patrick.net

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.

Have you thoroughly researched global warming? Have you seen “An Inconvenient Truth”?

No, but I have read the State of Fear.

Data can be twisted very easily. Research any side of the issue and you will be convinced. Research both sides of the issue and you will be skeptical of "Science" itself.

Global Warming exists…you will know this is true if you have a long term memory.

Let me ask you. What is the Theory of Global Warming?

Sir Rick,
You're on a roll today!

Global warming - hmmm

Let's see, which takes up a greater volume, a liquid or a gas?

hmmmm....

And where were all those liquids?

In the ground you say?

And where are they now?

So, we took a volume of liquids from underground, and placed them in the atmosphere?

Hmmm,mmm...

Let me see if I follow this, the volume in the atmosphere is probably greater than the volume underground?

So, like, the atmosphere is actually getting bigger, denser, fuller, wider, thicker, changing its composition like, not cool, eh?

And all that organic material from hundreds of millions of years of biological existence has been vaporized into the atmosphere in the last 500 years or so?

Hmmmm....

Ever put 1 shirt over another? Do you feel warmer?

What's not to believe about the likelihood of global warming?

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I recommend Crichton's State of Fear. One main character (John Kenner) reminds me of Randy H.

What is the Theory of Global Warming?

Is that a question--or position statement?

Theory really means jack in the end.
I'm more concerned with observations, such as Greenland and polar cap melt rates. There's enough water contained in those to disrupt global economies.
If we're all fighting over oil while sea levels rise, it will be one fucked-up mess.

Yes, but ice caps melting and such could be part of a normal earth cycle.

Sure--it's happened before. The antarctica land mass contains fossiled palm trees. But, with a global change like that, it's like PeterP said: "we are so insignifcant".

Allow me to ask a dumb question.

What are the advantages of using wood in constructing a house ? Even apartment complexes that are not too high ?

In warm regions, the thermal insulation of wood doesn't seem like a real advantage. Whereas concrete has much better durability and fire protection due to inherent water in it.

Is the risk of earthquakes the main reason in California for using wood ? How about areas like Phoenix and Florida ? Are most houses there made on wooden frame as well ? If yes, why ?

Thanks in advance.

tsusiat,

Although I disagree on your (I think wishful) notion that the militaries will run out of war juice, I am generally convinced by the straight forward physics of the net carbon cycle.

There are plenty of known reserves of oil capable of powering jets and tanks for many thousands of years. They just aren't economically viable for mass consumption.

The question, in my mind, is not whether rapidly releasing carbon from the fossil sinks of the Earth is not a bad thing. The question is how bad. Is this a catastrophic problem that will raise the oceans by 100 feet and cause another ice age prematurely? Or does it just mean a little more volatility to the weather? Unfortunately, we won't really know until we either wait and see or we develop sophisticated enough models on fast enough computers to figure it out with some certainty. As for the second part, I'm afraid we're quite a bit removed from that point yet.

I recommend Crichton’s State of Fear. One main character (John Kenner) reminds me of Randy H.

Oh great, another book I'll have to add to my summer reading list now, so I can determine if that is a compliment or a criticism ;)

There was a RE section on the Bay Area Chinese radio program 2 days ago, and I think it is going to have some impact on the ethnic market psychology.

They had a seasoned agent covering west valley communities come up to talk about the market. She confessed that the market has been EXTREMELY slow since March, and even good school districts like Palo Alto and Cupertino are not spared. She was talking about some "case studies" of some Palo Alto homes sitting on the market for more than 6 months without an offer.

When asked about advice to both the seller and buyers, she stressed over and over again, SELLERS beware, the market has turned, "you have to drop your price, NOW". She went further in saying sellers not only needed to drop price to cater to today's market, but they also needed to drop even more because the market would get there in a couple of months and as a smart seller, you'd want to get there first before your neighbors. Pricing yourself for the market 2 months later is her advice (meaning, price below the current comps). If you don't price below the comps, she warned, you will become above-comp in a couple of months and your listing will just go stale.

However, she also commented that in the better neighborhoods, there are lots of sellers who are just tesing the market. They bought a long time ago, don't need to sell, just want to cash out at the top, and if the price target is not reached, then they may not sell since their carrying cost is very low. She sounded a bit frustrated when she was talking about these test-water types, because obviously she thought they were wasting her time, so she almost said it flat out that test-water sellers should not bother.

She also commented that the East Bay and inland properties are already starting a landslide situation, they are already 20-25% off from the top.

At the end of the program, she did the usual sales pitch saying that if you are trading up, this is the best time yada yada...Sounds desperate for the deal flow.

The funniest term this agent used was "pre-emptive price cut".

"You need to get there before your neighbors figure it out, it is a zero-sum game, if they cut first, they win and you lose. Don't worry about the 10s of thousands of dollars because you have already locked in a huge gain in the last few years, what you are doing now is the protect the majority of your gain, not to get that further 10s of thousands of dollars. So price below your neighbor pre-emptively and protect your overall gain."

Oh, and she impressed me by saying, "A RE gain in value like what we saw in the last 3 years was once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, so if you are a seller, grab this opportunity to unload because such a gain won't be seen by you again in your lifetime."

RE: Wood construction, all I can comment about that is it's certainly not an earthquake issue. Having travelled throughout earthquake territory in Asia, most newer construction is reinforced concrete, which according to locals I asked, was considered the most "earthquake safe". Who knows.

But, speaking of wood, and going COMPLETELY OT, here's a good laugh:

http://tinyurl.com/kd6hp

Actually, not really much of a laugh; more of an "ouch."

ride SLEDS ACROSS THE LONG ISLAND SOUND!

Interesting, but of course, Long Island is just a moraine from the last ice age (end of line for the glaciers).

The hockey stick is real, but the earth has had plenty of climate change without the aid of man. I'm more concerned about the forests we're cutting down and the resultant mass extinctions than CO2. Of course, that's easy to say when living in the 1st world. We've already cut down our ancient forests.

Sir Rick of Shmend Says:

Oh as far as climate change goes, did you know that in the early 20th century people used to ride SLEDS ACROSS THE LONG ISLAND SOUND!. Nah were not having any serious effect on the environment.

There may or may not be humanity-induced global warming (I'm agnostic on this point), but I do have to disagree with this example. Check out the paintings of Brueghel - many of them depict Belgium in winter covered with snow and ice, now a rare phenomenon. Does that mean global warming has occured since the 16th century? Who knows. But if you go by your argument to the extreme, was global warming responsible for ending the ice age?

Most of the scientists in the climate field probably make reasonable observations, but they superimpose their belief systems on those observations, skewing their conclusions. Happens all the time in Science. That's why Science is not as pure as you might think.

To BA,

I highly suspect that cost is the reason and earthquake-proof is just a marketing cool aid that the developers want to shovel down your throat.

Steel frame is obviously MORE earthquake-proof and that's why you can get a discount on home insurance if your house is built with steel frames. I can't understand why other parts of the house cannot be built with lighter-weight composite metals that is obviously much more durable. A wooden house has an average lifetime of no longer than 150 years, at least that I what I heard.

A wooden structure may make sense because nobody is expected to live in just one house throughout his life. So we might as well crank out the cheapest houses possible so that more people can have their slice of the American dream.