patrick.net

So we had a car loan, through a credit union, and we were able to ask for a rate reduction, and they gave it to us.....maybe something to try next time.

Robert Cote'

I saw my least favorite word uttered. Density. Can anyone give me an enumerable criteria that favors density? Really. Any mesurable metric. I’m open. No limits. Just what about residential or commercial density has resulted in superior outcomes. I’m not being restrictive in any way. Pick the standard, do the math. Pardon me as I go crack the 2003 Cakebreak Chardonay and don’t hold my breath. I’ve done this same “challenge” for a decade with no refutation.

We'll run a thread on this later, or we can do it on my blog if this isn't the right forum. I can provide the data and math to prove an "economy of density", based purely on energy transmission, distribution and consumption per capita.

But for now, enjoy your Chardonnay.

I much rather stack homes together and have more open space

I'm split as to whether dense urbanization is the solution to preserving open space. After all, high housing density results in a pretty sterile human environment. Tongue-in-cheek, I could support that if my home bordered the open space! ;)

After recently taking a class on green building / planning, I'm inclined to a newer model that maintains some environmental integrity, while keeping housing density closely managed. Nothing's perfect; this is just one idea of balancing human and environmental needs. Someday, preserving the environment/managing land on the micro scale will be a hot topic.

After recently taking a class on green building / planning, I’m inclined to a newer model that maintains some environmental integrity, while keeping housing density closely managed.

I am a proponent of population control. If we have zero population growth, we will not have growth-related issues.

I do not think this is feasible at this point, we still need productivity growth to finance the BB retirement.

"Pardon me as I go crack the 2003 Cakebreak Chardonay"

Cakebreak...Cakebread?
I'll take a 2003 Marcassin

Michael Anderson Says:

Anyone else feeling uncomfortable at all the pessimistic stories? I expected this to take longer.

The conspiracy theory take on this is that now the RE industry is pushing the MSM to give doom-and-gloom stories to try and convince these stubborn sellers to start lowering prices, thereby bringing sales volumes back from the dead.

there is so much personal debt in america right now, these people are desperate, and they are willing to vote in anyone who can get them out of this hot water.

Logic suggests that they may win.

The voters may want a way out, but the wealthy and corps who run the big show have a hard time with a dollar in steep decline

You think they still have large USD cash positions to protect? The rich WILL have the upper hand no matter what. They have earned it.

What option are available to Ben

If there is a will there is a way. At least there will be attempts.

Will a loaf of bread go up or down if the dollar crashes? How will we all survive then? These questions bother me more than any question I might have regarding real estate.

Who cares. We will deal with that when we get there. If we cannot afford bread we can always have cakes.

Robert Coté Says:

I saw my least favorite word uttered. Density.

"I AM YOUR DENSITY." - George McFly

"...and they are willing to vote in anyone who can get them out of this hot water"

If things get really bad for the American mid-section, is there any limit to what people would do for a "return to prosperity"? What we need is a strong leader that can take what America needs. The mideast has oil, but they can't stand our infidel control. Canada has resources, and it's next door... :twisted:

Okay, so where do we put our money - what little we have to protect it from inflation - stocks?

As long as your “dollars” are still worth something….

Hopefully, both will be since they're so interrelated.
Btw, we used to spend $CAD in Seattle back when it was 1:1

Lived in Japan, been to Tokyo, Osaka and Kyoto, and they’re nice enough. But it’s still not my cup o’ tea.

Downtown Vancouver is quite dense. But I do not mind living in a good-sized condo unit.

Actually, what is so bad about the possible N. Korea missle test? It is just a test, right?

I am not saying that they are entitled to one, but what is the big deal?

On Density,

Anyone who reads Asimov or played SimCity: the ultimate density planned environment is known as an Arcology. The idea isn't so far-fetched as it sounds, and is essentially where human society is headed if we are to sustain population in excess of what the planet would naturally support without dramaticly engineered density efficiencies.

Basically, an Archology is just a megacity structure which is engineered and planned as one harmonious design. It is quite foreseeable that future generations will place a premium on living out there entire lives entirely within such structures because they would provide the best protection against a rapidly deteriorating environment, scarcity of food and resources, shortage of energy and threat of lawlessness. Essentially, the Arcology is the response to encroaching Distopia (Dystopia). Kind of like a big spaceship only without the being in space part.

In all seriousness, the main thing that will accelerate migration to arcologies aside from the variables above will be the eventual balance of power shifting away from offensive weapons of mass destruction to reliable defenses to those weapons.

I am very frustrated with the current Real Estate now because it’s the f**king people don’t have money make money. Because they have nothing to loose and don’t care about if they have to go bankcrupt.

If you think they have nothing to lose why didn't you do the same? Don't fight them, join them.

There is really nothing to be frustrated over. The market will correct one way when the psychology changes, which is happening as we speak.

In all seriousness, the main thing that will accelerate migration to arcologies aside from the variables above will be the eventual balance of power shifting away from offensive weapons of mass destruction to reliable defenses to those weapons.

What defense is better than MAD?

Actually, what is so bad about the possible N. Korea missle test? It is just a test, right?

I am not saying that they are entitled to one, but what is the big deal?

Any tests or drills carry very significant military game-theory signalling value. If N Korea fired a missile accurately at a target demonstrating the ability to target cities in, say California, then later they can make a credible threat to actually use such weapons. Without the test, those threats are cheap talk. Preventing the tests keeps them one-step further from nuclear diplomacy.

And while we save money for a deposit, inflation devalues it, but the housing becomes cheaper for those who have already bought! Or so it seems to me.

Not fair, but then life seldom is and I should just get used to it, I just hope there'll be a break for us sometime soon and houses will be a dime a dozen - then I'll buy three! One for us and one for each kid so they don't have the same troubles in 20 years time.......well I can dream!

Any tests or drills carry very significant military game-theory signalling value.

The damage is probably larger if the attempt to shoot it down fails.

What defense is better than MAD?

The only limitations to defenses for ballistic, or even non-ballistic, missiles (besides lots of $'s) is computing power. With enough calculations per second, any projectile can theoretically be intercepted. The smaller area you need to defend, the cheaper the cost and more accurate the defense.

In game theory, such defenses invalidate MAD, which is why everyone got PO'd at Reagan's SDI. A population significantly protected by defenses has strategic offense as a real, credible option. Add to that sustainability even if the surrounding area is decimated, and a nation is incredibly powerful (and dangerous).

The damage is probably larger if the attempt to shoot it down fails.

This is why anti-missile defensive tests are run in secret while offensive tests are made quite public.

Randy H Says:

It is quite foreseeable that future generations will place a premium on living out there entire lives entirely within such structures because they would provide the best protection against a rapidly deteriorating environment, scarcity of food and resources, shortage of energy and threat of lawlessness. Essentially, the Arcology is the response to encroaching Distopia (Dystopia). Kind of like a big spaceship only without the being in space part.

We keep coming back to this: we're headed straight for a "Logan's Run" civilization. I suppose Biosphere was the first stab at this?

Speaking of Biosphere, and here's a segue back to the topic at hand, did anyone else read the WSJ article a few weeks back? Biosphere was built in what was at the time the middle of nowhere in AZ. It seems now the mega-sprawl there is reaching Biosphere. The owner of the land there has been made an offer to purchase by, you guessed it, a developer!

But, in all the stories, everyone pretty much rebels against enclosed communities, because most people do not want to conform completely.

The only limitations to defenses for ballistic, or even non-ballistic, missiles (besides lots of $’s) is computing power. With enough calculations per second, any projectile can theoretically be intercepted. The smaller area you need to defend, the cheaper the cost and more accurate the defense.

Also, the accuracy of the sensors must be near perfect. I still have more faith in MAD.

"It is quite foreseeable that future generations will place a premium on living out their entire lives entirely within such structures because they would provide the best protection against a rapidly deteriorating environment"

-Leading to the Arcondo boom of 2200, when people will use key organs for downpayment. Let's just hope it has a better plan than Biosphere II.

Imo: if the ecosystem ever gets that bad, we'll have a population reset; time for the remaining humans to start over. That is, if we're not forced back into a stone age.

If thrift was good enough for our great grandparents who survived the depression, it’s good enough for us.

If Stone Age was good enough for cavemen, it is good enough for us.

Here's an article surfer-x and other anti-boomers might get a kick out of. It's a bit sad, actually. Titled, ""Age 50 ... and little saved. When you hit that milestone, you've got to act fast. Here's a catch-up plan to follow"

http://tinyurl.com/fquax

“I’m turning 50 soon, and I’ve just started planning for retirement! Any ideas?”

Two variables: retirement saving, life expectancy

When one variable appears fixed, one can always tweak the other variable.

If Stone Age was good enough for cavemen, it is good enough for us.

We may someday get that wish, but the dental plan will suck.

If Stone Age was good enough for cavemen, it is good enough for us.

We may someday get that wish, but the dental plan will suck.

MMMMMM. Me like McMansion. Escalade drive fast. Me no understand strange loans from mortgage company. (grunt grunt)

Don’t miss this on why the US will still be the only superpower in the world by 2030.

Perhaps. But the USSR did not have many of the mentioned items and yet it was considered a superpower.

>>I just hope there’ll be a break for us sometime soon and houses will be a dime a dozen - then I’ll buy three!

As long as you think that, it won't happen. When housing is really broken, neither you nor anyone else will want anymore than one house, and that to live in.

"When housing is really broken, neither you nor anyone else will want anymore than one house"

I can't wait until this persistent myth is finally dead and buried, so I'll be spared the constant nagging from family to "invest" in residential RE. Back in 2004, I seriously considered buying a vacation home, until I started crunching costs vs. returns (conservatively). It didn't make any sense then; it makes even less sense now. If a financial noob like me can figure that out, what does that say about the older and hopefully more experienced homeowner? The change in sentiment will be refreshing.

Bhitis (aka Juku, aka GK),

You're welcome to decloak. So long as you don't call people traitors for disagreeing with you, you're welcome to discuss and link anything you wish.

I read that article a while ago, btw. The ascertains about the USSR are distorted. The problem was not the USSR's economic size -- it was in fact slightly larger than the US' during at least two points (because it included forcible aggregation of many other countries). The problem was sustainability.

Keynes himself demonstrated that any purely socialist command economy can easily outperform and outgrow any capitalist economy in the short run. But, it is like a sprinter racing a marathon runner. Socialist command systems collapse soon after they reach near optimal capital stock, because they have no choice but to then overbuild capital stock. Capitalisms, on the contrary, are always slightly capital starved because of more efficient allocation.

I have seen advertisements in the UK for...where the 2nd and 3rd bedrooms combined were 120 sqft.

I've heard how UK housing is legendary for its...spaciousness.
Where I lived in Europe, albeit a tiny country, we had surprisingly a bit more room.

New Thread: Dystopia

(a chance for doom & gloom)

Tubes,

You can buy a car from a dealership in another state without any difficulty. However, I think you'll find that you will get hit with sales tax, either in OR (even if they have no sales tax, they may have a special car tax that is called something else) or in CA when you register the vehicle here.

In fact, when I registered my car here after moving from IL, I seem to recall that the DMV had a complex system it used to ensure that even if you didn't pay tax when you bought the car, you'd pay CA sales tax upon registering the car, or something like that. I was worried about it becuase my car was new at the time. I think didn't have to pay it becuase I had already paid IL tax or something.

Hmmm.....

I wonder why this thread came up to the top again. The thread is three years old, back from when the curve was just starting to turn down. I sold my SJ house in May 2006 which in retrospect makes me look clever. Too bad I didn't dump my stock funds in May 2008. :(