Malcolm's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 3030 - 3069 of 3,069     Last »

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 12, 8:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
But the way to prevent Greenhouse Gasses from going overboard is to restrict Human Population Growth. The easiest way to do this would be to cut off the poorest countries from all interaction with the outside world. The second thing would be to abandon cars, and not wait until the EV non-solution is common. Since adoption of EV would require us to increase electric generation to a huge degree, while shifting to renewable energy which is unreliable. For example, the Germans built something like 15% more wind turbines a year or so ago, but ended up with 3% less electric, simply because wind is unreliable and happened to be on the light side that year.

We could also build Thorium plants like crazy. But EV creates a shitton of pollution via the extremely energy-intensive process of collecting and refining rare-earth metals. The place they refine the stuff in China looks like Mordor, literally. Mountains of radioactive waste is a byproduct. Also the batteries don't las...

Jesus, this is why I say I am conservative leaning. Industry would never become cleaner with this mindset. First, man-made climate change is unproven, and man-made catastrophic short-term climate change has been disproved. Just qualifying my opinion.

Renewable energy is the future, period. EVs are the future, period.

Promoting either on the basis of avoiding climate change is retarded. An earlier post asks why conservatives aren't environmental. Well, this one, me, did put up solar and we are on our 5th EV lease.

EVs are a nonsolution to climate change, but they most definitely are a solution to air pollution. Increasing renewables enhances the solution because both sides, production and consumption of electricity become clean. Go test drive a Bolt, you will find it superior in almost every way to most gas cars. A bunch of premises in this post are very near sighted.

Claiming a decrease in wind production as a reason to abandon renewables seems like reaching. Maximizing wind, solar hydro reduces the need for coal and nuclear. Those plants are closing down daily. There is readily available photographic proof of cities in the 50s through the 90s and recent where the improvement is irrefutable. The reasons for criticizing renewables and EVs don't stand up to much scrutiny.

I would rather deal with solid waste than air pollution that kills many thousands from respiratory and other ailments.
EV batteries are made to last the life of the car. They come with a 100,000 mile warranty. They are only getting better. My first Leaf's battery went 85 miles on a charge. My Bolt goes over 220 miles verses a 2015 Leaf. That is a hell of an improvement. New uses are being found daily for solid waste. It came from the ground, it can certainly be put safely back into the ground.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 12, 3:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I've carried an iPhone 6 Plus for the last 3 years. I have no complaints and have no intention of paying to upgrade. It more than handles anything I need it to do and it is still in perfect condition.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 12, 7:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Waiting for someone to say it’s because it’s winter. No one moves in winter, 😄😄😄😄
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 13, 8:02am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

lostand confused says
Any reason? Trump tax cuts hitting the rich of NY due to inability to deduct high state and property taxes.

Remember, the tax plan doesn’t change how landlords treat interest and tax deductions as business costs. Guessing it is more an affordability situation.

The interesting thing is a 10% rent decline is huge. It is enough that some properties will be pushed to being cashflow negative. Also, depending on how it hits cap rates and profitability, values will fall as much as 20x the loss in annual revenue.

Translation: if a property makes $1,000 less per year, the value could fall $20,000.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 13, 8:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Checking today, the trend I have been following seems to be holding. It is only houses above 2,000 s/f that are selling in my area. There are smaller homes listed, but those sales seem to have stopped.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 13, 9:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

That story was heartbreaking. He even said to tell his mom he loved her, tragic.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 14, 8:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

BlueSardine says
Unless you are religious about going to the gym, id invest some in good execercise equipment

Check out an app called AllTrails. It is free. Save the money on the home gym equipment. Go out alone or with friends, but go walk and explore your area. It is one of the best freebies there are. It is amazing how good you'll feel checking out a new place every week or so.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 14, 4:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Goran_K says
My iphone 6 shit on itself a year ago. Wouldn't react to swiping or touch. I would still be using it if it didn't die.

Sorry to hear that, I guess I have been lucky with mine. It performs like new. It was recently that I was thinking, wow, it has been quite some time since I got a phone.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 15, 11:32am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

mell says

Obligatory: LMFAO
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 16, 10:35am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I remember writing a bad Yelp review for a Starbuck's, which did not give me a bathroom key because I didn't buy something that visit. This is a store policy that even Steven Colbert made fun of. Before you ask, I am as white as they come. Blonde hair blue eyes, it is NOT racism, it is just bad business. I see absolutely no lawsuit against Starbucks.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 16, 10:38am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Are car rental places social parasites as well? Are hotels social parasites?
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 16, 2:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Can I safely say that Patrick, you are referring to excess rent? I’m just trying to understand, because you sort of agree that hotels being short term rentals meet your threshhold to a point. I’m just not sure how you differentiate the rent on land, which could be a pasture, or land which could be an LA back yard somehow is different than occupying a house.

Putting in landscaping is the same as a building, and fencing a pasture is also an improvement. If I rent out bare land to someone who is storing a business vehicle, that somehow doesn’t add value to that business? What they pay is what determines the value. That’s why we have private land ownership. Try and store a trailer at a park or some public place and see what that gets you. The fines would be more than rent.

You wouldn’t buy a parcel of land to store just your vehicle, that’s where entrepreneurs come in. So, if it is excessive rent that you have a problem with what is the magic rate of return that you consider normal commerce or at least not parasitic? I am genuinely curious.

BTW, for people who claim Patrick is a right winger, this should give a different perspective.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 16, 2:27pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

zzyzzx says
Did you then proceed to pee on the floor?

Yes, they weren’t happy with the number 2 💩 left by the front door either. 😁
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 16, 4:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick as a follow up to my comment 29, I had a couple of more examples of the same thing. I think in a way you are expressing dissain for passive income versus earned income. While I understand it where would you draw the line on other investments?

Are you a social parasite if you have a capital gain on stock for instance or if you have a lot of savings that earn interest? If someone inherits money without working for it, are they a social parasite?

Like Bob, I’m also curious how you would differentiate between the structure and the land. if I have a vacant parcel of land and you want to rent it from me but you don’t want to do anything with it, the amount of rent you would pay would be almost nothing just to be able to say that you’re renting the land and not doing anything with it; but if someone owns land and they lease it to you because you want to start a dispensary collective, you are taking that land out of service and that person doesn’t have the use of it anymore so how can it be immoral in any way for a negotiated value of the use of the land for a growing operation?
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 18, 7:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Near me, lots of horse properties for sale and selling at a discount. Like I have said before, large homes sitting or going for $250 a foot, smaller home sales slowing, still getting $400 a sq foot, but they have to be super nice or they don’t move.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 18, 10:19am   ↑ like (7)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

FortWayne says
I’ve never seen a day when Democrats weren’t crying. They are not men, just crybabies.

Hey, that's not right. I have seen some very masculine Democrats. They are the ones with vaginas.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 18, 2:30pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

HeadSet says
For the last few decades, it seemed that mortgage rates and house prices balance to comply with the monthly payment. For example, a $350k house at 4% is about $1670/mo P&I. If rates fall to 3%, that same house price can rise to $395k for about the same P&I. If rates rise instead from 3% to 4%, then the current $395k homes should start falling to an average of $350k.

Correctamundo. The payments didn't change.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 18, 2:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
What were prices in real term during the 70s?

In real terms it went mostly sideways, but nobody buys in real terms. I assume when people say prices will fall, they are talking nominally.

The payment was the same. Interest rates were 18% and a house was about a third of the price as one now. When rates were 8-10%, houses were about half as much, to now when rates are 4% the payment is still pretty much the same. The last housing bailout was simply lowering the interest rates to keep the payment affordable. Nothing really changed. We are still enjoying the benefit of that to this day.

A real world example is a house our family bought in S FL in 1980. It was a $100,000 financed at 12-15% maybe even a little more.
In 2005ish it was worth low to mid $200K. Interest rates were about 7-8%.
It recently sold again in 2015 in the mid $300s. Rates were about 3.75%.

Given the number of remodels and upkeep, I'm going to guess in adjusted dollars it is worth a little less now than it was in 1980, it was new in 1974.

When interest rates rise, housing prices fall in real dollars.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 18, 5:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says

Except they don't. Look at the 70s in the above chart.

The chart doesn’t include the rates but I see the pattern. The late 70s show a decline. I never said there wasn’t a lag, the graph clearly shows a relationship in price to interest rates in general. Even the fluctuations correct with time.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 18, 5:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

WineHorror1 says
Bingo, this is the basis for my argument. Basically price meets demand. If housing is not being built, prices will rise rise regardless what rates are or do as long as enough incomes rise.

Interest rates follow income levels. Both by monetary policy and by a demand for investment capital and inflation.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 19, 8:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Two scenarios:
1. You either paid it and they are charging you in error.
2. You didn't pay it and they are retroactively charging you.

Either way, you need to get it cleared up. They obviously can't charge you if you paid, so don't back down if you are reasonably sure. Get your records together and go through it with them. If they are in the wrong, they are out of luck. You should know that in this case the burden is on you to show that you paid, but the burden is on them to show how those payments were applied and where they claim the discrepancy is. In other words, someone can't accuse you of breaching a lease without being specific.

If they are right, it is pretty crummy to just quietly sit back and let late fees accumulate. I think you would have differing legal opinions, I suspect they have some sort of duty of mitigation, especially if you can show they mislead you into thinking your account was current. Do they send you a monthly statement? Have they ever sent you something to say you were late, during all this time?

This is too small to stress out over it. You either have your records or you don't. I know slips are in short supply, but I doubt that they are really going to be so hard nosed over a long time renter. I'm sure you can work it out with them.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 19, 8:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

lostand confused says
Remember if they decide to send it to a collection agency-your credit will be screwed.

If they do, they lose half of the fees. They also have a burden to say exactly where the discrepancy is if he contests it. Also, don't let that be the only reason to pay a bill, if you go to a collection agency it doesn't go straight onto your credit, there is an initial period where one can pay a bill and avoid it showing up.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 19, 9:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I thought I saw a recent graph saying home ownership is at a historically high level. How can this be? Am I mistaken, or is this just area specific? I would certainly say it is my observation that people rent instead of owning. I even go so far to observe that people who I would expect own are renters. This country is still adjusting from the last crash.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 19, 9:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
The late 70s show a rise in real home price index from ~75 to 90 while interest rates were going from 9% to 16%. There is no decline there so I'm not sure what you're looking at. The decline starts when the US goes into recession in 1980.

I said in a different part that there is lag. People don''t just sell a fixed rate house when interest rates rise, but when they do go to sell it affects it on the demand side, just like the graph shows.

There are many things that affect the short time price changes in real estate. For one thing, as demand drops off, the median price of actual sales stays high, and even can rise in a misleading way. Speculators following an upward trend will overpay in relation to basic fundamentals, including mortgage rates, that's how bubbles form. Then you have a correction or a crash.

In some areas where houses are dirt cheap and mortgages play little effect on the price, the prices tend to be very level. Mortgage rates clearly affect the present value of a pricier house. Wage inflation will have a similar effect to lowering interest rates, but wage inflation leads to higher interest rates. They kind of cancel out.

If I am wrong, then why did the government start lending money at zero to sustain home prices? Inflation has led to home prices being slightly higher than the last bubble but if interest rates go back to 8% with all things being equal, I would bet that houses would fall by 50%.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 19, 9:42am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Strategist says
Point is: don’t write off housing as too expensive because traditional metrics don’t work on it. In places where it’s scarce, people will find a way to buy.

There is also that phenomenon. It used to be that a couple would buy a three bedroom house and have children. Now a three bedroom house can be a three family house of couples with maybe one child in the house.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 20, 7:58am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

This is funny because last year the fluke was that there had been no snow in Chicago, of course it was attributed to global warming, I mean, climate change.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 20, 8:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

People don’t move during winter, didn’t you get the memo?
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 20, 8:03am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

QUALCOMM just announced that they’re laying off 1200 workers in San Diego.Those are the types of employees that are supporting our current real estate prices I doubt that those people will find a better paying job.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 20, 4:06pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I hope it passes. Watch who ends up getting the limited supply of affordable houses.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 22, 7:01pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Why has no one taken the position that she is guilty of blackmail? That is more of a crime than caving in and paying it.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 25, 8:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

drB6 says
Another way of looking at this is the following - does anyone really thinks that emitting 32+ gigatons of CO2 every single year will not have any effect and can safely be ignored?

I do. Releasing only CO2 presents no threat to humanity.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 25, 8:22am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
Funny how you trust scientists when their science brings you new toys or better tools. But when it brings you bad news, you go in to a state of denial, based on what ? Propaganda payed for by big oil ?

Two thoughts. First, those scientists aren’t sitting around getting grants to write the same thing over and over, year after year. People who have been around the block can tell when a group is milking the system.

Second, the issue skeptics have is that climate change scientists are not practicing science. Science doesn’t have a desired outcome, so anyone who is impartial would have to concede that the predictions from the models didn’t happen, so therefore, the science is not settled on the issue, because no one can claim they understand all of the variables to Earth’s climates.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 25, 9:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

drB6 says
How do you know that? How can you with a certainty say that in the warming we are observing, there is no component of CO2 influence?

No, and neither can you.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 25, 9:02am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

drB6 says
Yes, so we should keep an open mind.

I'm agnostic. Climate change due to man has not been proved. It doesn't mean it hasn't or isn't happening, it just means the experts failed in their predictive theories.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 25, 9:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

drB6 says
True. But that means that we have to keep an open mind, and we can not declare that "releasing CO2 is not a threat to humanity", just like we can not say "we will all gonna die tomorrow because of CO2 release".

I can say that because there has apparently been no side effects that have been negative to humanity. Crop yields are high and the weather is statistically more stable now. Whether it correlates to be causation is a different matter, but CO2 is a trace gas necessary for life on Earth. Carbon is either in the air or in living and decaying things, there is a finite amount of it and it is just part of a cycle, just like water. When someone actually makes a negative, valid prediction on CO2 posing a danger to humanity, then I will revisit the issue for my own evaluation.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 25, 10:18am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

drB6 says
bleaching of re

That too is controversial. Bleaching can happen due to falling sea levels. All the reefs where I snorkel are unchanged since my childhood. It is funny how none of the tourist destinations have noticed damaged reefs, yet for some reason it only happens where we can't go and see it. The same with rising sea levels, no one has accepted the challenge of showing me an old and new photograph of the same place, where you can actually see a rise in sea level.

People are so adamant about this, yet, even the most obvious, simple proof doesn't seem to exist. It is almost comical, how the exact opposite seems to happen when climate alarmists start in.

Cities will be underwater......where?
Polar bears extinct.........No, actually growing in numbers.
No more snow in the arctic.......Lots of snow
Climate change refugees........None
Horrendous weather.......really? No, actually a decrease in storms and floods.
No more coral reefs.......Go visit Hawaii, Florida, the Caribbean, Australia
Famine and starvation.......actually fewer people than ever living in hunger
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 25, 10:22am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
What is your backup plan if you are wrong?

Don't need one. There are more imminent issues than me trying not to exhale because it might do something.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Apr 25, 11:02am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

drB6 says
Simple - then lets just use these three models.

They aren't dire enough to be interesting.

The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions