patrick.net

Carol Llyod's latest column discusses short sales. She does mentioned getting 1099'd for the amount of debt forgiveness. So an underwater FB in the Golden State with a non-recourse loan faces two choices:
1. Foreclosure (no 1099, but wrecked credit)
2. Short sale (debt forgiveness with 1099, saved credit score)
Which do you choose? Which do you chose if you were a typical FB? Which really tanks the market?

But since the fractional schemes are looking more and more like prepaid airline flights, it will be a matter of time before fractional jet passengers are screened as well. After all, a highjacked Gulfstream makes a serious guided weapon, too.

How do you screen people flying out of Sedona, AZ?

The 4/29 conspiracy proved that a fuel truck is just as serious a guided weapon.

I think carbon offsets is a great free-market solution to environmental problems.

Looks like defacement is still a issue for wikipedia.

Which really tanks the market?

Between cyanide and arsenic, which one is poisonous?

"How do you screen people flying out of Sedona, AZ?"

Good point, but most business flights will be out of bigger areas.

"The 4/29 conspiracy proved that a fuel truck is just as serious a guided weapon. "

True again. Plus, anyone can load a fertilizer bomb in the trunk of a car and take out any tunnel. But due to 9-11, airline aviation has a special interest to the authorities. Do you really think it is possible to highjack an airline today? I believe you would be fought by every passenger if you tried. Beside, why not sit at the approach/departure end of a runway and shoot up engine and cockpit with an AK? The flight paths of any airport has aircraft flying low over large areas in the vicinity.

I think the current passenger screening is a waste of time and resources, but I think it mayl be extended to fractional jets anyway - if fractional jets get popular enough.

"I think carbon offsets is a great free-market solution to environmental problems."

Didn't Milton Freidman come up with the idea of selling pollution rights some 25 years ago? He saw it as a free market way to lower pollution by alllowing large companiies to benefit from there clean air improvements.

But at that time, the libs were aghast at his suggestion

I think the current passenger screening is a waste of time and resources, but I think it mayl be extended to fractional jets anyway - if fractional jets get popular enough.

Fractional ownership still has a highish entrance fee ($150K+).

Perhaps chartering will be more closely scrutinized. Anyone with a few thousand dollars can book a "private" flight nowadays.

But at that time, the libs were aghast at his suggestion

Perhaps the "libs" got richer in the past 25 years. ;)

EBGuy,

Can someone do a short sale, then take out a HELOC to pay the 1099 taxes?

Can someone do a short sale, then take out a HELOC to pay the 1099 taxes?

Huh? after the short sale, there is no house?

Well, but then people keep telling me I am pre-approved for a HELOC anyway. I rent.

Peter P,

You are better with words. I was trying to imply that "fractional" was getting closer to "chartering." As more interest and cheaper jets come about, the entry fee shrinks as these planes are spread over more "owners", to the point it resembles a charter club.

Current airport security measures do absolutely nothing to encourage safety. If anything, it just introduces a lot more sketchy airport employees who would get access to sensitive areas.

OOPS, I confused "short sale" with "renegotiated loan," which was the subject of an article I was reading. The renegotiated loan also had the 1099 issue.

As more interest and cheaper jets come about, the entry fee shrinks as these planes are spread over more “owners”, to the point it resembles a charter club.

Fractional owners always own the same interest (e.g. 1/16) on a plane. So the entry fee will not shrink when there are more owners. With more people, there will be more planes.

(Similarly, the same time-share condos will not be spread over more owners.)

Chartering is different. They are more like private airlines.

"If anything, it just introduces a lot more sketchy airport employees who would get access to sensitive areas. "

Yes, like the ones who pre-planted the boxcutters for the 9-11 highjackers.

Cheaper jets will lower the entry fee though, although they are not really much heavier than SUVs.

Peter P,

Your facts and logic are unassailable. I admit error.

Peter P,

Your facts and logic are unassailable. I admit error.

Peter P

Your facts and logic are unassailable. I admit error on the Fractional Ownership issue.

Why did it post 3 times? It was bad enough I had to be wrong.

My facts and logic are not usually straight. This is why I am a better sophist. :)

Actually, I think fractional jet ownership is gaining popularity because people do not want the hassle of airport security.

Years ago when I worked at HP, we took HP's propeller plane to Roseville, it was fantastic when you can drive right up to the gate, no screening and hop on the airplane. Some of my coworkers flew to COMDEX on the jet and we wish all air travel was like that.

CB, IIRC HP has a few Gulfstream IV-SP, right?

Why can't someone build a transporter booth system already? Is safe, energy efficient, simultaneous transportation really so much to ask for?

Why can’t someone build a transporter booth system already? Is safe, energy efficient, simultaneous transportation really so much to ask for?

It has unanswerable metaphysical questions.

Anyone remember this story about someone deplaned mid-flight from an HP turboprop?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/15/MN137139.DTL

RE: transporter

I will take a slow route, perhaps a cruise boat.

"Why can’t someone build a transporter booth system already? Is safe, energy efficient, simultaneous transportation really so much to ask for?

It has unanswerable metaphysical questions. "

Some real physical ones, too. Converting a human to energy, according to E=MC squared, would make quite a pop. Just for comparison, that "crowd pleaser" 60 megaton nuke (deliverable only by B-52, in its day) only converts 4 ounces of matter to energy.

Just for comparison, that “crowd pleaser” 60 megaton nuke (deliverable only by B-52, in its day) only converts 4 ounces of matter to energy.

Someone had said that "640K ought to be enough for everyone."

Now I will not buy a computer with less than 2GB RAM.

Perhaps technology will solve that problem in the future. But metaphysics issues cannot possibly be resolved.

RE: Transporter

No Ceasarian needed, just beam baby out of mother

Eat all you want, beam food from stomach to hog trough

No sex needed, just beam sperm to......

"Someone had said that “640K ought to be enough for everyone.”

Are you saying I should upgrade?

Eat all you want, beam food from stomach to hog trough

That is something I can look forward too. My wife would not let be do the Roman thing. She said it is bad for my teeth.

Are you saying I should upgrade?

No. You should be able to run Windows 3.0 in real mode. Say hello to your "Program Manager." :)

(or maybe just jump ahead to the energy being phase)

(or maybe just jump ahead to the energy being phase)

Or perhaps we are energy beings after all. The physically world may be an illusion.

"My wife would not let be do the Roman thing. She said it is bad for my teeth."

Ah, yes the Vomitorium. (At least I hope that's the "Roman Thing" that would be bad for your teeth)

I heard that Emperor Senilius often confused the Vomitorium with the Buffet.

Peter P,

Why not just chew and spit out? Some fat and starch will get through, but a lot less.

Why not just chew and spit out? Some fat and starch will get through, but a lot less.

Swallowing the food is part of the enjoyment too.

Or perhaps we are energy beings after all. The physically world may be an illusion.

Even if this were true, the fact that you experience the physical universe, well...physically, makes the idea moot. If you jump off a building you will fall to the ground and die, because of gravity, imagined, illusionary, or real, all the same.

This is the problem I have with the postmodernists. The difference between something *real* and something *illusionary-but-perceived-exactly-as-if-real* is inconsequential.

Question: "But we could all be just dust in the wind. Isn't that deep?"

Answer: "No. Who cares. Quit smoking so much pot while watching adult swim, thinking you've discovered something profound".