cannot reconcile given where we are and where we are headed. Oh, and as far as "aggressive capitalism", under Romney I do not see that. Moderate capitalism perhaps, not aggressive, and some crony capitalism will still be present, just not at the current stratospheric levels we see. Not that the Democrat-Media Complex won't crucify Mitt for it when they can expose it, regardless if it was 1,000 times worse under their defeated Dear Leader!