patrick.net

It’s America. It’s diseased, and it has been for a long time.
The housing bubble is merely a bed sore on America’s rotting ass.

This country is going to collapse. Not recede. Not recess. Collapse. That we create a void. What will fill the void is the only question.

Wow, Escaped, you make me feel like a RE Bull by comparison! ;-)
Seriously, this country has a lot of problems, but I don't think they're all unsurmountable. Our major problems today are mostly or completely within our control as a nation to do something about, if we choose to: national debt/overspending, zero savings rate, credit-fueled RE Bubble, obesity epidemic, extremely inefficient sick-care system, etc...

I never thought I'd ever say this here, but lighten up, ok? If the WWII generation managed through a great depression & world war, we should do fine --IF we get our priorities sorted out (a big "if" I agree).

Harm, I'm sorry if what I wrote seemed to imply that I blame the leftists 100% for the state of America. I don't.

I think that there have been many things that have contributed to the fall of this country. Among them, and of critical importance in my view, are . . .

Decline of basic morality/decency/respect for family.
Slide of government toward socialism.
The Fed.

Those who are "on the right" can't claim the highground. In fact, often, they must admit that they treated people like crap for their own gain.

I am a libertarian, and between the two evils - the right's mistreatment of those who are different, and the left's relentless pull toward the economic cliff, I have a hard time deciding which is worse. From a moral perspective, it's certainly the right. From a practical perspective. It's the left.

"I never thought I’d ever say this here, but lighten up, ok?"

If you'd prefer me not to post, I'd be happy not to. If you don't care or if you want me to post, then I'll do so unlightened up.

But when you say to someone "lighten up," where I come from, that's a euphemistic phrase for something much harsher. If that's what you meant, then just say it - it's fine. Believe me, I think I'm past my feelings being hurt.

Furthermore, this zero-sum game (sorry)

Whenever you're game (sorry, couldn't resist the pun), let's have the whole debate.

How about this. I’ll refute your argument? Let’s start with this . . .
I have no idea what you mean by “economically-driven diverstiy”.

I have to admit, this is first time I've been acused of being a sociologist. I can't stop laughing. I mean labor-mobility, which is well studied and you can find many references in economic theory. Labor mobility creates more efficient uses of existing capital stock, among other things. Within the US, fluid labor mobility coupled with real and perceived socioeconomic mobility has resulted in historically very high productivity, which of course makes capital stock valuable.

I can find no examples of "diversity-limiting" societies except for those of very small populations and/or geographically isolated , which have been able to sustain long-term economic growth (in the modern era). By diversity limiting I mean engineered restrictions, be they economic, political, cultural-norms-driven, education, etc., which serve to systematically exclude the inclusion of new workers into the society.

But when you say to someone “lighten up,” where I come from, that’s a euphemistic phrase for something much harsher.

Wasn't trying to be harsh --sorry if it came across otherwise. I just meant it to be taken at face value. I agree there are a lot of big systemic problems with our society and economy right now, including balooning entitlement programs and an equally ballooning sense of entitlement people seem to have about government providing/fixing everything. Call it a lack of personal responsibility, creeping socialism, whatever --we don't disagree on this. I was just trying to say it's a pretty large leap to go from where we are today to total collapse.

I can find no examples of “diversity-limiting” societies except for those of very small populations and/or geographically isolated , which have been able to sustain long-term economic growth (in the modern era).

How about Japan and Swissland? Are they not "diversity-limiting" enough? Don't they have relatively "long-term economic growth"? Am I missing something?

Whenever you’re game (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun), let’s have the whole debate.

Sure. I am not "game" today though. :)

HARM = "If the WWII generation managed through a great depression & world war, we should do fine –IF we get our priorities sorted out (a big “if” I agree)."

The dark ages lasted 500 years. HARM, I wish I could share your optimism.

I don't.

We have been blessed and cursed to live at the height of human achievement. In our lifetimes, we have extended into space and into our own genetic material. We complain about the state of medicine? 70 years ago kids got bacterial infections and died. Bing. Our medicine, although an inefficient sytem, is wonderous compared to everything that came before. Here in America it is better than most places, and certainly better than anything anywhere before 15 years ago. We grew up here with little threat of war, and with most of our conflicts being created by evil within our own government. We, and by we I mean anybody 30-70, have lived throught the peak of the oil age, where energy was as cheap as it ever was and as it will be until a new source is discovered. We have lived floating in the largess of this oil. We eat cheaply. We work easily. Our health, should we choose it, has never been better. Never, ever has it been this good, and until that next energy source comes alon -assuming we havn't destroyed our home in the meantime - it will not be this good again.

In short, as far as the historical human condition goes. We had it all.

That is going to change. It's going to change dramatically. It's going to change quickly. And your grandchildren will look you in the eye with wonder in 40 years when you tell them about it.

Prepare, or don't. For those of you who view me as a silly, irrational, gloom and doom guy, at least look over your shoulder and acknowledge that, to the person behind you, you are me to em. You see? You are me, and I am you.

So while you look at the person behind you and think, "Fool, had you only the sense to listen to me and not buy that house," you simultaneously look at me and think, "Fool, to be so concerned."

Like Carlin, eh? Those driving faster are lunatics, and those slower idiots.

You have my warning. Do with it what you will. I urge you all to prepare so that you can take care of youselves, and then, to the extent you can, your neighbor.

Without that there is nothing.

We have been blessed and cursed to live at the height of human achievement.

Very well said. The world has much doom and gloom in itself. But I cheer myself up seeing the world as a black comedy, like Dr. Strangelove.

...have lived throught the peak of the oil age...

But soon, we will live through the age of peak oil.

Premises- People are, with very few exceptions, stupid animals who behave in extremely self-destructive ways. Given multiple options of governement in a democratic system, stupid animal people will always tend toward voting for a more socialist system. Given economic severity, this propensity will worsen. Progression toward socialism is equivalent to distance from economic prosperity. We are currently in a condition of worsening economics.

Premise 1: People are stupid.
--I'll accept this even though it is difficult to test and quantify. But it sounds folksy.

Premise 2: Stupid animal people like socialism.
--There are as many examples of societies trending towards facist or despotism systems as socialist systems, in fact more if you count the 19th century from the onset of the modern industrial era. So I can agree that Democracy/Republic is not the default state of affairs, but not that socialism is the innevitable outcome.

Premise 3: Economic serverity worsens 2. This is a true statement.

Premise 4: Progression towards socialism is proportional to economic relativity. This is false because 2 is incorrect. This is a causual assertation which requires rigid testing and proof in its own right. Further, it implies that such trends are linear and unidirection, which is not supported historically. Case-in-point, the US between 1929 and 1989. This period exhibited wide swings in relative economic prosperity as well as shifts towards and away from socialistic mechanisms.

Premise 5: We are currently in a weakening economy. If you are making a populist statement based on non-economic measures, then perhaps. But I can't quantify or test that. Economically-speaking, the economy has not worsened as a whole, it has strengthened. Not that I don't think there are serious structural problems, but the statement that the US economy is weakening must be qualified by what structural problems you think there are, and whether these problems are irreversable, fixable, or perhaps simply transient adjustements.

The Fall of Democracy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over two thousand years previous to that time:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

Alexander Tyler

So I don’t know about the bondage part, unless metophorically speaking we are in bondage to our Chinese creditors.

That's sort of what I was thinking. Maybe an economic bondage of sorts. Socialism perhaps?

How about Japan and Swissland? Are they not “diversity-limiting” enough? Don’t they have relatively “long-term economic growth”? Am I missing something?

die Schweiz fails both tests. It is both geographically isolated and has a small population. Japan is more interesting, but has a history too short to reveal whether the growth is indeed sustainable. Remember, we can only measure Japanese economic output in any comparative way from about 1950 forward. And this period is hardly a testament to sustained economic growth, given the past 20 years of that horizon.

One of the structural doom-and-gloom problems often pointed to in the US is often swelling entitlements exagerrated by aging population. Of course, this is far worse in most of Europe, and in Japan it's outright terrifying. At least most of the EU allows either some immigration or guest-workers. Japan has a real problem, and Japanese culture as we know it today will likely undergo a dramatic upheaval. You think "family values" and "community" are at risk here? Be thankful you're not a traditionalist in Japan.

Socialism is like the kid in the Matrix. First you have to realize there is no carrot……Then and only then will socialism work.

Ah, buy how many do you think will "get it?" Do you think we're headed for another type of government or that we'll keep floundering around trying to keep our democracy afloat?

The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years.

A Civilization != A Nation State

The modern nation state hasn't been around all that terribly long. I propose that perhaps we are instead undergoing a shift into the next era of civilization organizational structure. There are new dymanics at play today which never existed in previous eras, the most important (perhaps) being globally distributed instantaneous communication.

It may be that the US is simply becoming obsolete more than we're all going to hell in a handbasket because of the evil [insert your personal bias here]'s.

You think “family values” and “community” are at risk here? Be thankful you’re not a traditionalist in Japan.

I totally understand that. Let's hope that the new people do not screw up the sushi.

SactoQT, actually I think were headed for another world war. This time we get to beat back facism in the form of fundamentalism. I predict a major recession/depression followed by war with the arabs/muslims, and I predict the chinese will side with the arabs/muslims. Starts like this, china invades or threatens Taiwan, or goes for the Spratleys and Japan objects.

Scary scenario. I think things could escalate, but I hope it doesn't come to this.

SactoQT, actually I think were headed for another world war. This time we get to beat back facism in the form of fundamentalism. I predict a major recession/depression followed by war with the arabs/muslims, and I predict the chinese will side with the arabs/muslims. Starts like this, china invades or threatens Taiwan, or goes for the Spratleys and Japan objects.

I am still counting on nuclear weapons to maintain the balance. But if the fundamentalists can obtain nukes, all bets are off.

IMO there is a slight risk of war in the Taiwan Straits around the 2008 Olympics timeframe.

I spent 3 years in japan, most of the sushi there really isn’t that good. The good stuff will set you back an arm and a leg. Sashimi is good all over though. Want good sushi, go to Angelfish in Alameda. Amazing.

They (in Japan) don't de-vein the shrimp, who wants gritty shrimp? I'm surprised you still would crave sushi after 3 years in Japan. I spent less than a year there and I've had enough to last a lifetime.

were headed for another world war

I wish I could object to this more strongly. But you could well be correct because the outcome is in the hands of politicians, and we have a serious vacuum of true leadership. All we can do is hope leaders arise, and fairly quickly. If there is a world war, then all our debates here are moot. Any war on such a scale today would be either (a) the end, period, or (b) so totally devestating that we'd reset the clock to about the year 1200 with a Mad Max twist. The problem is that nations don't like to lose wars, and there are quite a few nations that have trump cards they can use if they start to lose...and once one does, they all pretty much have to respond in kind.

An earlier statement said that "we grew up free of risk of war". This isn't true. We (most of us I assume) grew up during a period of extreme likelihood of nuclear-war, which nearly occurred on at least 3 occassions. In fact, tying this argument back to the original exchange between me and Peter P, the reason we have modern game-theory today is as an attempt to explain why the USSR and USA never pushed their buttons.

Plus the Japanese love to drink

Do they ever! I went to school in Osaka and my friends and I would bar hop on the weekends. Total blast. Love the theme bars in Osaka-- Bar Nowhere Jamaica-- stuff like that.

IMO there is a slight risk of war in the Taiwan Straits around the 2008 Olympics timeframe.

At least the ensuing war would solve our current account deficit problem as all the greenbacks in the Chinese Central Bank are suddenly "eliminated".

We (most of us I assume) grew up during a period of extreme likelihood of nuclear-war, which nearly occurred on at least 3 occassions.

Can you refresh my memory?

In fact, tying this argument back to the original exchange between me and Peter P, the reason we have modern game-theory today is as an attempt to explain why the USSR and USA never pushed their buttons.

Fundamentalists have a very different value system. This severely limits the use of modern game theory.

I feel that the US is so morally bankrupt, that given the right amount of green paper, people here would assist in bring a stray nuke here. When it gets lit off, and it will, watch the fuck out.

Scary scary but true. There are enough people out there who hate us enough to set one off, all it takes is getting their hands on one.

I feel that the US is so morally bankrupt, that given the right amount of green paper, people here would assist in bring a stray nuke here. When it gets lit off, and it will, watch the fuck out.

There are always people willing to sell out, in every country. This is a huge problem in Russia right now, as lots of these people who'd sell nukes are nuke-tech aren't terrible people, just well educated, poor, and desperate. But I agree, the first nuke that lights off changes everything, permanently. It will be the milestone that marks entry to the next era...and that's if we're lucky.

SactoQt,
Excellent quote! Should be taught in schools.

Thanks. I think there is a lot to be learned by looking at history. Problem is that a lot of people think "this time is different" but you know the saying, "The more things change the more they stay the same."

Randy H, I respect that you are intelligent and well educated. However, your desire to "rigidly" test everything will, in my opinion, waste time, money, and will end up impotent.

I stand, my back to the setting sun a breeze in my face. and note the wind blows lightly to the west. You fumble with your compass and portable weathervane trying to prove that the wind blows east.

What I learned a long time ago is that, regardless of the data, there is always an argument the other way.

I am sure you are quite excellent at compiling data and arguing what it portends. It's a useful skill in many contexts.

I won't argue on those grounds, because they are irresolute and can be molded to any conclusion.

You will have your opinion, and I will have mine.

I suppose where we may differ is in your belief that things are economically provable or not.

I believe not, which is why I have never played the stock market much, and why I never get a good answer out of an economist or investment advisor when I ask, "so why do I have so much more money than you if you know so much about the economy?"

So please save all of your economic theories - they have done virtually no good for America, and I think they are currently useless at best, damaging, at worst. We are in a liquid situation, and you will not be able to apply your mathamatical models to such complex systems.

I view our fate not through the extroardinarly weak power of the macroeconomic lens, but rather through my own eyes. I have read much of the same information as you. Your theories tell you . . .

"Economically-speaking, the economy has not worsened as a whole, it has strengthened."

My understanding of people, in combination with the horrific data in front of us, tells me that your sentiment is exactly wrong.

I claim to be able to predict the behavior of people extremely well - they have rarely disappointed me, which is to say that they have almost always disappointed me.

So I have enjoyed the company of this board. You all seem like decent people. You all certainly are smart people.

When you first get the notion that I may be right, some of you might be able to find me. Send me an email.

Maybe.
Maybe we can help fill that void.

I think I know how.

I think we can do it.

Goodbye folks, be good to your neighbors, regardless of how little they will deserve your goodness.

I am all for the abolishment of small nuclear weapons. Strategic weapons (with near-guaranteed centralized control) maintain balance. Tactical weapons create chaos.

Escaped from the District..........with Kurt Russel

Hang around. We might disagree or find our way through the discussions differently, but it's the discussion that matters isn't it? If we don't have differing opinions then what's the point?

They (we) have nuclear howitzer shells. WTF?

There are nuclear mortar shells, nuclear torpedos, ... you name it.

Can you refresh my memory? [near nuke misses]

The Cuban missile crisis is the most famous.

In 1979 there was an incident in the Bearing Straits which involved naval and arial exchanges resulting in the sinking of a Russian destroyer and the firing of ship-to-air missiles at US planes. I think it involved a stranded russian nuclear sub in US waters and was a source of inspiration in a later Clancy novel. I knew this incident well because at the time we lived in Colorado Springs and my father worked in the Mountain. He was locked inside for a little over two weeks during all the shooting which, of course, we the public had no idea was going on. But, half the neighborhood's fathers never came home suddenly one day, so everyone knew something big was up.

In 1983 the Russians believed we had launched a decapitation strike and they went all the way to the point of opening their silos and readying the rockets, which is the last stage before pushing-the-button. If I recall, the commander disobeyed orders by not initiating the final launch procedures because he somehow felt like something wasn't right (he had bad data because the satellites had malfunctioned or something like that). Subsequently, he was court marshalled for disobeying orders and the Kremlin rushed to put in the "dead-man's-switch" so that the US couldn't exploit this newly discovered weakness in the Soviet response system. They were afraid Reagan would strike first with everything, unannounced, unprovoked, and it would disable the Russians response capability. They had the dead-man mechanism until late in the Clinton administration, well after the Soviet Union dissolved.

Randy, I am completely ignorant about the 1979 incident. How can I find out more about this event?

However, I think that and the Cuban crisis was not that dangerous because modern game theory would be able to "moderate" that.

Accidents due to misinformation are always dangerous.

Escaped from the District . . . With Kurt Russel Says:[...goodbye]

Debate can be healthy, and it can help to broaden your perspective and often to strengthen your convictions. Leaving in a fit of drama doesn't add any value for anyone.

I believe not, which is why I have never played the stock market much, and why I never get a good answer out of an economist or investment advisor when I ask, “so why do I have so much more money than you if you know so much about the economy?”

I'm not an investment advisor nor an economist, but you never asked me...because the answer is simple: "Life ain't fair". There will always be the marathon-running, cancer researcher who dies of spontaneous lung cancer while his alcoholic, chain smoking neighbor lives to the ripe age of 92. This doesn't disprove the researcher's life works, it just proves that there is randomness.

Randy, I am completely ignorant about the 1979 incident. How can I find out more about this event?

I haven't found anything good on the web, but I think much of this has been declasified because I once saw it referenced in a History Channel documentary. It was one of these widely-known but classified things for many years, but I swear it was partially opened in the 90s. Maybe it was only declassified by the Russians?

As the the Cuban crisis, I think this was way bigger than you give it credit for. By the way, it was two seperate near misses, the first being the Bay of Pigs, which we now know caused the Russians to consider initiating nuclear war. But as for the missile crisis, game theory nearly didn't work because we (the US) had a non-rational player on our side by the name of Curtis LeMay. If Kennedy hadn't been such a strong leader as to stand up to LeMay, we'd have not found the "Nash Equilbrium".

They were afraid Reagan would strike first with everything, unannounced, unprovoked, and it would disable the Russians response capability.

Perhaps Reagan should've never made that joke "...we begin bombing in 15 minutes"

If Kennedy hadn’t been such a strong leader as to stand up to LeMay, we’d have not found the “Nash Equilbrium”.

Perhaps LeMay found the Nash Equilbrium the Nash style - seeing things that aren't there. ;)

If someone can tell me how to link/reference/post a PDF I just got the NY Fed report on housing asset prices. A must read for anyone very serious about the real data and fundamentals.

Assessing High House Prices: Bubbles, Fundamentals, and Misperceptions
Charles Himmelberg, Christopher Mayer, and Todd Sinai
Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no. 218
September 2005

From the Mercury News:

"More than 1,700 schools across California got bad news Wednesday: They either made or remained on a list of struggling schools that failed to meet federal testing benchmarks two years in a row.

In Santa Clara County, 29 schools -- including several on the East Side and in downtown San Jose -- were singled out for Program Improvement status for 2005-06. Two schools -- Fair Junior High and Gardner Elementary -- have been in the program for at least five years, which means that technically they could be taken over by the state. But the sheer number of California schools that are struggling makes a takeover unlikely."

Tell me again why people want to pay over a million bucks for a home here?

The public school my kids were supposed to attend (they bussed them for social integration ) was a 1 on a scale of 1-10. It was horrible. In addition to paying 4K property taxes, we had to shell out thousands for private school. I'm so glad we are out of there.

Wow, I go away for a few hours and suddenly we're talking about the end of the world. Haven't had time to read every post yet, but wanted to reply to Escape from DC's questions to me.

"as for “diversity spreading to middle America”, what do you mean by “diversity”?

Diversity of skin color?
Diversity of culture?"

Both, because I believe that in the long-term, everyone benefits from cultures, subcultures, and races becoming more homogenous. If we all end up mixed together, then the best aspects of each culture may be adopted as American, and the not so great aspects may fade away. I realize this is a shaky theory. :-P

"Because I gotta point out, the first is silly"

What's silly about it? I grew up in the racially divided South, white people on one side of town and black people on the other. Went to school during bussing and saw elementary school kids beat each other until they were bloody simply because they'd gotten into a racially-charged argument. I consider such incidents growing pains (not defending bussing here, just using this as an example) on the road toward a culture that benefits from everyone's stengths.

I think this should happen naturally--as it is now as a result of the coastal housing bubble, with immigrants moving to more affordable areas.

The city I grew up in is much more diverse (and tolerant) now than ever, and to me that seems so obviously like a good thing, I'm surprised when I hear otherwise liberal friends (and I'm not a liberal, by the way--I've voted both replubican and democrat based on who seems the least idiotic) from that area making veiled racist comments (about the latest influx of immigrants, not blacks). Is racism ever a good thing? I don't think so, but it seems to me the only way to overcome it is during the long process of people getting to know each other.

"and the second is probably unwanted if that culutre resembles the immigrant culutre in Cali, which is significantly mexican."

Unwanted? Probably by a lot of people, but I disagree with them. I am strongly opposed to illegal immigration, but I think any family who comes here legally should be welcome. So what if they're Mexican? The Mexicans I know are generally hard-working and family-oriented, and what's wrong with those cultural values?

"In the ideal society, there would be no diversity; everybody would be a good person looking to care for ems neighbor."

I agree with you there, and I don't support diversity for the sake of itself. I support it for the reasons stated above.