Re: Andrew's Ideal World

In article <MPG.24e8facacd77d62c9898c8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mark Borgerson <mborgerson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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 >>

I agree with MarkB! Yeah!

Sorry about the long time between replies. Summer stuff.

<<SNIP>>

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.

For us, the main reason why The Outhouse persists is because we own it
free and clear unlike the other main headquarters where half the office
space is rented (hmmm, another renter versus owner discussion :-)

This is also causing a massive downward price pressure on commercial
real estate that is the next big bubble to pop.

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 is an indictment of bad power policies in California in general.
("Coal and oil are bad... man!!! Hug the trees!")

Of course, certain regions including your own may have business friendly
polices that will retain work even after the price pressures of real
estate in certain major metro areas have fully deflated. Of course,
some major metro areas will be a comparitive bargain in terms of their
infrastructure and availability to markets.

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>>

I know what you're talking about because I used to work in a college
town. Indeed, I found I eventually had to leave because I outgrew my
work. I was competing with too many hungry students willing to work
pizza and beer money.

"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>>

A confession? Wow! I merely answered a clear question as stated and
moved on unlike some people...

If you want to try to prove an irrelevent point about the portion sizes
of French restaurants costing a fortune to get a German's mistress
fattened up rather than costing a fortune overall since such restaurants
are expensive to begin with, be my guest.

[...]
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.

I meant atomic power plant as is clear from the context above. I'll
rephrase what I wrote then if you want to quibble as a delay tactic:

For one thing, I don't think ANY new ATOMIC 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. :-)

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'.

Walk into a Sierra club meeting with a "GW for Pres" cap on and see how
it goes. :-)

Is Colorado west of the Rockies?
http://www.sierraclub.org/politics/

"Representative Mark Udall is finishing his fifth term as the
Representative of Colorado's second district and is a champion of the
environment. Rep. Udall earned a 95 percent score from the LCV for his
last term in Congress and a 100 percent for every preceding term.

Rep. Udall is a champion of conserving public lands, investing in
renewable energy, mandating vehicle fuel efficiency, and addressing
global warming."


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.

YOU had claimed that your "experience" working in the summer on the
roads gave you specialized knowledge and authority to veto my points
without addressing them directly. Now you're changing the subject to
avoid, as the saying goes, an uncomfortable truth/point you don't wish
to address.


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?

Try these:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=+cost+of+repaving+roads&aq=f&aqi=g1&fp=e7e
374c314de6a77

OK? Do you believe now that repaving roads costs money?

Sheesh!

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.

My oh my! MarkB, do you realize what you just wrote? This is one of
those few articles I like to archive.

You have just admitted that you can't assert, or accept, anything that
someone in authority hasn't told you directly, you haven't done, or you
haven't read somewhere. Sun revolves around the Earth? If the
authorities say it, it's true!

Sigh. And they claim universities teach people how to think...

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.

MarkB, I think you are King of the non-sequiturs. Long live the King.
:-)

Seriously though, my point was that these windmills you cited are a
special case and you, repeat, you, had originally agreed upon a number
of a few decades for the energy return cost. My rather obtuse point is
that because a few ex-cons are model citizens doesn't mean all of them
are hence the analogy.

Of course, now you're going to argue about the size of prison food
portions and post a dozen URL's and expect me to confess a lack of
experience in that matter... :-)

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?"

Indeed, MarkB, as you pointed out above, many liberals don't want
windfarms next to them (and many conservatives, granted, but you want to
pretend that's the only factor in new power plant construction political
barriers or that it's non-partisan.)

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

That is an exaggeration. A SINGLE cite for a power plant constructed
near a power line doesn't mean that they are "often" located next to
existing high capacity transmission lines.

Try this:

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/12/29/montana%E2%80%99s-go
t-wind-needs-power-lines/

"The man who chose Judith Gap as the place to plant Montana¹s first wind
farm warns that transmission is becoming a real limitation.

³There still is quite a lot of wind where there are transmission lines,
but most of those transmission lines are full,² says Bob Quinn, an
organic farmer who took up harvesting wind with the help of a cousin.
³We could light Los Angeles if we had the power lines.²"

I also had read that a windmill project/agenda on a national level was
being reconsidered in light of the transmission costs.

That's because, MarkB, wind tends to be a rather diffuse energy source.
Did you ever take electronics class? Do you have "personal" experience
with that? Do you know what an step-up transformer is? Do you know
what happens to the environment when one blows up? Want a URL?

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.

No. I brought up an anecdotal point about a woman gaining weight and
having trouble losing it eating at French restaurants. You chose to
quibble about the portion sizes of such restaurants and then to quibble
about our comparitive experiences eating at them and so on.

There was nothing wrong with the analogy. You didn't like or care about
the point and chose to quibble about the portion size of the French
restaurant. You may have done this either because you like to babble
(and I'm guilty of that too, I'll CONFESS :-) or you wanted to change
the subject.

<<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.

A perfect example of the above. Gun ownership isn't at issue here but
rather GW's commitment and alignment to it as a conservative political
issue.

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.

http://ourfallensoldierblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-to-release-terrori
st-into-us.html


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.

Apparently, a "subject" that disputes a claim you made about Clinton's
economy wasn't worth saying anything about... :-)

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.

How about a confession? :-)

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.

I never said you did. I merely said you lacked the authority to make
such claims as if you had using your own logic.

Oh, and you didn't answer my questions. I'll take your non-response to
mean the answers are no?

If I had, would
you apply the same dismissing tactics you used when I cited my
experience with highway construction?

It's called using your own logic against you. I'll come up with a cite
or authoritative figure to help you understand what that means.

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.

I'm not getting into a quibble over planning versus reacting to a clear
market trend with foresight (although they sound similar to me.)

(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.

In many ways, to digress a bit, leftists ARE "conservative" in their own
way. After all, marxist tripe is more than a century old and much of
what they believe in is either obsolete or recycled luddite thinking.
It's rather funny, actually, how they have wound up becoming more stale
and reactionary than they accuse the religious right of being.

Hmmm, looks like I spoke too soon:

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?"

Er, MarkB, that's politics. During the GW era, everything from the Dems
was phrased in terms of "How shall we blame GW for X?" Hell, GW got
blamed for Hurricaine Katrina (silly ideas like Dem governors/mayors
using busses to get the people out didn't get attention...)

So what?

And I counted at least

Oppose Illegal immigration.
Tort reform.
Eminent domain.
Defend partial birth abortion ban.
Protect Patriot act.
Support funding intelligence.
Bomb terrorist harboring nations.
Star wars/SDI

That's 7 out of 20 of what I would consider largely
Republican/Conservative initiatives. That's more than a "few".

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.

Yikes... feminism on soc.men? Who wouldn't thought? :-)

(I miss Parg :-(

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.

So Obama is reactionary and no better than Bush. A great starting point
for him! He's on his way to becoming a waterboy like Clinton! :-)
("What else can I do for you Secretary Greenspan?")


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.

Another waffle. You're academic enough as am I to know that when
someone says "magnitude" in this context we're talking about large
factors such as wind power taking 5 years to pay back energy costs
compared to 20 or 40.

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.

I've found that conscious planning based upon sound fundamentals rather
than relying upon luck tends to produce better results.

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!

Eeek! Do NOT buy Gold! Not that you consider me a friend or anything,
but if we WERE friends, I would tell you the market for gold has SOOO
peaked!

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.

Agreed. My bad.

Even so, RE is still overvalued according to the Case-Shiller and other
fundamentals of the market nationally by a factor of an addition 30
percent AT LEAST. And THAT is assuming that the correction doesn't dip
below that (fewer people are going to buy in at the "true" bottom on the
ol' "real estate always goes up" mantra at that point.)

Here's some fun URL's

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/08/too-early-for-housing-
price.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/155802-housing-rebound-why-it-could-take-
20-years

Housing trends tend to last for a decade from start to finish and we're
in the middle of one meaning that the train isn't going to go into
reverse for at least another 5 years.

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....

From the mouth of Bill Clinton:

But in a February 1998 speech warning of an "unholy axis" of terrorists
and rogue states, Clinton stated: "There is no more clear example of
this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

and Hillary:

Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence
Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And
Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His
Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked,
Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage
Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear
Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p.
S10288)

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/clinton-weapons-of-mass-destruction.html

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

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... ;-)

Claiming that "real" history and science books (as opposed to unreal
ones?) say something is not an explanation of _why_ they say it.

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?

My point is that one particular relgion's calendar isn't a "common era"
either. The wording was chosen to appear similar, via initials, to
"BC/AD" but also to whitewash the historical origins of the term.

It's rather funny that history books are using terminology designed
to... obfuscate history and use misleading terms.

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?

If the dating system was based upon a more popular date favorable to
this authority, such as the birthdate of Karl Marx or Lenin, we would be
using BKM and AKM respectively :-)

Another facet of the PC religion is that it pretends to care about the
interests of the majority and include minorities even as it is wrapped
around EXCLUDING and bashing white males even as it seeks and idealizes
lily white Canada and Western Europe. Hilarious.

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.

Now THAT is ANOTHER thing I can agree with!

ANYONE is better than Jimmy!

"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.

I won't go there. (so to speak)

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.

Er, YOU asked the question (whether Clinton was literally a profesison
in response to a rhetorical point, not a question) AND I asked if you
were happy (which you didn't answer which in this nitpick exchange you
should have answered.)

I'll try again:

Happy?

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 was using your own criteria for judging the validity of a point.
Inanswer to your question, no. Moving on:

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?

Answer to first question, I put "smarter" in quotes as a sarcastic
remark. If you want a URL to explain what sarcasm means, I can cite it
for you if you like. I therefore cannot answer the question as stated
since it assumes a false claim.

Answer to second question: Many people in our modern society like to
feel smart based upon grammar and diction in leau of creative thinking
or actual results. It's like pea*** feathers. The least intelligent
people I know have perfect diction and grammar (as they define it) as
editors, lower level language instructors, etc. I wouldn't trust them
to build a windmill or fix a toilet.

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.

I'll merely observe that you probably have thought more about his
accomplishments than vice-versa. That merits respect.

Hell, even as I classify Clinton as a dupe I still give him respect for
being a successful dupe. I'd KILL to be a successful dupe like that!

If you want to see a funny political film based upon this premise and
don't mind subtitles, check out the Polish film Career of 'Nikos' Dyzma.
A wonderful parody of political thinking!

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".

Are you serious? You want me to prove leftists call conservatives
stupid?

In all of Obama's 57 states, I have never had to prove such a thing.
Oh, wait, it's not stupid when Obama says things like that. :-)

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?

Because you didn't hear about it. No doubt if a REPUBLICAN had belonged
to the KKK, you would have heard about it by now...

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.

Now THAT can be determined via a URL! Sadly, the one I have often
posted was discontinued by CNN. :-( It was a presidential election exit
poll that categorized voters by their (claimed, of course) race,
socioeconomic status, etc.

The "typical leftist voter" has a high school eduation or less (college
education or above is mostly republican), earned less money, and tends
to vote based upon race. After all, this is the demographic that the
ideology of the left mostly appeals to, no?

The elitist "professor" type (note quotes, not literal) white male
marxist democrat is a dying breed. Literally. Much like the French
language in... France. :-)

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.

Look up abiotic oil. :-)

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.

It's sarcasm. They're "silly" in that they WORK. Consider the leftist
argument that it's silly to drill for oil because, hey, it can take
years to get results. But on the other hand, solar energy is not
feasable now. So go whole hog with that!

It's utter madness to reject energy sources that are both energy and
economically useful while jumping into bed with sources that aren't on
both counts. But hey, nobody ever said that religious beliefs were
rational...

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.

Yes, it does. Vegas is a major hangout for me. But as a non-smoker, it
can be tough for me to go places...


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?

The latter.

My wife was disgusted.

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.

I'm talking about voters in general.

I just read that on a national level, NOW, something like 30% of
homeowners are underwater and millions of foreclosures are already in
the pipeline to flood the market NOW.

I'm sure they'll just love Obama spending trillions early in his
administration and then having to raise interest rates to 7%+ when the
money dries up. That should help the rubes buy their houses...

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?

Sadly, I agree with that statement.

Naked government power grabs and slushing money to your buddies is just
so much easier to sign on for compared to "fiscal conservatism". It's
like, well, a temperance convention in Vegas :-)

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! ;-)

Sorry. I meant promise. :-)


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? ;-)

That's a fun retort. Saying that everything conservatives think comes
from Fox News is a classic Democrat talking point. :-)

The days of the left taking THEIR talking points from the NYT are coming
close to an end as the journal can't sell as fishwrap nowadays...

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).

I emphasized that political dynamics caused a change in the makeup of
the democrat party. I intended to show a conflict/threat to democrat
homogeneity.

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?

I'll shoot out for my lifetime.

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.

Agreed. I've long argued that the notion people had of a republican
majority during the Bush era was exaggerated. Now that will become
apparent with the tables turned as it did during the Clinton era.
Sometimes both understanding past historicals AND market fundamentals is
a burden... :-)

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.

You got into it. You just lucked out. And good for you!

I was "in it" the moment I had to consider whether to buy or not. I'm
happy I relied upon fundamentals rather than luck.

Simply fun formula: Multipy monthly rent by a factor of 200. If the
figure is the sales price of the home, or larger, then it is a decent
buy.

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.


Stay out of road construction too. Or are you in shape for that? :-)

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'

Really? You've seen them "hoping" he'll get us out of this mess?

Truth be told, they hope he mucks up for the 2010 elections. And
indications are they won't be disappointed...

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

Which is it? Do the republicans have a path, or not?

Actually, it's the left that seeks "progress" (via more government
money) without caring much about where the path takes them. Windmills
that won't work? Who cares? It's money for special interest groups!

regards,
PolishKnight
.

Loading