The Housing Bubble

“Personally, I think young adults SHOULD take some time off after 16 straight years of school.”

My “time off” was a hitch in the Army. Not my choice by any means.

“There are of course, plenty of slackers everywhere.”

Maybe I make enough, and work hard enough, and that houses prices are… TOO.DAMN.HIGH.

Sorry, I should have been more clear:

“I fully intend to CONTINUE to do crazy stuff when I’m old.”

dang where’s the “like” button…

POTD

And please don’t respond with the “not everyone can program” meme. I’m not a savant programmer, I had to spend time and effort to learn.

Not everyone can be a programmer.

And even if they could, many more would, and then the pay would not be good.

exactly Rio programmers are solitary people they like being with their computers away from people, and millions like Manhattan streets for the vibrancy at any hour of the day.

Not everyone can be a programmer.

Tell me about it. When I was in college, there were many CS majors who couldn’t program their way out of a paper bag.

Everyone can be a programmer. Very few can be a GOOD programmer… and if you can’t design, your programming won’t get you very far alone… into a cube doing what designers tell you to do at best.

Even if it were true, can you build a real economy out of people pushing plastic buttons all day?

I was a “player” in the first round of the Internet boom. Also a loser despite having access to one of the most cutting edge technologies: the first practical video over the Internet. We even created the FIRST ads with video.

And nobody bought from us. It was still several years after we imploded before video ads were common place.

NOTHING is guaranteed no matter what you do.

I worked at my share of start ups and have the worthless stock options to remind me of the good old days.

I even exercised them once when I quit one of those jobs. Coughed up $200 for them, and watched them wither away into nothingness via repeated reverse splits.

I did once have a chance to get into Microsoft in the mid 80’s. That could have worked out nice. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.

I even exercised them once when I quit one of those jobs. Coughed up $200 for them, and watched them wither away into nothingness via repeated reverse splits.

Any time I exercised, I sold immediately. Is there a reason not to? Was there a cut-off after which you could no longer exercise that forced your hand? I could see that being a problem, if the current price was near the exercise price.

Was there a cut-off after which you could no longer exercise that forced your hand? I

With a lot of stock-options, you have to exercise before leaving the company, or you lose them.

Any time I exercised, I sold immediately. Is there a reason not to?

If you leave the company pre-IPO, you can’t sell immediately. You either buy and hope they’ll eventually be worth something, or you don’t buy at all.

If you leave the company pre-IPO, you can’t sell immediately. You either buy and hope they’ll eventually be worth something, or you don’t buy at all.

Ah, thanks guys. Overlooked the “startup” comment. The company for which I worked when options were all the rage was not a startup, it was publicly traded…

We have a winner.

But, as I said, true “bootstrapping” exists, it’s just not common or practical.

It would have to be a pretty old car. Cars have had electronics in them for decades now. My 1989 Nissan Maxima had the tranny computer crap out around 60K miles. That isn’t something you can fix with bailing wire.

A 30 year old Jetta? I once had an early 80’s VW. EVERYTHING broke on that sucker. The timing belt was falling apart around 40K miles. Electric problems galore. I had to replace the starter 3 times. The windshield wiper mechanics had to be replaced twice. The ignition switch crapped out. It was the biggest POS I ever owned. I can only imagine what a 30 year old version of that car would be like.

Volkswagens are among the worst pieces of crap ever foisted upon the unsuspecting car buyer. Absolutely deplorable pieces of junk. Many repair shops will throw out $1k and up quotes just to run the customer off as they have no interest in working on them.

LOL. Excellent conclusion!

Each child costing something approaching 250K minimally get to 18, and then another 100K minimum to send to college, you’ve got to be REALLY well off, or willing to accept a much lower standard of living, to have a child today.

For the poor, there’s not really any downsides, their lives suck already (and they get lots of assistance). For the rich, same thing, you can have nannies and never deal with the messy parts of children. It’s the 80% in the middle where having a child has gone from a “expense, but a gift” to “financially devastating”.

I’d love to see where this $250K from birth to age 18 figure comes from. I’d iike line item-by-item proof.

What b.s.

and then another 100K minimum to send to college

It can be done for a lot less than that.

“I’d iike line item-by-item proof.”

Here you go.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/CRC2011.pdf

Can be done for less than 100K? Sure. You could choose to spend 0 on it. But, if you are planning to send a child, 18 years from now to a state school, you better be planning on at least 100K.

BTW, 250K is a low number. If you make over 100K, you can plan to spend >350K per child to get them to 18 years old.

I still call b.s.

How do you explain “free and reduced lunch”?

How do you explain “earned income tax credits”?

How do you explain “claiming dependents?”

How do you explain the average $46K annual household spending $250K over 18 years? Their take home is not anywhere near $46K…unless they are getting so many credits that their taxes are near zero. if they are, then that means they aren’t paying for their children’s schooling.

Also, it says from age 0 to 18. That $250K does not include college.

So parents spend $250K across 18 years to clothe, feed, house and medicate their kids?

So much b.s.

Much of those day-to-day costs would already be spent by a single person or a couple with no kids.

Look on page 14, spending for children with families under ~60K is about 170K to get them to 18 years old. And, yes, that does not include college, which, having a child today… Well, “ain’t gonna be cheep” would probably be an understatement.

And, maybe, if you want to adjust those numbers, take out the entire cost of housing (assume that the couple wouldn’t change their housing to have a family). Other than that, most everything is a “direct cost”.

As far as it being “BS”. There is a lot of research on the subject, and, as far as I’ve seen, most of the numbers are pretty consistent, 250K seems to be a reasonable estimate for a middle class family.

I’d be thrilled with 250K. My wife makes close to 100K and has stated many times, she wouldn’t have a child unless she could stay home until preschool. That’s a direct cost of close to 400K (call it 250K after tax) before we get the little guy into preschool. I’m confident that getting a child from 0 to 25 years old (college costs included) would run over 1M dollars for us. A 4 year prepaid program at a state school in FL, purchased today (including room and board) for a child born this year would around 90K, and that’s assuming that the kid wants to go to a public school. Lord only knows what a private school will be 18 years from now (certainly >100K/yr).

Baby making is becoming more and more the hobby of the rich (because the money doesn’t matter) and the poor (because their life style already stinks so having a child doesn’t make it much worse). The middle and upper-middle class are being “priced out” of this pursuit.

This, BTW, is, IMHO, a major problem. Many of those with the best characteristics (myself not included in this group) are choosing not to have children. The higher your IQ, the fewer children you are likely to have. This has only one eventual outcome and.. “It ain’t pretty”

400K before pre-school? What, are the kid’s diapers gold plated? What nonsense. My exended family is full of kids of all ages, and yes, they cost money, but nowhere NEAR $400k before pre-school, unless you indulge in the Cult Of Kids nonsense the Boomers foisted on us, with “play dates”, child psychologists, every toy known to man in their rooms, and 5 figure trips to Disney Resorts before the kid even knows what Mickey Mouse is.

Besides, most healthy people decide to have kids, because they want to start a family, not because “they can afford it”. That’s complete bullhockey, and is probably originating from the zero-pop groupies and idiots.

“400K before pre-school? What, are the kid’s diapers gold plated? What nonsense.”

It might be non-sense for you. It’s reality for my household:

” My wife makes close to 100K and has stated many times, she wouldn’t have a child unless she could stay home until preschool.”

My wife’s salary (that she wouldn’t make for the 4-5 years she’d stay home) would be a direct cost of around 400K. And that’s assuming we spend 0 on the child, which, we certainly would not.

Gold plated diapers? Hardly. That’s before we’ve bought our first diaper.

“Besides, most healthy people decide to have kids, because they want to start a family, not because “they can afford it”. That’s complete bullhockey, and is probably originating from the zero-pop groupies and idiots.”

Yes. And most people bought houses because they “wanted them” and not because “they could afford it”. Do you see the parallel? I could afford a Ferrari if I was willing to sacrifice the rest of my lifestyle to own one. Same thing with a child (although much more so).

“why is not now a good time to buy in SF when PITI is less than renting?”

Because the truth is that rental rates are a mere fraction of total monthly carrying costs of buying.

For me it’s just because the market seems so manipulated now that I don’t trust the old standards. It feels like they’re trying to use the rules of thumb to sucker me into something before they let the bottom fall out…

Perhaps I was young and naive in the mid 90s and it was just as manipulated then? All I know is that it didn’t feel this manipulated back then.

Because the truth is that rental rates are a mere fraction of total monthly carrying costs of buying.

Yes, many times. But always? It think SF said she’s paying about $2,100 a month PITI locked in for 30 years and similar houses rent for $2,600.

What are the other costs that would turn $2,600 into a fraction of $2,100?

I know nothing of the SF market, except that like NYC, it has never been subject to market fundamentals.

I was only referring to the rest of the nation and in general, at that.

“But always? It think SF said she’s paying about $2,100 a month PITI locked in for 30 years and similar houses rent for $2,600.”

Yes ALWAYS. Nobody cares what He/She said.

It think SF said she’s paying about $2,100 a month PITI locked in for 30 years and similar houses rent for $2,600.

Yes, but wasn’t she also able to use some sort of special grant or additional loan to pay down the PITI? So she might not be the norm for that area. Not that there’s anything normal about that market…

Perhaps I was young and naive in the mid 90s and it was just as manipulated then?

Was the Fed pouring in half a TRILLION dollars per year in an attempt to inflate housing back in the mid-90’s? With no end date?

I know nothing of the SF market, except that like NYC, it has never been subject to market fundamentals.

Of COURSE it has _always_ been subject to market fundamentals—just different fundamentals: different supply, and different demand.

It think SF said she’s paying about $2,100 a month PITI locked in for 30 years and similar houses rent for $2,600.

I’m pretty sure this is not an apples to apples comparison. If I recall correctly, sfrenter rents in Bernal Heights but is not buying in Bernal Heights.

I’m pretty sure this is not an apples to apples comparison. If I recall correctly, sfrenter rents in Bernal Heights but is not buying in Bernal Heights.

Sfrenter is using a misrepresentation? a counterfeit? Imagine that.

By “off the grid” I don’t mean unhook the power company cable, just get to the point where you pay them nothing.

You need to use different words to express what you are trying to communicate, then: how about “energy independent”?

“off the grid” is generally understood to mean not grid-connected. It only makes sense where the grid is not available to connect to at a reasonable price (e.g. WAY out in the country), or where the power company is not required to let you connect and sell them back your excess power.

Energy independent due to solar but grid-tied for storage can make good sense, though it is currently still more expensive than paying others to generate your electricity. In most locales, the fact that breakeven is achievable is only due to the subsidies—e.g. the power company is mandated to pay you an above-market rate for your generated power.

Since our government can’t be trusted which country in the world should we get the real data from? I bet we could trust the Israelis to tell the truth about AGW. Have you seen anything from them?

* I can’t access that web site since it has too many jscript exceptions in my browser.

sorry try this: http://www.theclimatebet.com/

OK I will check it out. The first story was a dud though. They compared Arctic ice with Antarctic ice. The Arctic has lost of 50% of it’s mass in 30 years while the Antarctic has only gained a small fraction of what the Arctic lost. Everybody forgets it’s what the water vapor effect is on Antarctic, a continent surrounded by a ocean vs the Arctic, a ocean surrounded by land.

Check this site out.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/

he cannot explain why 2012 is colder than 1998 with all the co2 that has been put into the air over the last 14 years.

You seem to put out a lot of numbers and sometimes look like you almost really know what you’re talking about but every once in awhile you come up with a sentence as the one above that totally undermines your credibility IMO.

There is no scientist who would write such a sentence with a straight face. You mention one specific year compared to one specific year when we are talking about a scientific theory of a long-term climate TREND?

I don’t believe in climate change either because it got down to 67 degrees here in Rio one day in July.

Sorry Rio, I am not talking about one day in one City. I am talking about the temperature of the entire globe. We were suppose to be in a warning trend primarily due to CO2. So it is impossible for the globe to not be warmer than 14 years ago if they had been right about the cause of the warming. While many not reject all AGW, the data show they were wrong about the extent and you do not understand science if you cannot figure that out.

The cherry picking is not being done by the primary nature trend crowd but by the AGW crowd since the data turned on them in 1998.

predictions vs reality:

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansensPredictions1988.htm

We were suppose to be in a warning trend primarily due to CO2. So it is impossible for the globe to not be warmer than 14 years ago if they had been right about the cause of the warming.

You just did it again. Wrong. Scientifically it is NOT “impossible” (if the cause of the warming is CO2) for 2012 to be cooler than 1998. I’m educated in science. Your statement is incorrect.

And looking at your above “predictions vs reality” we still see an upward TREND in temperatures. That the trend is not as fast as the predictions is irrelevant to the fact that your chart shows the global temperature trend is rising. And, according to your chart, global temperatures have been on an upward trend since 1960.

Yes and I have explained the natural reasons for the rise. It is impossible to believe that co2 was the primary factor, since despite more and more co2 being emitted the warming stopped when the PDO reversed.
Thus, the fact that we had the highest solar output in 8000 years, combined with warming AMO and PDO explains virtually all if not al lthe waming without C02.

If Hansen was even close we would not be having this discussion.

Your sources are ALL bogus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg

Seriously, like cabana boy, why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

From your own source the link to NOAA:

According to our reconstruction, the level of solar
activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous
period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years
ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only
of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of
magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity
periods were shorter than the present episode.

So I do not know who created your graph but they seriously manipulated it. Of course, when you can say that Germany produces 50% of its energy from solar when it produces 3% you can spin with the obama administration.

So once again I revealed that you are cabana boy and why I have refrained from the type of personal attacks you engage in, it is harder and harder to refrain when you attack someo.ne and you never have your facts right.

Why +while

But one last thing, if you look at the graphs that are created by the AGW crowd and then look at the data, you should be asking why do they manipulate them so much. As I explained in many previous posts, it is to justify a massive transfer of this country’s wealth to the developing world.

So you really can’t read a chart.

to justify a massive transfer of this country’s wealth to the developing world

Why would the vast majority of America’s scientists want to transfer our money to the developing world?

I can read a chart, you cannot read an abstract or a table of the real data. NOAA, not some idiot that created your chart, stated that solar activity has been the highest in 8000 years over the last seventy years the chart I used reflected that reality, I do not know how anyone can see that fact in the chart you provided.

It’s pretty obvious you don’t.

So let’s see your chart from the same data.

Because Dan, you are wrong, wrong, wrong and when presented with the proof from the most impeccable sources on the entire planet, you continue to dismiss them and then act insulted.

There’s science and there is delusion and you aren’t doing science so eventually, you should be insulted. Pointedly.

Turkey, I already provided the chart. But the chart is completely unnecessary when NOAA has made that clear statement. Your chart like the famous hockey stick chart is just bogus.

Why would the vast majority of America’s scientists want to transfer our money to the developing world?

I do not accept that vast majority of scientists believe that the warming of the last 70 years was primarily caused by C02, I do believe that the PTB through the MSM play up the ones that make that claim since they want what is left of the middle class to pay for the infrastructure that they need in the developing world to maximize their profits.

Turkey you have not provided any proof just insults. No one from the AGW camp has or can explain the lack of warming for 15 years. They are not impeccable sources.

A few weeks ago, you denied up and down that the global temperature was not warmer than 1998 until I used NASA’s own numbers against you. Today you tried to deny that we have not seen the greatest solar output in 8000 years over the last 70 years but now your own website proves it.

What the AGW crowd tries to do is individually examine all the natural factors that caused the global warming between 1998 and then state that individually they could not have caused the rise. However, what they never do is consider that the sun melted ice caps both on Mars and and the Earth over the last 70 years and from 1977 to 1998 we had the PDO in a warming cycle, the AMO adding to the warming, an el nino during 1998 and the sun spots adding to the warming.The PDO has switched and the others will soon will be promoting cooling.

The AGW crowd is desperate to get policies in place before the nature cycles reveal them to be frauds.

Wow.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: is this year over yet?

Here’s some more “bogus” charts for you:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/8

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/07/100728-global-warming-noaa-climate-hottest-decade-science-environment/

Wait, does that say “NOAA”?

http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/noaa-unmistakable-global-warming-continues/

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/07/global-warming-undeniable/1

No one from the AGW camp has or can explain the lack of warming for 15 years.

Maybe because of this?

the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.”
NASA

Turkey, there is no way we are setting a record this year despite your side claiming in 2010 that we would. No the year is not over but with 8 months in and the el nino weak to non-existent, it is not going to happen. But I will keep the board informed with the actual data not the bs you post.

http://prasoondiwakar.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Temp-Trend.jpg

http://ksj.mit.edu/sites/default/files/images/tracker/Earth%20Temp%20BEST%20trend.png

Wait, does that say “MIT”?

Rio and Turkey knock yourselves out:

cosmoscon.com/2012/09/11/global-temperature…september-2012

http://www.livescience.com/19875-gaia-lovelock-climate-change.html

No one from the AGW camp has or can explain the lack of warming for 15 years.

I don’t really care much about this issue however you are wrong and every once in awhile come up with bogus statements. And you just did again.

Lack of warming? The chart you showed shows an uptrend in warming the past 15 years. just because it shot down this year does NOT break the upward trend. Hell this is chart reading 101. It you chart was charting a stock I’d buy that stock.

Your chart:

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansensPredictions1988.htm

It you chart was charting a stock I’d buy that stock.

That would make you a momentum investor…

It’s a conspiracy!

In the 1970’s and 1980’s when I would fly commercial and the day was clear, I could plainly see a distinct brown layer (not clouds) at the horizon. It was more than just a thin line of brown. Now that brown layer is gone. The air has been improved immensely in the 40 or so years. Problem is, the air quality regulators would be out of a job unless they promulgate additional rules to chase the diminishing returns of further improvement.

How much cleaner? When do they stop?

Swing by Denver during the Winter, and I’ll introduce you to my good friend, Mr. Thermal Inversion.

“Swing by Denver during the Winter, and I’ll introduce you to my good friend, Mr. Thermal Inversion.”

Ditto for Boise, ID.

And just like water, if you try to breath only it, you will die.

It doesn’t take must in the ratio change of CO2 to O to kill you.

The future earth will be thriving, then. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Saying co2 is a pollutant is like saying water is a pollutant.

Water is one of the most destructive forces in nature!

Haven’t you seen any of the many examples of where it has torn down mountains?!?

It doesn’t take must in the ratio change of CO2 to O to kill you.

Care to be more specific about that?

Reference?

Form Wiki:

Air is the name given to atmosphere used in breathing and photosynthesis. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. While air content and atmospheric pressure vary at different layers, air suitable for the survival of terrestrial plants and terrestrial animals is currently only known to be found in Earth’s troposphere and artificial atmospheres…

Hypercapnia is generally caused by hypoventilation, lung disease, or diminished consciousness. It may also be caused by exposure to environments containing abnormally high concentrations of carbon dioxide (usually due to volcanic or geothermal causes), or by rebreathing exhaled carbon dioxide. It can also be an initial effect of administering supplemental oxygen on a patient with sleep apnea. In this situation the hypercapnia can also be accompanied by respiratory acidosis.[2]

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Main_symptoms_of_carbon_dioxide_toxicity.svg

You need to review the math:

From your chosen reference (wiki):

“Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[79]”

7% / .035% = 194.44.

In other words, we would have to increase the amount of C02 almost by a factor of 200 to kill you. As opposed to what you said:

It doesn’t take must in the ratio change of CO2 to O to kill you.

False.

Sorry, I mistyped one digit: 0.036% is the low end of the range that wikipedia quotes for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

But the math was right; 7% / 0.036% = 194.44.

How many tons of toxic gas are emitted worldwide each year?

How many BTUs?

I’ll bet you aren’t even close.

What’s that got to do with it?

Seriously?!

Yeah, but let’s drop it.

Core. Samples.

No. Data.

What do you mean “no data?”

There are literally tons of core samples from the Acrtic and Antarctic.

Are you kidding me?

Er, “Arctic”

doh

not just the surface area needs to be measured but the entire mass (thinkness) to get a handle on how much ice is there. Not even discussed.

Buzz! Wrong again!

Truly comprehensive records began with the satellite era in the late 1970s. Modern records include data about ice extent, ice area, concentration, thickness and the age of the ice.
wikipedia

I knew what you meant….Do you think there are enough data to give us a solid model of this floating sheet of ice the size of a continent, and to tell us if it was especially thin or thick going into this spring? If there is any such, I’d expect it to be by soundings rather than by drillings, just my imagination. And what about the currents that sweep beneath, their direction and temperature. I’d sure be curious. The Russians probably know a lot they aren’t sharing…

Everything I presented here was about the hysterical “science” program on NPR. Wiki that.

Rio, I don’t think they could measure the solid ice cover before the sat data.

I think they could get close, I’m thinking maybe 70-80% accurate which is enough to determine long-term trends and conditions now versus a lot of “then”.

And close enough to discount someone saying we didn’t know much at all about the ice coverages before satellites.

Turns out there is a way to measure ice extents back to about 100,000 yrs. When the ice melts it drops tiny bits of material that it transports from where it originated from to the sea floor below when it melts. When you examine the sea bed cores they can measure the presence of both organic and inorganic matter, the layers and various isotopes markers can reveal approximate climate conditions. In general Paleontology & Paleoclimatology as they both require bit of science and a bit of guessing or extrapolating to most of their claims so I don’t give it much weight compared to human terraforming the planet in less than 200 years.
Let me repeat, it’s the rate of change that’s been unprecedented for millions of years. That alone should tell you to expect trouble in the biosphere.

Very interesting Bluestar, appreciate your post.

Let me repeat, it’s the rate of change that’s been unprecedented for millions of years. That alone should tell you to expect trouble in the biosphere.

That I can totally believe.

It’s the recent re-branding of CO2 as a poisonous gas that needs to be regulated that I have trouble buying. Anyone who paid attention in 5th grade science knows that CO2 is a _necessary_ part of the carbon cycle, and that it is only poisonous in concentrations such that it starves your body of O.

We pay $30 for advertised 16Mbps internet, which often measures faster on speedtest dot net.

Was visiting a relative in Florida recently and he was showing me some youtube clips. The motion was jerky and the audio was not synched. I showed him how to get to speedtest and he ran the test and got about 1.5Mbps. I told him to call his cable company (Roadrunner). He was told that’s the speed he’s paying for and he’s paying $35 a month!

BTW, if you have a fast enough download speed, Google Earth has a flight simulator built into it. It’s a LOT of fun to dive down into Alpine valleys and then up over the snow-covered Swiss peaks and back down again. You can loop, roll, and stall the jet into the side of a mountain if you’re not careful. I’ve even gotten vertigo a couple of times.

$45 per month for 1.5 down is pretty much average coast to coast.

Lucky you.

Ben I still have my landline …and got dsl over 10 years ago…but speeds have dropped..I used to get 2.0+ on dsl now i barely get 1.2…and i had new lines put in…

My DSL just tested at 4.46 mbps download speed and .48mbps upload Ping 28ms speed here in Rio.

How does that compare to the average in USA?

Verizon used to be Bell Atlantic, one of the legacy phone companies that evolved after the AT&T breakup. It was ALL wireline back then!

3 down, .5 up is average.

1 down and .2 up is reality.

I still have my legacy bell atlantic email virtually no spam…

My pet peeve is a lot the new high falutin movie makers are 720+ HD which doesn’t run well on poor old dsl….with no options for lower quality…

3 mbps down with dsl. 10mbps with my 4G phone (but only 2gb a month) lame! I hope Verizon triples those limits soon.

I hope Verizon triples those limits soon.

Unlikely. The airwaves are _shared_ spectrum—in other words, what you use, they cannot sell to someone else.

Contract this with your land-line, where what you use does not affect what your neighbor can use, as the signal is carried on separate wires.

Lets see - $30 for a landline for old times sake.
$25 for 750 minutes of net10 cell phone
$17 for dial up - yes I’m a luddite.
$13 for netflix in my mailbox
($10 one time fee for rabbit ears)
_____

$85/ month total for communications and home entertainment - is that cheap? Maybe not.

For $17 a month ($200 a year) my county taxes pay for a great library with a good selection of DVDs and CDs. Now that’s a bargain. Plus they throw in schooling for all the kids in the county as part of the package. Aaah the advantages of living in a cheap neighborhood in Oil City South.

Indeed it is social media. It’s not business media. A point made in great detail by branding guy Rob Frankel.

I remember trying like hell to persuade some clients that they DID NOT want to put their entire business identity on Facebook. They fired me shortly later.

*shrug*

I remember trying like hell to persuade some clients that they DID NOT want to put their entire business identity on Facebook. They fired me shortly later.

Next time you run into this, try telling them that digital sharecropping is not a good idea.

Good link.

I’ve seen many a business close just for those very reasons.

Since we’re on the “downside of sharing anything and everything via social media” thing, here’s another tasty link.

A delicious excerpt from said link:

Can you pay your rent or mortgage with attributions, likes, or +1s? Buy groceries? Gas? Pay your bills? Feed your kids/pets/self?
No.

Will your doctor, dentist, mechanic, plumber, hair stylist, or any other service provider perform her/his service in exchange for you liking him/her?
No.

Can you buy stock in Google for free, for +1ing it?
No.

How about products on Amazon or iTunes? Can likes gets you a novel or a song?
No.

Right Carl and if you are social you would want to listen or download the podcasts…otherwise there is no way to monetize your costs…

If you’re a band you want people to show up…so free or discount drink ticket/admission would be appropriate social marketing

The only other reason someone mentioned a while back is out of those 5000 fans you might only have 500 active daily users.

I wish there was a way to say delete 1000 fans if they only check FB once a month…it opens up the door to 1000 new fresh faces that might become active social users

It’s *social* media

But my point is that people are there to socialize. They aren’t there to keep their “friends” in business. It’s assumed that you make your living some way other than marketing on FB.

Long term it’s a fool’s bet for reasons I outlined above.

Long term we are all dead.

Yes long term we are all dead. And the generation before us that started this whole pyramid / ponzi debt financing scheme - well they are all dead now so what do they care? Only now we’re here still and we have to deal with their mess. And when we are dead the next generation will have to deal with a worse problem. So in actual reality the problem is always *now* while *this* generation is alive. The phrase “long term we are all dead” is just banksta double speak to confuse you and make you feel stupid. And it works! I’m feeling dumber already.

Actually the line is from Keynes. Of course, the bankstas and Obama both worship him.

I realize the line is from Keynes. Much of this mess is based and justified by the neo-keynesians. As you know Neo-keynesianism is the B.S they use the baffle and bilk the tax payer.

Keynesian economics ended in the early 1980s. It’s now world wide Behavioral economics. I don’t think BE relies on mathematics, more on psychology and sociology. Without mass media the illusion would collapse and civilization would do a hard reboot and then re-emerge at some new level with a new political/economic model.

You are a wise man Bluestar. I’m considering what you are saying and it fits up until Greenspan. But I’m wondering now? Back then as Doug Noland pointed out on his Z1 reports - the Fed’s balance sheet and power to control the market was getting superseded by the liquidity created by FHA, Fannie and Freddie and the shadow banking system. And we thought they’d never be able to pull out based on their monetary powers. They had to use BE. But under Bernanke… if they continue with QEX they could soon own up to 51%+ of all outstanding debt. That sounds like a Keynesian force to me. I’d like to hear your thoughts - maybe you are more up to date than I am on this.

And I said “and land” above.

Sorry, I missed that.

And by land, I presume that means RE that generates income (as in rents).

Eats, Shoots & Leaves: Why, Commas Really Do Make a Difference! [Hardcover]
Lynne Truss (Author), Bonnie Timmons (Illustrator)

+1 True. LOL!

Say What? A union administration organization voted in this boondoggle. That is a fact. The administration organization was made of up three union shills and one non-union member. So how can you say that?

But I agree that these kinds of boondoggle although created by the union representatives in the long run don’t serve the interests of the rank and file union members. They do make a lot of money for the union administrators, union lobbyist, union representatives, political Super-PACs, political campaigns, and wall street boondoggle structuring hounds. It is a mulch-billion dollar industry - and that’s just counting the school unions. Some of these guys makes millions personally on these deals. In the end the public unions will get the shaft.

My mom was in the teachers union in Providence, R.I. Their union reps made a fortune off of the teachers backs running their local school administrative counsel and lobbying, the politicians had a field day bankrupting their city and wall street made a bundle structuring their bonds. While the corruption ran deep the cash was flowing for all involved. 30 years hence how is that working out for the rank and file teachers like my mom? She is now and old lady looking at a bankrupt pension. She was taken to the cleaners by these thieves. And the whole time they would say, “But it’s for the kids!”

Maybe we should worry less about the unions and more about offshoring and the Fed Res and its bottomless QE’s.

A board of education is NOT a union. They may have union members on it. I have not said they didn’t. But it is NOT a union organization.

Again, my point is that it was and is not a rank and file wage and pension issue that will cause them to lose those very wages and pensions and YET still get blamed for it.

My other point is that Poway is not unique. Many, MANY other special deals in many, many other municipalities are causing budget problems and the unions are getting the blame.

As for the board, the people of Poway have only themselves to blame. They elected them.

The upside is that at least the problem was found out.

lutkey the problem here wouldn’t exist if not for the public teachers union. No rank and file teacher by themselves would bother to get involved in this kind of mischief. That’s the whole point. It’s the public teachers’ union itself that causes the issues, they take over the school boards, push through absurd agenda (like this) lobby on the state, local and national level - it’s a multibillion dollar union and it has massive power. The multibillion dollar union get the corrupt politicos elected. And on and on. The multibillion dollar union machine is a money ticket for all kinds of corrupt politicians. It’s not the individual teachers. On their own they wouldn’t cause these problems.

The head of the national teacher’s union once said he represents the interests of the union members (the teachers) and not of the kids. He is quoted as saying that when the kids start paying dues that’s when he’ll start representing the kids! Doh!

Clearly this would never have passed if it wasn’t for the unions running the administration that pushed it through. Put the blame for this were it belongs.

And if you point is that unions do more damage than just bankrupting their own pensions, well then I agree - as evidenced by this fiasco.

I could get into all kinds of other damage the teacher’s union has caused and it goes far beyond just wages - far beyond. It goes to fundamental issues about education. Why did they lay off several “teachers of the year” instead of pushing out some of the worst teachers? Because of the unions. Why do they push for the failed English as a second language system in California where they continue to teach kids in Spanish instead of English in all subjects when it has been proven over and over that the end result is it hurts the kids - they actually end up doing much worse in life as a result. But the unions push for it because they have a whole meal ticket designed around it and too bad for the kids. It goes way beyond wages.

Public unions are a conflict on interest. The whole basis of our system in the U.S. is to defeat conflicts on interest - they shouldn’t exist PERIOD. That’s why we have a lower and upper house in congress to represent local and national interested and why we have checks in the executive and the judicial. And it’s why even law passed by congress is subject to judicial review and so on and so forth. No conflict of interest should ever be allowed to be institutionalized in the public sector.

Now as for the private sector unions - well that’s the private sector - you do whatever you want.

“Maybe we should worry less about the unions and more about offshoring and the Fed Res and its bottomless QE’s.”

Colorado, you are correct about that. In terms of shear orders of magnitude the Fed and the fractional reserve banking cartel cause far more damage than the public teacher’s unions. Without them many of these pony and fairy dust public union financing boondoggle would never get structured and sold. It’s always good to put the magnitudes of the damage caused in focus.

But it still doesn’t make it right i.e. two wrongs don’t make a right. They should both be fixed.

These both just happen to be low barrier to entry type jobs that attract damaged youths.

They attract anybody who can physically do the job and can’t or won’t try to get over a higher barrier.

You can also make a ton of money very quickly.

I know someone who worked just one season and made 13K in one big chunk. This got them out of a debt they owed and put them back on their feet and they moved on to a new job.

$13K per season x 4 seasons = $52K. That’s about $10K over the median household income. That’s not a huge sum but for a young guy in debt I could see where that seems like a windfall versus working a Mikky D’s.

Exactly.

I know 4 guys, non obese, who died of heart disease in their 40’s.

LOL…

Link please?

Are you sure you are not talking about rates of deaths–such as the % of people who are hospitalized who die from medical errors? Because there is no way that medical errors account for more deaths in absolute numbers than heart disease.

A link to the site where you found these statistics would be much appreciated.

In a recent WSJ article, a med student in his internship kept hearing some doctor referred to as “Doctor Hodad.” That wasn’t the doc’s real name and finally the student asked about it. Hodad was short for “Hands Of Death And Disfigurement.” The surgeon botched a significant number of his surgeries. The point of the article was that there are a lot of Doctor Hodads out there and the profession turns a blind eye.

But when you are running deficits at the 7.6% of gdp and higher level and financing them by printing money, it will not take long to hit 7 or 8% rates.

That’s what I thought, too—five or six years ago.

me too…. still waiting for rates to go up….

“But when you are running deficits at the 7.6% of gdp and higher level and financing them by printing money, it will not take long to hit 7 or 8% rates.”

Isn’t Japan running large deficits? How come their interest rates are still so low, two decades after their housing bubble popped?

Is Obama a 1%er? If not, why not?

Obama 2012

Is Obama a 1%er? If not, why not?

Of course Obama is a 1%er. And there are many 1%ers who will fight much harder for the Middle-Class than will Romney.

I even see many 1%ers and .01%’ers saying their taxes should be raised.

Obama 2012.

I even see many 1%ers and .01%’ers saying their taxes should be raised.

I find that the right-wing mindset is often incapable of believing such a thing. They are sure there is some ulterior advantage a .1%er would receive, when they call for their own taxes to be raised. They simply cannot believe someone would call for something that would benefit the country as a whole, but not directly benefit the person calling for it.

It’s quite revealing.

“Of course Obama is a 1%er. And there are many 1%ers who will fight much harder for the Middle-Class than will Romney.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Go for it Rio! You’re really on a roll lately. Your “black man” doesn’t give a flying f..k about the middle class. With $4 gas and electricity prices “necessarily skyrocketing”, he is doing absolutely nothing but making it worse, A dog catcher should be able to win all 50 states against this guy.

“When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…”

-Barack Obama in a 2008 interview

Be careful about 1%’ers who claim they would be glad to have their taxes raised. Many of the 1%’ers higher public relations consultants to help them come up with an image and say things that aren’t true, that set up photo ops for charities that they give little time or money to and all the rest. There is a lot of propaganda. I personally know a lot of 1%’ers like that. For example I know a 1%’er who was bragging how he didn’t ask for the Bush tax cuts and would gladly pay more taxes to the Feds and his state. Then I noticed shortly thereafter he restructured his company so instead of paying a Federal 35% marginal rate plus his local state tax rate on his income on his business he changed it so some of the income was now being generated tax free in Bermuda and the rest that had to be onshore was re-incorporated in Nevada to avoid even paying the local state tax (Nevada has no state income tax and his old state has a high state income tax). What a schmuck!

And Bill Gates and Buffet went into a P.R. spin about *income* taxes on the rich should be increased from 35% - they’d gladly pay higher. And everyone bought it. Only - doh! It’s all B.S. They don’t pay *income tax*. They pay taxes on capital gains and dividends. Well, well they didn’t want to raise taxes on capital gains, carried interest and dividends!!! A 15% tax rate is too high! And nobody caught it. Most of the guys paying the 35% federal rate pay it on wages - and they are the small business guys. The top-end of the top 1%’ers like Gates, Buffet and the Romney mostly pay like 15% on dividends and carried interest because of the way they structure their income. What schmucks!

That being said - there are lots of people in the 1% that would truly pay more to see a balanced budget and decent rebuilding of infrastructure, better education, etc. All I’m saying is don’t pay attention when they’re mouths move, pay attention when they write a check to the government.

In California many of the 1%’er I know are small business people and they spend a little over 40% of there income on state and federal tax. It’s a lot. But most of these guys are very generous people and would chip in more.

Go for it Rio! You’re really on a roll lately.

I know. Thank you! Just warming up….hittin’ my stride! Fired up, ready to go! Movin’ Forward!

A dog catcher should be able to win all 50 states against this guy.

Now you’re just hatin’ on your man Romney.

A dog catcher should be able to win all 50 states against this guy.

Too bad the R’s didn’t pick a dog-catcher then…

“Too bad the R’s didn’t pick a dog-catcher then…”

Did you miss the debates? They picked a bevy of them…

Your answer to our issues?

The communists. I’ll pass.

Observation: Seems your communist infiltrators in our government are the ultimate defenders of all things wall street and all things Bernanke. But you will vote them back in…I think it’s time for an IQ test prior to voting.

All we could ask of O is to keep the Bush Recession from turning into the Bush Depression. He did that.

We don’t know that yet. He did succeed in at least delaying it, though. The question is are we going to get it even bigger when it finally shows up?

Their goal is to match the rate of credit creation from the credit bubble with QE’s etc.”

stupid goal look what distrotions it created

better channel that money to somthing worthwhile, which they can’t do, Money will flow to where ever it gets the best return and cause random problems

“TWO YEARS of a democratic SUPER MAJORITY in the congress and a FILIBUSTER PROOF democratic senate.”

LIE.

TWO YEARS of a democratic SUPER MAJORITY in the congress and a FILIBUSTER PROOF democratic senate.

It’s a common untruth coming from the right-wing. (But when they use all CAPS they look like they’re serious)

Did The Democrats Ever Really Have 60 Votes In The Senate, And For How Long?

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame)

From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

Reagan never controlled the house and barely controlled the senate for two years and got things done.He has no excuse but poor leadership skills.

In Congress, the Senate is all that matters. The House is bread and circuses.

Even without control, you can still block, filibuster and create many obstacles for your opponents.

You do know that Obama never lost the Senate?

He has no excuse but poor leadership skills.

Chicken and egg?

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Which came first, the “poor leadership skills” or the obstinance of his political opponents?

You do know that Obama never lost the Senate?

Nowadays you “lose” the Senate absent 60 votes. Therefore, Obama did lose the Senate all but 5 months when important Dem bills were not even ready to pass.

Reagan never controlled the house and barely controlled the senate for two years and got things done.He has no excuse but poor leadership skills.

That was in a long gone past in a country far, far away. Reagan was not against the most obstructive Congress in our lifetimes. The House Speaker Tip O’Neil had a good relationship with Reagan and worked together on many bills.

The Repubs refused to work with Obama from day one. Part was race, part was ideology, part dogma, part extremism and part was the nutballs taking over your once proud party. If the Repubs were still honorable as they used to be, Romney would be leading all polls by about 10 points. He’s not. That should give you Repubs a real wake-up call about your Repub Party.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Which came first, the “poor leadership skills” or the obstinance of his political opponents?

That’s easy, poor leadership skills came first then after O was pres for 2 years McConnnel said that.

“Any President is going to be blocked by the power of the BIG MONEY lobby system that has taken over which ends up making Congress vote to please these special interest groups .”

“You know how much I raised to run against Gerald Ford? Zero. You know how much I raised to run against Ronald Reagan? Zero.” -Jimmy Carter

Oh you mean you don’t like The Donald, “I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth,” Trump? What is with his hair? I think we need to innovate that!

LOL

That’s a very real concern - health insurance.

Although for many young 20-somethings (with a lower risk rate) it’s probably less of a concern especially if they have no assets to lose. But I do know people who won’t leave the workforce even younger people because they are fearful of not being insured. So it is a very good point.

So it is a very good point.

Yes it is. Our current health care insurance system greatly impedes entrepreneurship.

I will concede that point. We can and will do better gentlemen.

“…We can and will do better gentlemen….”
Careful, you’ll get FPSS all excited.

LOL, Allena

Why do you constantly promulgate lies here?

Very perceptive!

That wasn’t plagiarism — that was application of a universally brilliant idea to a special case. (I personally apply the same principal to religious organizations.)

Groucho did suffer from a certain lack of economic perspective, though. While the first Marx Bros movie, The Cocoanuts, ridiculed those who were snookered during the Great Florida Land Boom of the 1920s, Groucho failed to perceive the asset price correlation between housing and stocks. Consequently he lost his shirt in the stock market collapse precipitated by The Great Crash of 1929.

Very funny man Cantankerous! I like it!

So do modifications (which have gained more success in avoiding re-default over time).

You guys have definitely been following the nuances of the “intervention.”

What if tax forgiven debt is taxable again on 1/1/2013 under current law for the first time since 2007?

What if mortgage interest is no longer tax deductible in 2013?

Key points to keep track of.

Not gonna happen. The National Association of Realliars nixed it. It’s the 1% who would stand to lose the most without the MID, which is another reason it will survive the current deficit reduction season.

Kennebec Journal
Monday, September 24, 2012 1:00 AM
Mortgage interest deduction is cherry on top

When you buy a new home, there’s been a cherry on top for years to help seal the deal.

That incentive has been the mortgage interest deduction, where homeowners get to write off the interest they pay on their homes.

The argument is it helps incentivize homeownership and helps millions of Americans achieve the dream of buying a home for their families.

But following discussion at the Republican National Convention, there is concern that the deduction could go away. It’s a legitimate concern, if that really is the case.

If you eliminate the deduction entirely, all of a sudden millions of people will see their tax bills go up by potentially thousands of dollars or more.

It’s thousands that people clearly cannot afford, based on the number of people filing foreclosures and unable to pay property taxes.

Luckily, even though Republicans didn’t say in their platform they would protect the deduction at all cost, they said, “We strongly support tax reform; in the event we do not achieve this, we must preserve the mortgage interest deduction.”
…

One idea of tax reform is to turn the MID into a credit, so that people who don’t itemize can get a benefit.

As it is, the standard deduction for a married couple is 11,600. With no income tax as part of the itemization, this is good for about $330k of mortgage at 3.5% fixed (meaning no benefit for mortgages less than this if you live in a state with not state income tax and you have no other deductions). The more there is income tax in the state, the lower the mortgage before you actually get a benefit.

With respect to tax forgiveness:

1. They are already talking about extending it through 2013; and
2. If you bought for a price a lot higher than the sale price, you will have an offsetting loss, but it will be a capital loss, and you’ll have a timing issue. If you bought a lot lower and pulled out a lot of cash through refinances over time…well, you’re screwed.