patrick.net

Gates has been successful in vaccinating millions to curtail preventable diseases. There are a variety of infectious diseases which can be curtailed at very low cost.

True. Vaccination gives a lot of bang for the buck. It should be high on the priority list.

And at what point does is this supposed to trickle down to the poor?

Sometimes it is better just to make a snap judgement and do the right thing. Philanthropy needs not be scientific. :)

The helping the 3rd world poor thing is a pretty small concern in this country. People I meet seem much more interested in "rescuing" animals than feeding 3rd world children. Other OECD countries might have different priorities.

Gateses' philanthropy efforts are quite cost effective. The cost of preventing an epidemic is much lower than the cost of living through one. Developed nations benefit too, because of closer disease monitoring and reduced need for military intervention. However, the innoculation efforts are better if combined with teachings of population control and sustainable agriculture.

However, the innoculation efforts are better if combined with teachings of population control and sustainable agriculture.

Absolutely. Quite paradoxically, the priority for developing countries should be:

1. Education
2. Food
3. Disease

Reversing the order will make the world more unsustainable.

Misunderstood, I resign.

Gates' AIDS cause is an excellent one. As someone has already pointed out, it benefits everybody on this planet.

Human society is a pyramid. There will always be poor people. What is considered poor living condition today was regal a few thousand years ago. It's all relative. You cannot fight poverty and win. It's just not possible.

Behind every vehiment demand for the rich to give to the poor, I sense envy at work.

SQT Says:

July 12th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
John Burns Real Estate Consulting When Does it Become a Hard Landing?

Interesting reading. This guy seems pretty mixed on real estate's outlook, although one thing he doesn't factor in is the potential for a RE slowdown to significantly affect jobs, given the high portion of recent new jobs from the RE/construction/RE finance sectors.

GC,

Those are pretty good points. Most of the pre-19th century knowledge innovations came from natural philosophers patronized by princes and noblemen. The tenures and grants may be more meritocratic, but it overemphasizes politics and presentation, and many smart people are completely alienated from the system.

I'm not so sure about the influences of diplomats and militarymen. Their influence seems to have peaked around 1915, and then started declining. Media mogulship might be the way to go, if you're interested in power and influence.

I don't know if we in the developed world have the stomach to really wait out the problem children nations of Africa. They're structurally backwards (strong tribal identification, weak nationalist or humanist identification) and overcrowded. That's often a recipe for decades or centuries of bloody civil wars where many tribes may be completely eradicated (like in Rhwanda if the Hutus were left alone, or still happening in Congo).

Are you thinking of the digs in Sichuan or further northwest? Or perhaps closer to the Wei and Huang rivers? The yields from the Sichuan digs is quite amazing, and a very interesting addition (alternative?) to the traditional Chinese history narrative.

RE: the Saudi prince's Aspen resort, that kind of stuff just pisses me off. First off, how much skiing do you think this guy does? He probably spends one week a year or less at this place. Second, how many bathrooms do you really need? More than 1 per bedroom?

At least it'll boost the comps for the area. Also, I wonder if the realtor (who is currently creaming in his pants at the possibility of a sale) is getting the full 5%? I've heard once you're above a certain price range, the commissions are more pre-negotiated.

Checking in.

Hey, Escaped, welcome back! :)

I miss your website, resistyourbiology.com.

Second, how many bathrooms do you really need? More than 1 per bedroom?

2 per bedroom would be nice. His-and-hers.

Skibum,

Bandar seems aimed at driving the billionaires out of Aspen in favor of the multi-billionaires :)

There's almost no way he could possibly get that much. Those Saudi princes have very distinctive (ie gaudy) tastes that will not appeal to most buyers at that price level. Anyone moving in would have to do massive redecoration and price that into his/her costs. Even if Bandar actually dumped a lot of money into the place, it's highly doubtful that someone would buy him out at those price levels.

That’s often a recipe for decades or centuries of bloody civil wars where many tribes may be completely eradicated (like in Rhwanda if the Hutus were left alone, or still happening in Congo).

It has everything to do with humanity at its raw form. There is little to be done. Any form of help will be drained before effects can be seen. Perhaps we should just leave it alone.

A question for any civil engineers and dam enthusiasts amongst us: why do dams that cost so relatively little to build (Glen Canyon, Hoover, Hetch Hetchy) now cost so much for maintenance? Is there anything about dam building that has gone up hugely in cost?

Anyone interested in seeing me set up that website?

Absolutely.

I even had my Realtor in CT asking me if I thought there was going to be a “hard landing”.

I said, “lady, the plane ain’t got no wings and even the dogs back in cargo have got it figured out.”

Nice.

Hey Escape,

Welcome back! (I hope you'll stay a little while, even though it's mid summer and there's much gardening to be done) Where did you eventually move to, if not CT like you originally planned?

Peter P,

Do you really need two bathrooms per bedroom? How about his and her toilet, tastefully hidden out of sight?

Do you really need two bathrooms per bedroom? How about his and her toilet, tastefully hidden out of sight?

Of course I do not need that. It is just a nice-to-have. :)

Having two toilet compartments may be a good idea though.

Escaped, welcome back!

However, the innoculation efforts are better if combined with teachings of population control and sustainable agriculture.

Absolutely 100% agree. Lots of people blindly give money to charities mainly because it "feels right" or because it assuages their guilt over watching Sally Struthers crying over emaciated children in some 3rd world hellhole --which they're viewing from the comfort of the Barcalounger on the 60" plasma. Whether or not those charities actually do any real long-term good vs. merely perpetuating themselves rarely seems to matter.

I'll donate time/money only if and when I believe the cause actually has a chance of making a difference in solving structural long-term problems. This may sound harsh, but I see no point in giving away hard earned money if the only long-term "good" it does is create more poor people. I don't like the fact that people are starving to death in other countries, but if all we do is send food with no plan to help them become self-sufficient, then all we are doing is creating a futile cycle of dependency and despair.

I don’t like the fact that people are starving to death in other countries, but if all we do is send food with no plan to help them become self-sufficient, then all we are doing is creating a futile cycle of dependency and despair.

True. What is distressing is the hidden, insidious way in which charity often benefits rich country donors more than the poor country recipients. The US agriculture industry manipulates the system by demanding subsidies in order to avoid the need to compete with farmers in poor countries. Then they sell surplus food to governments and NGOs for distribution via direct aid to the same poor countries. Such hypocrisy! They could just let the poor farmers compete and there would be no need for direct aid!

I am, however, all for food handouts when an acute crisis is brought about by unforeseen events which are difficult to plan for--eg the recent tsunami in Asia. If conditions in a country are unsuitable for farming or other productive activities, then sending food is a waste. Better to let nature takes its course. The people will eventually solve the problem themselves or emigrate to a place where they can find a way to feed their families.

Bap,

Believe it or not, the court clogging in recent years is mostly caused by corporations suing other corporations. Indeed, companies like MSFT and Dell have very restrictive licensing contracts for users of their products, and it's often nearly impossible to sue them.

I think the role of trial lawyers in destroying modern civilization has been greatly exaggerated. It's not a very efficient system and it is full of flaws, but it is more a symptom of the underlying problem than the problem itself.

2 vanities, you mean the facet and surrounding areas? In the US, 2 sinks are pretty standard for new residential bathrooms, I've even seen it in 2nd bathrooms in newer townhouses.

I am, however, all for food handouts when an acute crisis is brought about by unforeseen events which are difficult to plan for–eg the recent tsunami in Asia. If conditions in a country are unsuitable for farming or other productive activities, then sending food is a waste. Better to let nature takes its course. The people will eventually solve the problem themselves or emigrate to a place where they can find a way to feed their families.

I agree. Natural disasters/Acts of God are one thing, but "disasters" resulting from colossal levels of human stupidity, aggression or government corruption & incompetence are quite another (Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar, Chad, etc.). I see no reason to send my money overseas for it to be intercepted by and primarily benefit thugs like Robert Mugabe.

This is a house in my neighborhood - 965 HENDERSON AVE, 94086.

94086? I thought that is on the "wrong" side of Sunnyvale (school district). :)

BTW, that is also where I live now.

I smell short sales in the VERY, VERY near future…..YAY!

Perhaps you will buy it back for 600K at a future foreclosure auction. :)

Everything is scarce.

i don't think it is. you seem to be able to eat to the point of obesity and stay warm OK. man is able to easily accumulate a huge surplus these days, due to the benefits of industrialisation.

Otherwise, I wouldn’t have to work to feed, house and clothe myself. I could just swing by my favorite restaurant and order a complete meal–free! I could fill my closet with clothes–free! My landlord wouldn’t charge me rent! Where do I sign up for this world of abundance??

it's a struggle, isn't it? i dunno. just become bill gates and leverage other people's money... he hasn't had to work for a long time...

As for “luxuries” I suppose you mean things like cars, telephones, computers, plane trips, etc… These items may not be strictly necessary, from a survival standpoint. But they are kind of nice to have.

kind of nice to have. but you refute yourself then... hoist by your own petard...

scarcity is an illusion. it's not the right word to use at all, it's a classical economist's trick. you don't have unlimited access to unlimited things, but i think it's time to wake up and realise you have more than you need, and you are picking discretionary luxury items...

note the exclusive singular noun used in whenisitgonnaend’s post. Had to laugh.

It is about per person average. :)

Gates should get the spoils of the gamble he took. Had Gates failed then millions in taxes would have never been paid.

if gates had failed, then millions of others would've filled the void with other products, probably cheaper ones, as per open source... and they would've paid tax also...

i think he primarily gambled $50K of his parents' money buying DOS from someone else to onsell to IBM... we gamble more just in purchasing housing every day...

The man who invented DOS

"It's 1980, and the leviathan IBM calls on a rambunctious company near Seattle that IBM hopes can fill the software hole in its embryonic PC project. The young Microsoft can do it, but to close the deal, it needs a crucial element in the package: an operating system for a 16-bit machine. And it needs it fast. Microsoft acquires the rights to QDOS, 86-DOS officially, and licenses a version to their secret client, IBM.

Seattle Computer needed an operating system to sell with the new 8086 machines. Gary Kildall's Digital Research had provided the standard operating system, called CP/M, for earlier chip generations, but was overdue with software for the new processor. Paterson, tired of waiting, went to work to build his own.

"To get to that first version took about two man-months," Paterson recalls. "I worked on it about half the time over a four-month period," although by the time the original MS DOS 1.0 shipped with IBM a year later, he calculates his time investment "was more like six man-months."

Neither Paterson nor Seattle Computer knew who Microsoft's customer was until he was hired here in 1981. "IBM," he remembers thinking. "That's weird. Big computer company. Hope they do well." He reflects about this briefly. "I have no great ability to figure out where the future is going," he says.

Eventually Microsoft invested a total of $75,000 for 86-DOS. Both Microsoft and Paterson have fended off legal and professional challenges involving DOS -- Microsoft settled a contract dispute brought by Seattle Computer for $1 million in 1986. And Paterson has taken pains over the years to detail the originality of the 86-DOS program, despite a surface resemblance to CP/M."

Randy H,

I understand that there may not be an actual exchange of goods in the futures market, but the spot price of something physical and tangible is set in the futures market such as oil, pork, gold, frozen concentrated orange juice, and concrete. What I don't get are futures on such things as fed funds rate and housing. These vehicles represent perhaps intangible commodities, and as such, appear to me to be simply a vehicle to place a wagers on. Same concept as gambling. Do you see what I'm getting at. I may not be articulating my issue with housing futures as well as I should. What I need is a book called, Futures Market For Dummies.

Sean,

You and I have different starting points. I really believe towering individuals make history. History may turn out completely different if different people were driving it. In other words, history does not drive individuals. Let me guess. You like Hegel. (I don't know his stuff, but have read summaries of his thoughts. All second-hand, of course.)

For example, the Norman conquest of England might not have succeeded had the defending king (forgot his name, some nordic guy) rested a little before attacking William. The whole English history would have been re-written.

Had the Typhoon been delayed, the Mongolians might have conquered Japan. Well, 20th century would have been re-written.

The problem with housing futures is that there will be NO physical settlements. All settlements are cash only. The paper trades will be divorced from its underlying physical reality. Anything can happen.

Even though in the commodity futures market most settlements are cash only, physical settlement remains a possibility and a threat. That's why the silver nuts constantly talk about the COMEX default.

Of course, the exchange has ways around the default problem. It did it once in the silver crunch in 1980, by raising the margins for the LONGS.

The whole market is very crooked. Last night, I watched an hour-long expose of how naked shorts were permitted by SEC and how they ruined many companies. I do not want to share it, because I want to use the knowledge to my benefit. The more people who are ignorant, the better I can exploit the situation. Remember, I need to make 10 bil to support starving phycisists and mathematicians.

Sean,

Had you met Bill Gates, you might have had different opinions. What the media (books included) portrays (about anyone) is always incomplete.

I just saw on a message board: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-12-lebanon-israel_x.htm.

Escalation in the middle east. Gold is going back up.

BTW, a while ago, I did say Bernanke would bust Gold and Au did slid $200.

But His Honorable Bernanke cannot control geopolitical events. So Au is going back up. My estimate is $680-$720 the minimum.

Oil might break $80 this time. If it does, I will SHORT oil.

DS said:
scarcity is an illusion. it’s not the right word to use at all, it’s a classical economist’s trick. you don’t have unlimited access to unlimited things, but i think it’s time to wake up and realise you have more than you need, and you are picking discretionary luxury items…

You agree with me that you do not have unlimited access to unlimited things. In fact, you don't have unlimited access to virtually anything. I call that scarcity. You can use another word, if you like. But then we are just arguing about semantics.

Call it what you will, the fact remains that everyone can not have everything they want. Human wants are virtually insatiable. With the exception of a few Buddhist monks and hippies (who live peaceful, contented lives), and billionaires (who can't think of anything they can't have), almost everyone on the planet would like to have more of something that they don't have. Even most monks, hippies and billionaires probably aspire for something--enlightenment, a more peaceful, harmonious world, a good life for their kids, prestige, better health, etc...

You seem to imply that we should not want "luxuries." But why not? What's wrong with a little "luxury" (especially when you define luxury so broadly--ie anything but food, shelter or food-- that your concept of "luxury" includes things like central heating, indoor plumbing, electricity, phones, cars, etc....)

But wants are what keep us going and aspiration is what makes the world a better and better place over time. I agree that acquisitiveness and consumer materialism can be taken to unseemly extremes. But I would rather live in a society full of people aspiring for a better life than in a society of people who are content to stagnate.

I actually like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. I think they are honorable men, as opposed to most congressmen who are dishonorable. That being said, I think it would be wise of them to spend some of their money on infomercials; educating the public about toxic mortgages and letting people know that it would be a good idea to save some cash money for a rainy day. You never know when or where the next Katrina will strike, or when the big one will hit California.

You may have to fend for yourselves for 6 months or a year without a paycheck. And, don't depend on FEMA to cover your ass. Can you imagine someone like them urging Americans to save money, as opposed to spending more than we make, like we do now. I know I'm dreaming, but what if someone used their wealth and influence in public service announcements and commercials to promote good public economic sense. Using just some of their money in this way would be for the greater good of society. I can think of a lot more better ways of helping society than spending it all on vaccines and computers. If the did things like this with their money, I could care less about the government getting one red cent of their money in taxes.

You guys (Glen and DS) missed one crucial point. Karl Marx made the same mistake. It's not about attaining to some level of material comfort or survival. It's about being ahead of the next guy. Humans, especially males, have an innate desire to get ahead of others, to be number one. In the chimp kingdom, the top chimp gets to mate. We are no different. Therefore, there will ALWAYS be fights for dominant positions.

Mike, billg and Buffet will never do that. They are business people. They are not over the top like that Soros guy.

GC's Rule Number One: You never, ever go against the status quo unless you want to lead a rebellion.

GC's Rule Number Two: You can never win by dissuading the public away from their bad habits; they will hate you. It's better to preserve yourself so that you can do good to others in your remaining years.

GC's Rule Number Three: The society is never logical. Therefore, what seems to be the logical way is always abandonded by the society. Machiavelli once said [in Prince] that the world consists nothing but the vulgar. You cannot persuade nor enlighten the vulgar.

That is why I do not like giving to the poor.

You should read Alexis de Tocqueville's "Ancient Regime and the Revolution." The horror of the French Revotion -- by the way, few textbooks mentioned the real horrors of the Revolution -- occured after France obtained half a century of good growth, prosperity and rise of living standards for all. When the aristocrats started to care about their people, they found themselves at the guillotine.

That being said, I think it would be wise of them to spend some of their money on infomercials; educating the public about toxic mortgages and letting people know that it would be a good idea to save some cash money for a rainy day. You never know when or where the next Katrina will strike, or when the big one will hit California.

There is plenty of good, free (or cheap) prudent investment advice available to those who want it. You can read the shareholder letters of Warren Buffett and Marty Whitman, go to pennypincher websites, read prudentbear.com or even listen to Suze Orman (she tends to be pretty conservative, although I think she did buy into the HB a bit--haven't seen her show for a while). There is an entire industry (insurance) devoted to trying to get people to plan for disasters. Nobody wants to hear that they should spend less, pay down debt and save for a rainy day. They just want to learn how they can be as rich as Gates or Buffett overnight--without exerting any effort. That is why Robert Kiyosaki, David Bach, Jim Cramer, Robert Allen, etc. are so successful.