This is a dangerous game.

I can definitely see it being dangerous though having too many negative cash flow properties .

The emotionally-dependent wife that can't help enabling him, but has to leave him when he becomes a danger to his children.The childhood accident that leaves a very young girl permanently scarred and she chooses a completely marginalized husband because it's precisely his marginalization that allows him to understand her own.

This is unprecedented, unsustainable, and it will end badly.You're not wrong, but it's a distinction without much of a difference.

When others read such statements, they may think it themselves which is a dangerous approach.I hope you take no offense and I assure you my intent is not to attack but to educate (but admit my wording can seem like it is meant as an attack). 

In most cases, this is the obvious prudent move.The only asset types I'm seeing largely continue all or partial distributions are office buildings with distinctly high credit tenants with very little concern, or NNN leases with single tenants who are thriving right now.

Large levels of unemployed youth are really dangerous for a society - the Saudis and Iranians buy their youth off with all kinds of welfare to prevent agitation and revolution - but large masses of workers in very low wage situations is as well.

This has the same dangerous bubble written all over it we saw back in 2004-2007.

Do not invest in any city on Neighborhood Scouts’ list of the 100 most dangerous US cities.Low risk of a natural disaster: I frequently read of entire cities devastated by a natural disaster.

You are right to say that there are some really cheap houses in the US but you may also find some articles written by Brandon Turner himself on the dangers and pitfalls of buying these very cheap properties.