Re: Andrew's Ideal World

In article <marek1965-FA3081.12335409082009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
marek1965@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
In article <MPG.24e7873b79995f0d9898c5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<< Major snippage will occur below----this is getting too long >>
<<SNIP>>
Well, we had price increases---at about the same rate at the
stock market rose over the last 30 years. I suspect that there
are mixed reviews on whether we enjoyed them. For me, the price
increases simply meant an increase in my property taxes---not
particularly enjoyable. For people who moved in and out of
the region, the increases may have been enjoyable---providing
that they weren't moving to an area with even greater increases.

It's an interesting parallel because, as you noted later, your S&P
portfolio has recovered somewhat but is still down from the peak.

Here's something to wrap one's head around: Markets aren't a total zero
sum game, of course, (they produce wealth), but inflation in one market
has to come from another. exoburbs, rural regions, etc. experienced
price gains partly because of pressure from people moving away from
higher prices areas. Yes? And they also deflate when the primary or
more pressurized market, deflates.

But this also works inter-market. Just as bonds and gold rise when
stocks fall, then what does that mean about the real estate's market
rise and how it was ballyhooed as this great thing? Didn't people
spending more money on mortgage and taxes (and rent) mean less money for
such things as investment money for R&D, technologies, etc? Many people
disparage a "service only" based economy where there are few factories
but lots of Wal Marts and Starbucks. By the same token, isn't an
economy where people work on each other's homes doomed for failure?

Just a thought...

I never said your region enjoyed price increases like those around many
major metro areas. Non-sequitur.

No, it is a valid point---as I pointed out, moving from here to one
of the major metro regions probably meant the increases were not
enjoyable.

You'll need to elaborate on that. If, say, an exoburb of a major city
offers more jobs than your region and the cost of living is more or the
less the same, how is that not more enjoyable to someone?

Affordable exoburbs offer one advantage to companies looking to locate
(or more away) than rural regions (or whatever you classify your region
as): They don't require a plane flight for business execs and workers to
go to the home office.

We refer to our computer data center located in the exoburbs away from
the home office as "The Outhouse." :-)

There are other costs that many businesses consider. I think Google
located their data center along the Columbia river for the
cheap power.

Which city slicker can afford properties closer to home? Where is
their home? Do you mean that people in the far-out suburbs can
now afford homes closer to work?

I was talking about situations such as California where people cashed
out their real estate to move to lower priced regions and also
businesses that located to rural/mid-west regions to deal with the high
cost of real estate/labor in major metro regions during the boom.

Naturally, when high prices for residential and commercial real estate
in those regions no longer apply, then money that helped push up prices
(and jobs) in the alternative regions also decrease.

By 'those regions' do you mean California in the example above?

As you know, California is more than just Los Angeles, San Diego, and
San Franscisco. That's just _1/2_ of the state. :-)

I'm talking largely about major metro regions such as the greater Los
Angeles region, the Bay Area, but I guess as it applies to you maybe
also Seattle and Las Vegas?

A business looking to expand or relocate would consider Las Vegas, for
example, a bargain right now.

Depends on the type of business. Energy costs are about 25% lower
in the Pacific Northwest.

This applies to suburbs, exoburbs, rural regions, etc. What pumps up
all balloons also deflates them.
That's a horrible analogy! When was the last time you pumped air out
of a balloon! Balloons are, by nature, self-deflating. No pumping
required.

By that token, then, "bubbles" are a bad example for some markets that
are self-inflating such as metro regions that experience price increases
that make their own "air."

But your point actually can be used against your claim that your region
is somehow special and immune from price deflation because it will "self
deflate" without too much help. Come now, Mark, don't you know that
young people generally tend to move AWAY from rural regions to the big
city?

Not necessarily to the big city---as in New York or LA. A lot of young
people end up in cities under 50,000 population---particularly if they
go to college in one and hang around afterwards. While my house is
considered a rural residential property, the city limits of a town
of 58,000 are across my back fence.
<<SNIP Pundits section-- I don't watch them often enough to have
an informed opinion>>


Rights, especially the right to vote, are still protected almost
entirely by men. Plenty of soldiers fight to protect rights, for
example, without necessarily EXERCISING them.

Plenty of US soldiers seem to be fighting to allow other nations'
people
the right to vote. Not too many are fighting for our right to vote.
In recent history, absent a few National Guard actions, that's been
the job of the courts. Granted, the courts are mostly men.

My point is that rights aren't "natural" or at least in the context
that
Heidi and many others seem to think they are. The founding fathers
used
the term for a specific reason in that the moral support for rights
were based upon God rather than arbitrarily dictated by a King or
government. If they were natural in the sense that once squeezed out
like toothpaste, then we wouldn't have a military to begin with or even
police for that matter.

It's funny that Heidi seems to think that women won't give up their
rights for a Prada bag or Versaci shoes yet that's primarily what the
women's vote has been all along: Voting for political bad-boys who
promise them what they want to hear and then getting let down, blaming
their opponents, and then coming back for more. "Yeah baby. It will
be
better next time. Promise. It's that other guy whose the jerk."
"Oh...
Rex!"

Of course men have been voting for those same people all along. What is
their reason for doing so?

Well, some are as short sighted, egotistical and naive as the women, of
course. Also, in modern times many men have become effeminate in their
thinking. Overall, however, men have tended to vote for more
economically responsible candidates (not necessarily perfect, but more
responsible) and less racist and self serving towards special interest
groups.
Okay, now prove that hypothesis by showing some data on the significant
differences in voting patterns between men and women.

It's hilarious, for example, that Heidi griped that evil corporations in
Canada were offshoring high paying jobs, etc. Gee, the great guys she
voted into office to rob from Peter to pay Paula backstabbed her. Isn't
that a shocker?

"she voted into office"-----I think you give her way too much credit.
It might also pay to remember that the Canadians are happier with
their health care system than we are in the US---to the extent that
more than half of the responses in a recent poll indicated a preference
for the Canadian system. If that's what they were voting for, then
I guess it worked out OK.

Non-sequitur. I pointed out that Heidi's defense of the women's vote
needs to be reconciled with her criticisms of that government.

And happiness, while useful, can be deceiving and meaningless. If
someone who is rich less happy than a poor person who makes better with
what they have, does that mean it's better for someone to give you money
than take it away from you?

For happiness, please send $1 to happy guy at:

Happy Guy
marek1965@xxxxxxxxxxx (paypal)

Remember, Mark, the more "happiness" you send me the more you get!

Credit for this idea goes to the "Happy Guy" episode of The Simpson's
where Homer gets a hold of an automated telemarketing machine and calls
every home in the city asking them to send $1 to him for happiness.

Anyways, this article is long enough without you starting a sub-sub
healthcare thread. Moving on:

<<Snip section on French restaurants started with an anecdote and ended
with your confession of minimal personal experience>>
[...]
Don't worry Mark! They'll be burning much more electricity to
build
those windmills. They should get the power back to you in 50 years
or
so. :-)

Got a cite for that? It's moe than twice the time I've seen in some
studies of the payoff time for wind farms.

http://www.sei.ie/Renewables/Wind Energy/Wind Farm
Development/Financing w
ind
farms/

*sigh* Are you serious? Like a factor of 2 really matters that much
in
deciding the feasibility of these ideas?

Are YOU serious?? A factor of two in the time for return on investment
is a major factor in deciding whether an investment is worthwhile.

Not really. The ecokooks don't care that atomic power is several times
that more efficient than wind power. It's all about feeling good, baby.
Same thing with real estate. Or eating TV dinners and watching
commercials for exercise equipment. :-)

I agree that nuclear power is more efficient---through the construction
and operation phases. However getting a permit for a new nuclear
plant anywhere close to a major population center takes years or
decades of work. The problem is that everyone, liberal and
conservative wants power to magically come out of the wall plug.

There's so much wrong with the above paragraph...

For one thing, I don't think ANY new power plant has been built in years
in the USA so your point about the difficulty of getting permits is
totally moot. It's like arguing over how hard it is for a normal
citizen to get a permit for a howitzer. :-)

Look Again, Mark. A number of new power plants have been started or
completed in the last few years----There are more than 23 coal-fired
plants under construction as of June 2009.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

A number of new nuclear generating facilities are either planned
or under construction:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html


There have also been a number of wind-energy plants completed in
the last few years.





Next, it's a non-sequitur because the cost of the permits is due to the
government itself. If the government stopped looking the other way when
windmills ground up bald eagles and started charging more for permits,
then they wouldn't be feasible either :-) (Don't quibble over whether
they really grind up bald eagles, please MarkB. Just chuckle if you can
over the joke and get the point, ok?)

Actually, There have been a lot of permitting delays for wind plants
due to environmenttal concerns.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177

It's not the government that is primarily responsible for the
delays and problems---it's non-governmental organizations.

If you ever want to see the impact of that---try walking into
a bar in a small town west of the Rockies with a Sierra Club
baseball cap! ;-)



They don't want new plants in their neighborhood or new powerlines
across their property.

I concede this, but this is just one aspect of the liberal opposition to
eeeeevil technology. It comes across as you obfuscating the issue.

I thought liberals were in favor of wind energy---which is on the
forefront of technology. Perhaps you need to give us a better
definition of 'eeeevil technology'.


Ok then, 25 years. Fine. Do you think the same guys that build our
roads are capable of making something that will last that long to begin
with? :-)

Absolutely---but then I spent my summers working on freeways for the
California Department of Transportation in the 70's. The roads I
worked on are still there. Sure, they require maintenance---but
what heavily used article does not.

Er, not quite.

The "road" you worked on probably is not still there in it's original
form. It's probably been rebuilt several times. Saying that's just
"maintenance" is like calling a tear down foreclosure a "fixer upper."

Yes, it was still there in essentially its original form as of
18 months ago when I drove on it. It had the same bridges
and overpasses and the same alignment. It has probably had
the pavement ground off and replaced 3 times in the last
30 years. The highways in question are US 101 between
Garberville and Arcata in Northern California, and US 1
between Fort Bragg and Mendocino.

More parts of 101 have been upgraded to the 4-lane freeway status
that was built in the late 60s, but the parts built back then
are still there. They haven't abandoned any long stretches or
taken the roadway down below the existing cement-treated
base material. The maintenance is the equivalent of putting
a new roof on a house. 95% of the original infrastructure is
untouched during the maintenance.

Perhaps other states don't build their interurban highways to
the same standards as California did in the 60s.

Now please recite your experience with highway engineering
and maintenance schedules and processes. Or were you
just blowing off steam?

Are you a windmill construction engineer? What were you doing daring to
talk about any of that? Hell, for that matter, what makes Heidi think
she's qualified to vote for officials to decide on anything other than
child rearing and living in 30 year old rural shacks? :-)

I provided lots of cites for my comments on wind power and windmill
technology. You provided none for your comment about roads.

In any case, your little condescending lecture and red herring doesn't
disprove my point that just because the highway stands in the same place
and has the same direction that it wasn't rebuilt/worked on enough to
offset the original cost. A tear down home that's rebuilt is still
pointing in the same direction too.

Cite?



I'll take your red herring/appeal to authority as an indication that you
don't have any other effective response. Moving on:

You had no authority for your own claim in the first place---neither
citation nor personal experience. That sounds like a good reason
for moving on.


The Projected lifetimes of many of the new wind turbines
are about 20 years. I suspect that they will pay off the capital
investment in about 5-10 years if power rates don't.

Er, you missed the point again. Spectacularly, I might add.

If the projected energy return cost is 25 years, and the turbines only
last 20, how are they somehow saving energy and the Earth (much less
producing net energy?)

I wasn't talking about the energy return cost. That's part of the
ecological life cycle calculations, not the investment calculation.
The energy return time for many new wind farms is about 5 years.
That's how long it takes them to generate more energy than it
took to build them.

And there are many ex-cons who are fine examples of society upon their
release. Would you want a bunch of them to move next door to you?

WOW! King of the non-sequiturs.....energy return to ex-cons.

Without digressing into the fundamentals of prison road construction and
paving and prison food portion sizes, consider what's fundamentally
wrong with the logic of the above sentence and how it relates to your
own claims of energy return for wind farms.

OK. what is wrong with the logic of your sentence: "Would you want a bunch
of them to move next door to you?"

Even if a particular turbine has parts that require replacement
in 20 years, the facility itself may have a longer life, as you
won't need new towers, transmission lines or site preparation.

Why THANKS for opening up that can of worms! Yummy!

Indeed, one of the main things killing the tree hugger back-to-the-13th
century windmill farm idea is that the transmission lines and power
moderation costs would be tremendous. How much STEEL (or is it
aluminium? Oh, crap, now we're going to have to get into that!) Ok, how
much METAL goes into a power transmission line and how much energy cost
goes into that?

I would guess about the same amount that goes into power transmission
line for any other power source. If you look at the locations of
many current wind farms, you will see that they are often located
to existing high-capacity transmission lines. For example:

"The Shepherd's Flat project area is between highways 19 and 74 on
privately owned land, about five miles southeast of Arlington. The power
output of the facility would enter the Federal Columbia River
Transmission System through Bonneville Power Administration's Slatt
Substation."

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2008/07/28/daily1.html



Ok, pet peeve here. I don't know if I called you Andre because of his
snarkiness (he's more like a rabid yapper dog when he gets annoyed) but
you seem to love to get into a quibble over some tiny thing and then a
sub quibble. I'm reminded of this routine in Monty Python:

BRIAN: Uh, well, the birds, then.

EDDIE: What birds?

BRIAN: Any birds.

EDDIE: Why?

BRIAN: Well, have they got jobs?

ARTHUR: Who?

BRIAN: The birds.

EDDIE: Have the birds got jobs?!

FRANK: What's the matter with him?

ARTHUR: He says the birds are scrounging.

BRIAN: Oh, uhh, no, the point is the birds. They do all right. Don't
they?

FRANK: Well, good luck to 'em.

EDDIE: Yeah. They're very pretty.

BRIAN: Okay, and you're much more important than they are, right? So,
what are you worrying about? There you are. See?

EDDIE: I'm worrying about what you have got against birds.

BRIAN: I haven't got anything against the birds. Consider the lilies.

ARTHUR: He's having a go at the flowers now.


I'll leave your Monty Python digression here for now-----

Ummm, IIRC, you're the one who brought French Restaurants road
construction and Christams shopping into the discussion! ;-) I
think both of those deserved some response as digressions---whether you
consider those responses to be quibbles or not.

<<SNIP>>
Gee, since the Republicans had a majority in Congress from 2000 to
2006, why couldn't Bush get this passed? It must not have been
a high enough priority for him to expend his political capital.
Another pointless political execise---worth talking about, but
not worth getting done.

Consider that Obama is having a hard time getting his Cap and Tax and
CommieCare bills passed due to bluedog Democrats and strong political
and public opposition.

That said, you have a point that Bush probably did have other priorities
and that is one of the many contentions I have with his administration.
He sold out and conceded a variety of worthwhile causes often for
unnecessary reasons including allowing marshalls to confiscate law
abiding gunowners firearms during Hurricaine Katrina (these were people
who were keeping ORDER in their communities and a net social asset),
lawsuits against affirmative action, etc.

Let's leave gun ownership issues for another thread.

In some ways, also, political realities do sometimes require letting one
bone go to save another one. A lesson that Obama clearly is slow to
learn based upon him letting go terrorists on US soil. Hmmm, that
analogy about an ex con moving next to you might have some usefulness...

Ummm----who said he was going to let them go?? Last I heard there were
no plans except to transfer some unconvicted enemy combatants to US
supermax prisons---where we already have a number of convicted
terrorists.

Obama's popularity figures are now lower than GW's figures at this
time.
I guess that is change we can believe in. With real estate, a 5
percent
bump is change we can believe in for another month or two...


That comparison isn't clear. Are you comparing the two right now, or
at the end of their first six months in office?

Latter.

If the latter, you should remember that Clinton left GW with a
much smaller deficit and an economy that was in much better shape
than
was the case this January.

Yes, but Clinton's economy was in some ways worse for GW since it was
pitched as being better than it really was. The dot.com crash happened
just before he left (I know, I was personally impacted by it) and the
press only started to ramp up complaints about it as GW was swearing
in.
Additionally, Clinton entered office just as Bush I's recession was
turning around.

Hmmm---two Bush administrations and two recessions. Nice to see they're
batting 1000! ;-)

I see you ignored my point about Clinton's economy entering a recession
as he left office and just restated your point. That's ok. I take
denial as a sign of a subconscious recognition. In some ways, it sinks
in better.

I said nothing about recessions in the Clinton administration. They
occurred. I was simply pointing out that, as you said a few pargraphs
above, there was a recession at the end of Bush I and there was
a recession at the end of Bush II.

Er, ignoring something is the same as saying nothing. Just thought you
ought to know.

You've got your logic backwards: I didn't ignore it, I just didn't
anything about it. I haven't said anything about an infinity of
subjects in this discussion---that doesn't mean I'm ignoring those
subjects.



Despite those advantages, he still wound up being a patsy for Greenspan
and the Republicans. What an irony, eh?

In what way was he a patsy?

My bad. A patsy is a dupe who witlessly takes someone else's blame.
He's more like a pawn.

"The era of big government is over" -- Bill Clinton

It's amazing that Clinton said something like that, isn't it? That's
the action of someone desperate to survive, politically. There's NO way
he would have said something like that if he hadn't broken the left's
own laws about sexual harassment.

It's also ironic that government continued to increase under Bush
and the Republican Congress. At least they kept quiet or complained
about the increases that happened on their watch.

I don't deny that. As I said, I was at best a lukewarm supporter of
Bush and voted against him in the primaries along with against McCain.

But since you didn't response directly to my point about Clinton (you
just made an attack against the Bushes), I'll take your non response as
a sign of agreement that Clinton was a dupe.

AHA! The old Lieven "Silence implies agreement" tactic.

Just as Obama's best accomplishments so far is sending more money to
rich white male bankers and investors and blowing all the money before
trying to pass his extreme leftist agenda. I couldn't have planned it
any better myself.

I agree. You've shown no evidence of any economic planning skills.

Amazing. Yeah, other than me calling out the biggest economic bubble in
our lifetime, what have I shown here? And showing the obvious
inpracticality of windmills as an energy source OR national economic
strategy using your figure of 25 years, why that didn't take any
economic planning skills at all...

None of that is planning. It is all reaction to events over which
you had no control. If you have economic planning skills, contact
your local Republican Party office. They need those skills.

Er, I wonder Mark, how many presidential campaigns have you served on?
Have you ever served in any mid to high level political office? Or any
political office that requires public campaigning?

I never said that I had done any of those things. If I had, would
you apply the same dismissing tactics you used when I cited my
experience with highway construction?

And whether I have "control" over somether or not doesn't mean I can't
plan for it. I planned to buy a house later rather than be a herd
animal and hope for luck like some people.

Yes, but you had control of that issue---so a claim of "planning"
is valid.

(that's sarcasm.)

But true, nonetheless.

I find it perpetually amusing how snarky and condescending white
liberals can be that they're so smart, blah blah blah, for being
leftists (I'm talking in general, not about you specifically) when the
reality is that most leftists, on average, are HS dropouts.

That's good. Because I'm a fairly conservative person---certainly
not a leftist.

It is,
after all, a marxist philosophy that requires the voting masses of the
poor and illterate to keep in power. In general, without us
poor-planning-joe-six-packs such as myself, you'd just be one of the few
middle class in a third world banana republic. That's the best that
Obama can hope to accomplish. It's a rather sad, futureless ideology
much like the poor saps buying homes in 2004....

Why do you think that you and I are so different? I get the impression
that you, like me are a college graduate working in a high-tech field.
I'm also a small business owner and a registered Republican.

As a side note: I recently got a GOP Census document from the
Republican National Committee with about twenty policy questions.
Almost all the questions are about how the party should resist
the current administration----very few questions indicate any
proactive approach to current problems.

You can see the document at:
http://iamthecarczar.blogspot.com/2009/06/five-census-document-
questions-for.html

if you didn't get one of your own.

The most interesting response was:

"Do you think sending out an official RNC Census Document Questionnaire
loaded with childishly inflammatory questions straight out of some
Fuller Brush salesman's porch-step persuasion playbook is going to
secure the loyalty of the last sane members of our Grand Old Party?"



The country as a whole has done better than you in that it hasn't
had to declare bankruptcy--yet ;-)

I don't have the option of printing up trillion dollar Obama bills,
either. A person, and nation, can only declare bankruptcy so often or
print up lots of debt. To MY credit, it took me a few years to generate
the debt. Obama's blown his wad in just a few months.

But he hasn't had to declare bankruptcy.

Er, I just said that. It's amazing how you can pick up on me calling
you Andre, or the quibbles of the size of French Restaurant portions,
but you can't seem to figure out that I just agreed with you and moved
on.

Let's see... Bush cut taxes
and signed a $700B economic recovery bill late in his term when
he wouldn't have to worry about the political fallout. Obama

Oooh! Oooh! Let me finish that sentence.

Obama... voted for the economic recovery (bailout) bill along with John
McCain and was even proud of the fact.

This kind of reminds me of feminist thinking: When a woman has sex with
a man and then she gets pregnant later and bears the child it's... all
the man's fault since he chose to have sex with her. :-)

AAARGH! Perhaps we need a corrollary to Godwin's Law----Whenever
feminism is brought into the discussion, it has degraded to the
point of irrelevancy.

signed a $787B bill in his first month, when he has to worry
about the consequences for another 7-1/2 years.

Hahahahhaa!

Oh, MarkB, what a delightful act of self-denial. That's incredible.
Like Obama was so noble for blowing wad of money, mostly on pork for his
political buddies, because he was worried about the "consequences" for
the next 7.5 years?

He's already trying to spend more again. This is like a woman going on
a shopping spree at DeBeers for $10,0000 because she says the diamonds
will last her a lifetime and then asking you for another set for
Christmas.

I love the logic: Bush spending money, with Democrats (and even angering
Dems for not spending it fast enough) is reckless but Obama doing so
is... so noble.

You're the one who brought nobility into the discussion. I don't think
any politician acts from completely noble principles.
Obama is continuing with the economic activities started under Bush.
Nothing particularly noble about that----simply a reaction to the
same economic advice that started the whole bailout thing.

I don't see
any big difference---other than Bush didn't enter office with
a problem of the same magnitude.

True. Obama took a problem to a whole NEW magnitude!

Of course---ANY action to allocate more money would be a new
magnitude.

I think a better comparison will be the Presidential job approval
rating at the end of the administration. GW ended up at about 30%.
Only Nixon and Truman have ended up lower in the last 50 years.
Of all the Presidents in the last 50 years, only Clinton has
ended with higher ratings than he started with.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-
31.html

Imagine if you had wanted to win an award for a great business idea or
something else you're proud of but, instead, you got on the news
because
of a hilarious gaff you had with your fly being open during a press
conference.

If all Clinton cared about was popularity polls, then good for him.
But
in terms of a leftist legacy and what he claimed to want to do when he
got into office, he's a spectacular failure. Send in... the clowns!


It's not about any Clinton agenda. It's about how the people feel
about the President. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea bring
Presidential job approval into this discussion.

If you go back to the ORIGINAL point, it was you declaring that the
Republicans were self destructing. The Republicans got Bill Clinton to
co-own THEIR agenda on welfare reform and limited government spending.
Obama's popularity rating, NOW, is an impediment to his agenda both now
and in the foreseeable future (considering the direction the market is
taking assuming that real estate doesn't always go up.)

Umm, the market is going up now.

Hmmm, that's a good argument for me to jiggle around my 401K again. The
market is going up because they believe a lasting and full recovery is
on the way. They will be disappointed in the fall when the summer
housing season "unexpectedly" doesn't last forever.

If you feel the need to jiggle---feel free to do so. I've just left
my retirement funds in about the same allocation as they had for
the last 5 years.


Yeah, MarkB, keep your money there. It's a sure bet like real estate!

Got any better advice? Perhaps I should buy gold and 30-06 ammunition!



Real estate may well be higher at
the end of the Obama administration than it is now. What is your
point here?

You really believe that? You REALLY believe that real estate will come
back to 2006 levels in Obama's term? Even if he manages to stay in
office 8 years?

You didn't read my sentence very carefully, did you? Note that I
do not believe 'now' is 2006.



Here's some historicals for you: Japan, you know, the place where real
estate has to go up because there's so many people there, took a
nosedive by a factor of 66%. _20_ years after the height of the bubble,
it's only halfway to a recovery.

California had a real estate bubble in the 80's (Yeah, I know, so long
ago and a fact so many people don't like to think about, so it can't be
true...) It burst in the late 80's and the recovery took a full decade
later. And now it's burst again after a brief time.

In answer to your question (rather than just a redirect to save my own
point), my point is that Clinton's political agenda destructed and his
administration was saved by him being a dupe of the Republicans. If you
like, I'll explain it again if you like.

There's a good argument that Clinton's record was due as much to
pointless Republican attacks as the good economic record.

Yeah, look at how much those pointless Republican attacks helped Al
Gore
become president... Oh, wait... :-)
DOH! If they were effective, then, by definition, they weren't
pointless! The republicans used their political capital to
good effect. Too bad Bush couldn't follow through. That investment
of political capital was a short-term success and a long-term
failure.

I don't think it was a matter of Bush failing to follow through. Bush
is a moderate and in his own way, he did follow through. He got
medicaid drug plans passed by both houses, right? He got Obama and
McCain to sign off on the bailout, yes? And the no child left behind
act.

The problem was a failure in his principles, not his political saavy or
determination.

And possibly a fixation on a war in Iraq that cost upwards of $915B....
With a little luck Obama can save $400B or $500B on defense costs---
which were spent outside the normal budget process---over the next
7 years.

Yeah, and Clinton saved money in a similar way and didn't fret much
about that Al Quaida thing.

Tell us again about the close connection between Iraq and Al Queda....

It's so NOT a good time to buy real estate in DC or NYC right now...

Wasn't in my plans anyway. I don't plan to buy or sell any real estate
in the next decade.


It's liberal PR spin that the Republican attacks had a reverse effect.
It reminds me of what a narrator said on the History channel: "WWII USA
propogandists said that the Kamikazi's had little effect on naval
effectiveness. The Japanese... knew better."

AAARGH! You're depending on the history channel for historical
perspective....

I don't take it as gospel, no. I hate the way they use the PC "BCE" and
"ACE" terms for dates and their silly global warming religion. Praise
Science!

The BCE and ACE terminology is popping up in a lot of real history and
science books. I guess it mostly reflects some of the uncertainties
in dates for events for which the standard European calendar was
not in use.

(Versus unreal history or science books. More appeals to authority
again.)

I'm not appealing to authority---I'm explaining why the notation has
changed. The authorities won't listen to me in any case... ;-)

Yeah, I guess the "common era" calendar was in use in ancient China back
in year 1000AD, er, 1000ACE, or, oh, wait, it wasn't! Is China a part
of the world? Could you check into that for me? (That's sarcasm, BTW)

Does it have a point? I don't see any particular point in tying a
dating system to the calendar of one particular religion. Are you
really concerned about changes in historical date notations? If not,
why did you bring it up in the first place?
So the term "common era" is just a useless and even misleading term.
But it's also politically correct. Which suits it's misleading and
useless nature just fine. I guess it mostly reflects the anti-Christian
tendencies of the people in authority who disliked the term and then
pretended otherwise and for some people to believe the shallow excuse
due to their gullability and ego.

Might it also have something to do with the fact that a minority of
the history described in the document is not the history of
Christians?

Clinton is popular, but as a dishonest, slimy, but likeable clown.

That may be your opinion. I'm sure that there are a couple of
families that feel differently this week.

You mean the families of the people rotting in prison that Clinton
didn't get out and their fate (and beliefs) have been undermined by
his visit legitimizing the regime?

For sure. No good deed goes unpunished.

Ah, another arguement of moral equivalence in leau of addressing
criticism.

I note that neither of us mentioned any specific names or cases other
than Clinton---so let's drop that one on lack of data.

If I were in your shoes, I would have responded that maybe not
addressing the Jong regime directly was a mistake and that more openness
could work in our favor rather than trying to pretend the problem
doesn't exist. But your need to reflexively engage in denial sought a
redirect ploy. I'm helping you here! I guess it's boredom! I'm almost
at the end here.
Is that the way you feel about North Korea, or the way you think I
should feel?

It's a fantastic example you've alluded to because it's a perfect
allegory for his administration: He showed up and was used as a
puppethead for someone else's agenda. We could have sent Jesse Jackson
there and Kim Jong would have let them go.

Are you sure of that? IIRC, the NK government specifically asked for
Clinton.

Valid observation, but it actually shoots your argument in the foot that
Clinton did anything special. If all he had to do was show up to
satisfy Kim's demands, then he was effectively a puppet. Much like his
brilliant career in the states. :-)

Any government needs a few good puppets ;-) I guess Clinton has
taken over the job from Jimmy Carter.

"Sign this welfare reform bill, will you Bill?"
"Lower these interest rates like I asked, will you Bill?"

The best Democrat, ironically, is one porking fat interns in his office
and not doing anything. Maybe Obama should get one.

Just love to get in your Clinton digs, don't you. IIRC, there was
no actual 'porking' proven.....but maybe that's a distinction we
shouldn't be worried about.

Ironically, it helped to destroy the cherished myth/image that the left
had built up over the years: The professor scholar, whose so smart (and
you can be too if you agree with him) with his facts and figures and,
therefore, right.

Was Clinton ever a professor? I know he was a Rhodes Scholar. That
alone, is enough to separate him from GWB.

Indeed, that kind of remark is a perfect example of leftist need to
associate themselves with smart people and calling their opponents
stupid. Only smart people know how to do that.

In addition to not answering the question, that statement made no
sense at all.

And quibbling over whether Clinton was LITERALLY a professor when the
point was made rhetorically is also useful.


Very well, if it suits you I don't think he was a professor. Happy?

Thank you. If you're going to ask questions---don't get upset if
I answer them---or build on them.

Are you assuming that conservativea have no need
to associate themselves with smart people? I thought it was a
given that politicians of all sorts used intelligence as a primary
criteria when selecting associates.

Hahaha! That reminds me of a great line from the film My Cousin Vinny:

Q: Out of work hairdresser? Now, in what way does that qualify you as an
expert in automobiles?

A: It doesn't.

Q: In what way are you qualified?

A: Well, my father was a mechanic, his father was a mechanic, my
mother's father was a mechanic, my three brothers are mechanics, four
uncles on my father's side are mechanics--

Question, again: Are you in politics, MarkB?
I'm not running for office or working for any candidates. If I were,
would you dismiss any statements as an appeal to authority?

I'm not but I would GUESS
that they choose their associates based upon USEFULNESS. As simple as
that. Stupid is as stupid does as the saying goes (I'm sure it wasn't
just from the movie.) There are lots of rich people SMARTER than GW,
for example. And GW got a hell of a lot farther in his life than you
did. But you're "smarter" than him. Ok...

Why do you assume that I'm "smarter" than him? Because I don't make
as many silly mistakes in grammar and diction?

In any case, GW started in life well ahead of me---if you measure
that start in economic or political terms. Has he gotten further
than me as an embedded computer engineer? I don't think so.

As for only the left calling people stupid---you must not have listened
to Rush lately! ;-)

I listen to Rush on and off/on against basis and Rush usually doesn't
resort to using the S word unless he's flabbergasted by a particularly
foolish policy. The left uses the term on a regular basis even as they
like to claim the right wing are a bunch of haters. But then again,
what can one say about a religion/ideology that claims racism and hatred
is the most evil thing in the world and hates white males due to their
race?

You say the left uses the term on a regular basis, but you provide no
evidence. Why don't you start with your definition of "the left".


The public is still confused. Consider that McCain (I call him
McTraitor) didn't lose by THAT big of a margin and he did nutty things
such as voting for the bailout bill, suspending his campaign, and
basically trying to out liberal Obama and attend LaRaza functions.

When your home state is Arizona, it is foolish to offend the
hispanic population.

So maybe Senator Byrd should rejoin the KKK to avoid offending the white
population...

That's news to me. I had no idea he was ever a member of the KKK---but
then I haven't followed his career closely---I've never lived within
500 miles of West Virginia. Do you think the majority of the
voters in West Virginia consider KKK membership a positive asset?

In any case, rejoining the KKK might be problematic after his
endorsement of Obama.

Nonsense. You didn't even know he was a member of the KKK just as the
Democrats didn't think it was a big deal that Sotomayer thanks that
whites are less wise than Latinas.

That's totally unclear---how can you equate my personal knowledge
with your opinion of what the Democrats didn't think was a big
deal?

I answer to your question, No. I don't think most whites think that
belonging to a racist organization is an asset. That makes them
different, apparently, from the typical leftist voter.

What is a typical leftist voter? If you can define that, perhaps
we can analyse your statement on the basis of set theory. "Most
whites" is pretty clear---but we might limit that set to white
americans of voting age.

If
that's true, pointless attacks on Obama may be helping him!

Yeah, the numbers don't lie. His popularity is up. Oh, wait... Don't
people like blowing trillions on boondoggle pork (literally) purchases
for 6 bucks a pound when Harris Teeters sells it for 79 cents? :-)

What kind of pork do you get for 79 cents?

Probably a BETTER QUALITY that the feds are getting for 6 bucks. :-)

(pointless attacks are the expenditure of political capital
with no measurable result)

Mark Borgerson

By the same token, Mark, blowing a wad on one stimulus after another,
without anything to show for it, and then trying to pass everything at
once doesn't help either.

What do you mean 'nothing to show for it'? My retirement account,
based on the S&P 500, is up 20% since Obama was innaugurated!

True, if we credit Obama's stimulus for that full growth rather than
just a natural rebound that would have happened anyway.

Remember your snarky remark about the families of the journalists in
North Korea though? For the average American schlub, unemployment rose
beyond what Obama promised if he got the stimulus passed, they got
saddled with $36K per capita debt, gas prices are going up (apparently,
it takes time to burn 25 years of energy to build 20 year term
windmills) and real estate is still going down.

You're mixing up energy and investment again.

Partly, I am well aware of the distinction, but it does matter since
energy AND finances are intertwined. Nobody would be having this
discussion if oil cost 10 cents a gallon, would they? Even the tree
hugging ecoloons would have a hard time getting their case heard.

I would agree with that only if you further posited that there
was an infinite supply of oil. With fuel cost very low and
supplies infinite, power companies could afford even better
pollution controls.

The key benefit to oil, nuclear and coal and other silly forms of energy
that work is that they are ecoomically efficient.

The economic efficiency of oil is tied to world prices. We're better
off with coal, since we have lots of reserves of our own. What
are 'silly' forms of energy. You lose your point when you slip in
undefined terms----even when it might be an attempt at humor.

This study shows that there is great variability in the economic payback
time for wind farms:

http://www.lcacenter.org/InLCA2006/Lapuma1-presentation.pdf

They predict that 63% of sites would pay back costs in less than
15 years. That's the investment side of the equation.

For the energy payback side, here's one from a site you should love:

"The life cycle assessment of a 3.0 MW wind turbine indicates that it
would have to generate electricity for only 6.8 months , of their
assumed 20 year useful life, before it produces as much energy as is
used during the manufacturing phase."

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind turbine lca.php

But they're quoting data from a Danish turbine manufacturer.

If you're really interested in wind energy capital costs, you
can look at:

http://www.nationalwind.org/publications/wes/wes11.htm

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm

Hahahaha! For someone whose into "real" books as to whether BCE and ACE
are "real" terms, I love how you quote a URL "treehugger" to prove a
point that treehuggers prefer.

The treehugger URL failed, FYI, even after I took out the spaces. And
I'm not going on a paperchase to prove your points for you. If you
like, please go to the library of congress, read all the books there,
and then come back to me and tell me my points are wrong. That's
basically what a paperchase argument is.
Is it any worse than an argument where one party provides no cites
at all?

Either use your authoratitive sources property (use a proper URL with
citations or at least quotes and the page number) or don't bother trying
to lean on them.

Ah---then I would be taking your approach---humor, innuendo and opinion
only. I like to advance at least a step past that.

And THAT may explain why Obama's popularity rating is sinking like a
rock.

WOW! He's 'sunk like a rock' to 50% approval. Bush didn't get above
50% any time in his last 3-1/2 years. Let's see how they compare
at the midpoints of their administrations. (Not that we have a choice--
we all have to live through the next 4 years.)]

Hmmm, thanks for bringing that up again. Indeed, Bush entered office
after a contentious period when the Democrats were angry over him
allegedly stealing the election because they didn't count enough illegal
immigrant votes :-)

Bush ENTERED office with lower approval ratings while Obama SQUANDERED
them. Big difference.

Maybe Obama will get lucky and be a lame duck for a year or so until
Republicans take over the house and senate and give him bills to sign.
I'm sure he'll just love that when he's popular. All hail the King!

Better take your meds---you seem to be getting delusional.

Wow, a juvenile ad-hom. As I said, I take such remarks as a positive
sign that the subconscious mind is grasping hold. (That's the maturity
level that most people develop it.)

Nothing juvenile about it! And it's hardly worse than:

"average American schlub"
"I call him McTraitor"

How often did you hear the term schlub used in High School?

I don't even know if it was a term in use in the early 60's.

McTraitor term is a play on him being a RINO and a traitor to
conservatives, a valid political point.


On the other hand, MarkB, accusing me of being clinically mentally
unbalanced and using a sophmoric term to describe it (take your meds) is
a juvenile taunt appropriate for secondary school.

OK. I guess I should have quoted Andre on that one rather than
just putting it in without attribution.

Since
leftism/liberalism/etc. sentiements are generally formed while people
are young that tends to me their primary mental state when making knee
jerk reflexive remarks so it goes back to that.

A reference to the origins of political thought without citation
or support---why am I not surprised.


For me, I started using the term schlub in my 20's so it reflects that
period of time in my life. Try it sometime and see how your language
reflects the time your learned things.

I think your 20's are much more recent than my high school days.

I don't
think there is any way that the Republicans are going to take over the
house and senate in a year or so.

I was referring to the 2010 elections. I guess it's something like a
little more than a year? Time flies when someone is blowing political
and economic capital...

Well, I guess we can revisit the issue of Congressional party
balance in about 15 months. I figure that there is only
about a 20% probability that there will be Republican
majorities in the house and senate after the 2010 election.
Never underestimate the power of incumbency---it's not
something easily overcome in a single election cycle---
especially when it means a loss of seniority and committee
assignments.

What is your guess on that probability?

I would say it's the other way around.

OK. Are you willing to bet at 4:1 odds on that? I wonder if Las
Vegas has a line on the 2010 elections.

Wait a minute here... Didn't you just try to make long term predictions
about the stock market and real estate based upon short term rallies

I made no long-term predictions. I questioned whether current short-
term trends might continue. I have some hopes about the stock market---
but I'm not going to try to predict the S&P 500 over the next decade.
(Where do we draw the line between short-term and long-term???)
(especially in the latter) and now you're saying that long term trends
are hard to reverse?
I'm not saying that. Are you?



I try to be careful about the predictions I make. Funny story: A
co-worker heard me say that Hillary Clinton would never be president.
And he dated and wrote down the quote and put it on his bulletin board
(sometime in 2006).


You're a little early to win a bet based on "never". Given that Hillary
is ~62 and we've elected a 69-year-old, you may have to wait until
the 2016 elections to be really sure.


Then McTraitor was nominated and I voted for Hillary Clinton as the
Democrat spoiler candidate and he laughed his head off.

You got to vote for Clinton in a primary? Are you a registered
democrat, or does your state have open primaries?

Here I was,
someone who opposed Hillary, VOTING for her. He totally ragged on me
after that!

So who knows definitively what will happen? But that said, I would say
the odds of Obama's drunken-sailor pork (literally) spending policies
getting much more support are rather low. Healthcare is hard to reform
for EITHER party since there are so many special interests with a hand
in the pie. Care to tell seniors they can just go wait a few months in
a Canadian clinic for an MRI they could get in hours?

WTF is 'drunken-sailor pork'. Pretty soon you're going to have to
add a glossary to your posts!

Many homeowners still like to believe their region is "special" (except
for YOURS, of course Mark, since yours REALLY is special and THEY are
just nuts :-) When that little pet belief is crushed, they won't be
happy.

Who is "they"???

I think you're confusing 'special' and 'different'. To some degree,
all regions are different and the same. Whether that makes Corvallis
any more 'special' than Phoenix is open to debate.


It's the Republicans who are
resigning in droves.

You got a point there. It takes a federal indictment and conviction to
get a Democrat to resign like Dem Congressman William Jefferson.

Yeah. Some of the Republicans don't wait for the trial and verdict.

Indeed. But what's your point here, exactly? That Democrats are less
likely to resign even if they're guilty? I'll agree with you there.

Ah, so Democrats are persistent and Republicans are not?

Obama, on the other hand, has really showed a lot of principles in
office. hahahahaha! yeah, only kidding. Transparency by not releasing
secret bills, not reading them, and then getting upset when executives
get bonuses. It's the "stupid" Republicans fault! :-)

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to hope for the release of a 'secret bill'?
If you release it, it's no longer a secret!

Er, of course. ALL secrets are no longer secret when they're released.
But when they were secret, they were, secret (for that time frame).
Obama promised transparency in government. It's hilarious that his own
broken oath caused CEO's to get huge bonuses.

Which oath was that? The only one I'm familiar with requires him
to preserve and protect the constitution to the best of his abilities.
I guess we can agree to disagree on the extent of his abilities! ;-)

You're the one associating "stupid" and Republicans. I just think
they haven't expressed a clear vision of how they would change
the economy for the better.

Straight from the Democrat strategic talking points.

Where did you find those talking points---on Fox News? ;-)

You (and they) have a valid point in that the Republicans are made up of
a lot of moderates (including Bush and McCain) along with fiscal
conservatives and, of course, the religious right. These groups are
often in conflict with each other.

The left, to it's credit, has been a bit more homogenious or at least
cooperative: Hate white males and get free goodies from the government.
However... be careful what you wish for (a majority congress/Senate)
because the blue dog dems who ran as conservatives to dupe red state
districts now are under more scrutiny. In addition, all that money spent
by health care lobbyists is coming home to roost.

Those same blue dog dems seem a good argument against assumed democratic
homogeneity. But once again I am left wondering what you mean by
the 'left'. (Pun unintentional---but worth leaving in).

The republicans _do_ have an agenda that includes more choice in health
care (such as health care savings plans, limits on lawsuits (John
Edwards, hello?), etc.) Plus they have one option you haven't
considered: Just doing nothing. Yes, doing nothing doesn't sound like
much of a plan but, then again, just blowing money on pork to feel
better doesn't help much either in the long run.

Aha----so you're predicting "the long run". Just how long is that?

Even when a governor appoints another republican,
I think the newbie loses all seniority.

Like turncoat Arlen Specter. I think they have him on the Siberian
waste management committee. :-) Good going "one bullet" Arlen!

Is that a reference to his membership on the Committee on Environment
and Public Works? He's also on the appropriations and judiciary
committees.

In any case, the Dems got another senator----a critical thing when
you consider that they now have the magic number of 60.

So they'll have no trouble passing all their bills, right? :-)

Not "no trouble", but probably less trouble.

Actually, there have been hundreds of such 'turncoats'---although
it's much more common at the state politics level:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party switching in the United States

I never argued otherwise.

In addition, there just aren't
enough seats up for election in that time frame.

Now THAT'S a valid point. I don't think it takes many to swing the
Senate in 2010. But Congress would be another matter. But if enough
people lost their homes...

Well, actually, all the congressional seats are up in 2010---but I don't
think there will be enough change. The Dems have a 256 to 179 lead, and
I can't see the Republicans gaining 78 seats unless things get a LOT
worse in the next year.

Did you know Deutschebank estimates that 48% of people will be upside
down in their mortgage? But don't worry, the S&P is up 20%! Oh, and
more homes sold this summer than in the winter! It's all easy train
from here for Obama! :-)

Oh, yes. We all know how good the large banks are at predicting the
housing market! Let's agree to check that statistic in 2011---the
time frame of the DB estimate. Then let's subtract the number of
homeowners who don't really give a hoot, because they don't expect
to sell the house in 2011.

We all know how good you've been about predicting the housing market
price collapse compared to me. :-)

Since the collapse has been less than uniformly catastrophic, I'm
glad I never got into that prediction game.

I called this market and Deutschebank's figures are reasonable and
already well on their way.

If you think homeowners don't give a hoot because they don't plan to
sell that their market costs more than they owe to the bank, I highly
suggest you don't go into politics or marketing for that matter.

At 63, I'm unlikely to ever be anything other than an embedded
computer designer. I've had enough career changes already.

Whatever the problems
Obama and the Democrats have, the Republicans have shown no hint of a
positive plan for the economy or anything else.

Nonsense. They got Bill Clinton to sign off on their legislation. It
worked great for the economy back then, didn't it? :-)

Is "delusional" more an ad-hom than "nonsense"? ;-)

That was 10 years ago , this is now. If you think the Republicans have
a plan, let's hear it!

So all of a sudden history doesn't matter when it's, Church Lady tone,
INCONVENIENT! Ok.

Clue: Plans from 10 years ago really don't count in 2009. Things
have changed--in case you haven't noticed that, take a look at
housing market stats! ;-)

Republican's plan, brutal as it is, is to cut losses, deal with the
fallout, and move on. Yes, it's simple but it is a plan and smarter
than what the administration is doing.

As far as I can see from the RNC census, the Republican plan is
to both criticize Obama and hope he gets us out of the economic
mess. What do you mean by cutting losses, and what is 'moving on'

Of course the old adage may well apply to the Republicans "When
you don't know where you're going, any path will do."


Mark Borgerson

.

Quantcast