patrick.net

Peter P,

Science is not a religion. It is not a belief system, unless you have gone postmodernist on us. Science is self disconfirming based upon a mechanism of deduction that is open to challenge and independent verification. I need not believe in anything to demonstrate gravity or electromagnetic principles. Again, that is unless you go to Different Sean's extreme of denying that 2 + 2 = 4, and insisting that such is merely a "belief".

Bay Area Real Estate is a religion.

Science is not a religion. It is not a belief system, unless you have gone postmodernist on us.

If you say so, it must be so. Hail Randy, our religious leader.

I need not believe in anything to demonstrate gravity or electromagnetic principles.

You do need to believe that reality can be deduced from observations though. Science is not pure logic.

Randy H,

"Bay Area Real Estate is a religion"

Lately it seems like more of a cult.

newsfreak,

There is definitely an optimal scale, as is true in any economy of scale. This changes over time with technique and technology, but becomes costly to achieve due to sunk capital costs.

That is, you could easily accomidate more people per sq mile in NYC, but the cost to reengineer such is prohibitive. However, the scale value of reengineering part of, say Boston, for $1tr is far greater than the value of reengineering $1tr of rural Nebraska. The dystopian thread is that, as pressures mount, the efficient allocation of capital will bias in favor of creating greater value as measured by cold, hard efficiencies, not wishes and hopes.

People tend to think in terms of today's snapshot being a static model for the future. In reality, everything is changing all of the time. This is the assumption flaw in Cote's arguments. Dynamic system analyses always favor density over dispersion up to the point of supportable infrastructure technologies.

Returning to BA,

I really wouldn't stress out about the heat all that much. The biggest waste McMansion builders bring is installing central A/C! For what? The three weeks out of the year we break 90?

RC,

Then why do commercial jets (a form of mass transit) keep getting bigger? The technology exists to move much further the other direction towards POV. Perhaps it's a conspiracy between government loan guarantors and airline execs?

POV are only more "efficient" by your introduction of an energy-neutral, static ceteris paribus, analysis. I agree that capital reinvestment is prohibitive due to sunk costs, but you are arguing that POV is absolutely more efficient, which is categorically false.

Randy H & SP --thanks for your eloquent rebuttals to Peter P's absurd comparisons of science to religion.

The commonly used meaning of religion is largely dependent on things like ‘faith’, i.e. a willingness to believe a hypothesis without requiring the existence of a rigorous, logical and independently verifiable proof. No self-respecting science would accomodate that kind of nonsense.

Yes. For any hypothesis to be considered "proven" or "law" requires rigorous, repeatable and independently verifiable empirical PROOF. No beliefs held by any of the world's religions require this sort of empirical rigor. Even then, commonly held scientific principals CAN be dislodged by better/future evidence to the contrary ('the ether' being an example). Core religious beliefs do not tend to change much over time --in fact religious hierarchies tend to actively persecute anyone seeking to change such illogical belief systems. Hence, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihads, Inquisitions and withch hunts.

That's why they call it "faith", not "science".

Peter P, were you trying to be "cute" here?

Peter P, were you trying to be “cute” here?

Huh?

For any hypothesis to be considered “proven” or “law” requires rigorous, repeatable and independently verifiable empirical PROOF.

That empirical proof requires faith in the empirical method. Now I am now dismissing the usefulness of science. It is indispensible.

Mathematics is absolute. Science is quite far from that.

We will never understand how things *really* are - you cannot explain a system of laws/rules/whatever from *within* that set of rules. You have to make a priori assertions that are essentially unprovable.

Exactly. We can only prove the relationships within the same set of axioms.

But I agree that Science is good enough for practical use.

RC,

In your NYC example, can you demonstrate for me why the subsidization of a transit infrastructure enabling the density of Manhattan to exist is a net loss? Mind you, consider the economic productive contribution of NYC in the face of the existent global economic/business culture over the past 96 years you are referring to. Show me how we're better off without NYC, in totality. Don't just draw a circle around your hand-picked set of factors, but include the amount that having NYC contributes to yours and everyone else's standard of living. Go look up the GDP breakdown by GSP/Metro and then by industry classification.

I retract my tin-foil-esque allegation. Nonetheless, I maintain you are playing a game with context and domain.

Commercial air travel is not "public"? Firstly, "public" transit is irrelevant to this discussion. I am comparing mass transit of any form to more direct personal transit. The mode of investment is more a macro/political matter. Whether built with $ from an investment bank, $ from taxes, or freedom from slave labor, the logistical analyses should be the same in terms of efficiency potential. And when is commercial aviation considered anywhere near a free-market? It is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the US. Or have you not been following the whole WTO row?

I think the problem here is that you are confusing relatively more efficient with absolutely more efficient. POV is definitely relatively more efficient, even considering energy is neutral. But mass transportation as a large component of a designed density centric system would be absolutely more efficient.

You keep calling out all this subsidization and "bribing". Stop for a moment to consider that this itself may be part of an efficient allocation of capital (or the most efficient feasible) in a larger context.

...ducking under a tempting barrage of religion and density conversation...

Something I hadn’t considered until reading this thread. Greed blew the RE bubble to amazing proportions, and greed is going to drive RE into the dirt. Think about it, realtwhores only care about their commisions, bless them.

I agree that Realtors have a strong incentive to convince their clients to sell at any price (c.f. Freakonomics). Unfortunately I think that ignorant greed will lead to price stickiness as Randy predicts. Consider an owner sitting on "$300K" of equity on an "$800K" (according to them) house. They're strongly tempted to wait for the magic number which applied last year, turning down a $740K offer. The house sits for the next two years until they finally find a buyer who offers $760 and they take it, glad that they saved themselves $20K by waiting.

However, CDs hit 6% over this 2 year period, thus

Sell Now:
$240K(1.06)(1.06)= $269
Sell in 2 years:
$260K

Yes, yes, taxes make the results about equivalent and they do get to save $50K in BA rent for the two years... and take the Mortgage deduction. Hmmm, maybe Greed is good. Damn bastards.

Ok, imagine interest rates hit 10% and an asteroid hits their frigging house...

test1

test2

test3

test4

blog doesn't support tables..

Quick Religion comment and then I'm off. In my estimation, your worldly philosophy should meet three criteria:

1. Simplicity - Occam's Razer - God = Yes. Science = Yes
2. Model matches the data - God = Yes*. Science = Yes
3. Model allows you to predict the future. God = no**. Science = Yes

* ("God did it that way" argument is unstoppable on this one)
** (Nostradamus/Bible Code fans need not apply...)

Such as, what causes you to feel hurt in you’re chest..if it’s you’re brain that is controlling all functions of you’re body?? Why don’t we just get headaches when a loved one dies?

If you're looking for answers to these, Buddhism is the world philosophy for you.

Model: Life is dukka (suffering).

1. Simple
2. Fits the Data
3. Predicts the future

;-)

Science cannot predict the future accurately.

Can it tell us when the housing bubble will collapse?

We will never understand how things *really* are - you cannot explain a system of laws/rules/whatever from *within* that set of rules. You have to make a priori assertions that are essentially unprovable.

Perhaps, but then I tend to favor empiricist over rationalist approach for largely practical reasons. Once you start down the Cartesian path of favoring "pure reason" over experience, then all human "knowledge" becomes purely subjective, and subordinate ot the eye of the beholder. No one's "truth" can really be proven over anyone else's.

This is far too subjective a view of the Universe for me. Nor is it particulary helpful in learning about the underlying nature of natural forces or in developing new technologies to advance the human species. Try building a moon rocket or computer just using the Noble Eightfold Path (not knocking Buddhism, just an example for illustration). Good luck with that.

We may never be able to understand the universe the way it *really* is (as 'God' knows it) because we are part of it and there are limits to human understanding. But we can still learn quite a bit and improve/enrich our lives in the process.

"God does not play dice with the Universe"
--A. Einstein

Consider an owner sitting on “$300K” of equity on an “$800K” (according to them) house.

What about the FB that is trying to cash out after two years exactly? And how about all the NAAVLP folks? Yes your argument applies to those who bought years ago and are sitting on fat stacks, personally I don't know of anyone who hasn't hit the HELOC spigot at least twice.

There is nothing supernatural….All by definition IS natural or it would not exist…..

Ah...that explains everything. Next!

We may never be able to understand the universe the way it *really* is (as ‘God’ knows it) because we are part of it and there are limits to human understanding. But we can still learn quite a bit and improve/enrich our lives in the process.

Have you tried leaches? I hear they are fantastic. Also if she weight the same as a duck, she's made out of wood which means shes a witch and we can burn her.

Ahhh religion, like arguing which is the best color. Personally my rabbit friend and I love to hang out. Who cares if the deluded want imaginary friends, let them have em.

-weight
+weighs

Once you start down the Cartesian path of favoring “pure reason” over experience, then all human “knowledge” becomes purely subjective, and subordinate ot the eye of the beholder. No one’s “truth” can really be proven over anyone else’s.

What is the truth anyway? Why insist on being objective?

We all know the basic truths of what is “right” and what is “wrong”.

Do you really? I consider myself a utilitarian. Different people really assign different ethical value to the same act.

Ethics is a tough subject.

It's always a wonder to me that people (that work in the next cubicle so to speak) talk to you like a 4th grader when it comes to tappin' the old HELOC spigot. Like we can't do math. Dude your paycheck is within 50 bucks of mine but you're on your 3rd major vacation in 4 years!

In the time I've seen the folks, Six Flags and the Wisconsin Dells you've been to Madrid, Fiji and Moscow? HELOC? Ya think?

Science cannot predict the future accurately.
Can it tell us when the housing bubble will collapse?

Peter P,

I think you are referring to the "dismal science" (economics), which is not really a true science at all --it's really more art and (loosely) applied mathematics. In any case, no science is capable of accurately predicting the future with total 100% precision, because this would require knowing all variables that could act on/influence upon the outcome (impossible) and eliminating quantum randomness (equally impossible). However, some 'hard' sciences do get pretty close (physics, chemistry, etc.).

Even economics --however imperfect-- can at least tell us that we're IN a bubble and that prices are drastically out of whack with supporting fundamentals and historic norms. Can religion or philosophy do that? I think not ;-)

The most flexible religion is Protestantism

I suppose this is why people sit in church pews to be fed "the truth".
I'm not trying to incite an flame war--just citing the passive nature of belief for many Christians today. Then of course, Luther and Zwingli weren't too flexible towards dissent either.

As another example of flexibility, I could cite some Native American religions which emphasize dreams and visions as the basis of personal belief. Pretty common to many nomadic cultures, actually.
Sorry, I know this isn't a relgion forum; switching off teh religion.

NURBs = New URBanists
NUTS = New Urbanist Transit Supporters
NUTSO = New Urbanist Transit Subsidized Orientation
SmUGLers = ?
SMUG = ?

Robert Coté,

I want to add these to the Housing Bubble Glossary, but I don't recall the definitions for SMUG or SmUGLers.

@Robert,

Thanks for the definitions. They will be added to the Blog collective. :-)

peak oilers, global warmists all have an agenda

I think you are painting with too broad a brush here. I "believe" in peak oil and global warming (as in: they are real, they exist), though I am not a pro-socialism, private property-hating, Luddite fanatic, as I think you'll agree.

What about the FB that is trying to cash out after two years exactly? And how about all the NAAVLP folks? Yes your argument applies to those who bought years ago and are sitting on fat stacks, personally I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t hit the HELOC spigot at least twice.

Sadly, X, the less equity they're sitting on, the more likely they'll wait it out rather than take the immediate loss. It's the "go for the home run" strategy that we've talked about before. If you increase the equity amount, they're better off cashing out now to get that 6% during the subsequent flat/falling period of real estate prices. The FBs with newly purchased homes have much more to lose if they sell at little or negative gain.

As many of you have said, go for the property owned by Grandma and not by a flipper.

There are differing degrees in "believing" in global warming and peak oil. I am convinced that we will eventually reach the peak of the Hubbert curve in terms of not being able to extract more oil-per-year simply by drilling more/deeper holes or improving the efficiency of those drills. This is because there is a finite supply of fossil fuels on the planet.

However, I am NOT in the eternal "gloom and doom" camp, because I believe we can develop viable and sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels: nuclear (both "clean" fission & fusion), bio-diesel, passive (solar/wind/wave), etc.

Ditto for global warming. I believe the release of large amounts of "greenhouse" gases (CO2, CO, CH4, 03, CFCs, etc) HAS impacted the environment and triggered a gradual warming trend. To what extent the ENTIRE amount of warming is due to human activity, however, is still a matter of debate, as is exactly where this will lead us. Even so, I would say that reducing the amount of GGs (via population reduction and/or cleaner energy production) would be a prident and perfectly reasonable goal for industrialized societies.

-prident
+prudent

I believe the release of large amounts of “greenhouse” gases (CO2, CO, CH4, 03, CFCs, etc) HAS impacted the environment and triggered a gradual warming trend. To what extent the ENTIRE amount of warming is due to human activity, however, is still a matter of debate, as is exactly where this will lead us.

I do not buy the global warming theory. Science is being used to further the agenda of some. (Religion was used to further the agenda of some)

Don't get me wrong. Human activities do have impacts. But I am not convinced that they are global. Many people like the global warming hypothesis simply because they like the blame game and the prescribed "solution".

I think environmental protection is very important. But fear-mongering is not the right way.

I do not buy the global warming theory. Science is being used to further the agenda of some.

Really? Well, than at least do yourself a favor: don't buy waterfront property.

Really? Well, than at least do yourself a favor: don’t buy waterfront property.

The effects predicted by the theory may very well be real. However, I do not think much is attributable to human activities. We are so insignificant compared to Nature.

We should still protect the environment, because pollution can still cause real damage to our communities.

RC,

When you say transit could be more efficient you are correct. All we need do is raise taxes, pick winners, prevent free choice and treat people like cattle. Transit is not an efficient allocation of capital as even its most ardent supporters agree by their reveal preferences.

So now we agree. The subject of this thread is DYSTOPIA. My prime disagreement is that I am not as optimistic as you. I want "Walden", but I fear I'm going to get "Blade Runner" or "Ghost in the Shell". I suspect that if that future comes to pass soon enough, you and I will be sharing a ride in the last remaining "Red Barchetta" fleeing imprisonment in the Arcology formerly known as the Bay Area.

We should start training the illegals now to be nurses. Who cares if zocor sounds a lot like zoloft, and librium, sounds a lot like lithium.

I agree. Guest worker nurses. We probably need them.

Help me Jeebus! I think one needs to invoke omniscient powers to follow all the parallel subthreads erupting here.

Is everyone else having a slow week too? We should exploit that and designate a watering hole.

We are so insignificant compared to Nature.

Yes, and nature won't miss us if we exterminate ourselves. I just hope it doesn't get to that.

However, I do not think much is attributable to human activities.

Well, I keep hearing we're at the highest CO2 concentrations for the past 500,000 years, >300ppm. Whatever the cause, I find various reasons to be concerned of effects; everyone has their own take. tinyurl.com/e9f47

There's no point at hammering away aka scaremongering , but since we were discussing dystopian scenarios...

Yes, and nature won’t miss us if we exterminate ourselves. I just hope it doesn’t get to that.

True. Mark my words, humanity will probably exterminate itself anyway.