patrick.net

"Gore is a bad choice as a cheerleader"

Precisely. I want to see the movie with an open mind about the topic, but it's awfully hard to take a political hack like Gore seriously.

Sure, he's not as bad as Ann Coulter & Michael Moore, but he's still a shill.

"Then who invented the algorithm?"

Al Gore's father.

SQT,

I forgot to mention they have you too! It's funny now that the sentiment in RE is becoming decidedly more negative how we've become "resident experts" not "crackpot bubblistas" we were just six months ago. Not to over step my bounds here but it may now be appropriate to mention to "the folks" that this is no time to "chase the market down". If they price it to sell out of the gate they can move forward. If they try to "milk it" for every last penny and "test the market" I see another listing going into Labor Day and then nickel dime price reductions won't help. But you already know this and I suppose your primary difficulty is "how to break it to them". My two cents? (And not that you're asking) just come out and say it. It would be a far better thing to have to live with "if we held out for X the house down the street got Y" then to have to deal with "we should have gotten this over with, now we're stuck"!

*Not parental advice

>>Ever been through Woodburn, OR? Yeah, it would be a lot like that, yeah.

I'll add Woodburn to my list. :->

“Then who invented the algorithm?”

Al Gore’s father.

heh heh

SQT,

Sell the "sizzle" not the steak!

Gee mom, think of all the fun you're going to have without this HUGE obligation dangling over your head!

Sell the "relief" and forget the "grief"!

We bought my folks place about 15 years ago and I'll never forget their sense of relief as they rolled down the driveway in that rented U-Haul on their way to their "desert oasis"!

>>Ah but the majority of the world’s scientists didn’t weigh in on that - whereas on global warming the scientific community is pretty united (outside of those sponsored by big oil.

Global warming could very well be a problem, but I don't find this scientific "united front" very convincing. Most scientists aren't expert on the problem. And certitude among scientists doesn't mean a lot historically. See Stephen Jay Gould's books. Revolutions in thinking are common.

I remember as a kid reading about global cooling (the worry at the time) and being scared.

Climate change is complicated. We don't know all the systems and buffers. The models that are used for extrapolations seem to be more trusted by the people that use them to political advantage than to the people that came up with them and tweak them.

That said, it makes sense to try to minimize any impact we have on the earth.

HARM,

LOL!

I have a friend that was in marine biology and he told me that something like 90% of the food chain starts with the Humboldt Current? If it is shut down (which seems likely in a worst case scenario) then life as we know it would be reduced...... to well, you don't even want to think about it.

SQT,

Not to beat it to death but I AM SO GLAD my wife and I didn't wait to downsize. We side stepped the issue of having to sell into a weak market and will shortly have our "pick of the litter" when it comes to homes. I can't imagine confronting these issues at their age (for crissakes I'm barely hanging in there now and I'm only 47!) It seems like there are many out there (as George suggests) where they are facing the law of diminishing returns as their equity erodes and the meter on their debt continues to run. But remember, "You guys can do this!" DinOR researched this!

Kidding.

Climate change - well the scientists at the Met Office in the UK seem to be convinced…

Scientists (and/or engineers) are very easily convinced of things that they like to believe in.

Climate changes all the time throughout history. First they predicted an ice age. Then global warming. Perhaps someone will then predict that the sky will rain donuts. :)

Besides, why CO2?

Because it sounds scientific (see-oh-two) yet most people know it. If they throw in some complex formula then people will lose interest.

Why must we as a soceity focus so much on ourselves? Can’t we take others (our children) into consideration?

Yes, I am sure. NIMBYists love their children so much that they tried to keep California pristine and growth-free. So beautiful that their children could not afford it any more.

Some of the glaciesr are GROWING!

Yes. Read State of Fear. It is a good book of fiction. It also gives a excellent perspective on the subject.

Scientists will try to hide the fact that some glaciers are growing. This fact contradicts the global warming theory and so it must be wrong.

>>I guess what I am saying is, doesn’t it bother anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming that nearly ALL other countries do?

I don't even understand what it means for a country to believe something.

Aside from that, I think they all have something in common that may explain their position--they ain't us.

This discussion keeps reminding me that this science is being driven and evaluated on political, not scientific, terms.

Returning to Bay Area Says:

"This notion that we can do whatever the fuck we want and the consequences be damned because we are the US of A..."

_____

This notion is correct. We must, can, and will do whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want to. It's called "just get it on, baby!"

Anything, anytime, anywhere!

Go U-S-A...Hoorah!

FRIFY Says:

62% of Americans, 90% of home owners

Yes, I saw this too. Also from this report:

"Among respondents whose household incomes exceed $100,000, 39 percent favored higher rates, while 52 percent were opposed; for those making $40,000 to $60,000, it was 13 percent in favor of higher rates and 76 percent opposed"

Bottom line: FB's want to avoid getting whacked with ARM resets. Just another piece of evidence showing how damned financially irresponsible this country has become.

>>Please could those who have an understanding recommend a decent reading list of books on economic theory?

Despite being called "the dismal science," there're some pretty enjoyable economics books that are, at the same time, good ways to learn to think like an economist. "Freakonomics" is the typical recommendation here, but I would recommend "The Undercover Economist" as well.

Anything about behavioral economics is a good way of learning about current economic theory. Here's a review of a good one:

http://buythenumbers.blogspot.com/2006/06/review-why-smart-people-make-big-money.html

Your ultimate goal should be to read everything Fischer Black wrote. You may lose interest before that, like a English major deciding to change majors after reading a quarter way through "Finnegan's Wake."

Now, if you want to read about finance instead of economics, I have a ton of recommendations.

>>This is the attitude that I find troubling. This notion that we can do whatever the fuck we want and the consequences be damned because we are the US of A.

No, no, no. You completely missed my point. I hope not deliberately.

My point is that all countries are striving to get ahead. We're the big, successful, fast-growing guy, so it's in their interest to slow us down. My point is it's not surprising that they all do the same thing. It's in their interest to come to the conclusion they came to. It's in their interest to have solidarity with each other. They aren't a bunch of eggheads cooly evaluating the situation. They are bastards just like we are. And China is. And India is. They shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

In other words, they are just as selfish as we are. They are doing what's easiest for them.

Robert Cote'

"careful analysis and financial accumen" LOL!

Excellent point! Especially the "other" 99.99999% that don't participate in this type of format and weren't aware there was a "bubble" until what, late 2005? I mean what's not to like? Btw Robert are you in the "if it has to be 50 bps. hike let's get it over with crowd"? Or are you in the "25 bps. and let's see how the summer goes" crowd? Just curious. Me? As long as you "keep squirming" you're still a man! I say be done with it!

The problem isn’t that there is global climate change, the problem is that there’s a social change cadre that is successfully conflating the fact of global climate change with the dubious theory of anthropogenic climate change. For instance, the global human CO2 ouput is about 0.8% of the total atmospheric annual total. Well below the measuremnt error.

But Robert, how do you reconcile that with this:
(thanks alien!) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

Even though our ANNUAL OUTPUT may only be 0.8% of total atmosphere, isn't it possible this is having a much larger cumulative effect over time?

Crap, alien beat me to the punch :-(

>>finance recs. would be appreciated also.. thanks

OK. I'm moving from one rental to another. (yuck) This is going to have to wait a few days until I get my act back together.

>>So, you believe that these countries could care less about the environment or the future of the planet, but instead are merely ganging up to “pass” global legislation (or global sentiment) to limit our ability to grow and expand?

I believe that people tend toward beliefs that align with their own interest. Absolutely. Usually without realizing it. People selectively grab evidence and ignore what doesn't fit into their prior beliefs. You can see that every day with realtor's statements, can't you?

That's my whole problem with global warming. Everyone has a dog in the fight. You think the scientists don't, but they do. How do they get funding? They pick a side. They make a big claim.

I also see a lot of the attitude, "Those Europeans are smart--they think what I think." This cracks me up.

Michael Anderson,

We moved from one rental to another and there IS a silver lining! All of the crap that somehow survived your "bubble bail" will be painfully exposed during your second move. This is a good thing. I found (amongst many others) a wrought iron umbrella stand (for which we no longer had the umbrella) and get this, a Super 8 Projector for which we no longer had movies and a Cresent reel to reel recorder with a tape of Christmas Favorites! All of this "stuff" (along with several pick-up loads of clothes and shoes found it's way to Goodwill and netted a nice little deduction. Painful yes, but necessary.

We are trying to develop an accurate description of a birthday cake using only a micrscope, bomb calorimeter and mass spectrometer.

Good analogy!

"anything the FED finds worth doing is worth overdoing"

My father used to say that "enough is enough (but TOO much is not enough) but I'm pretty sure he was talking about drinking?

Your laddered maturities speak volumes. Isn't it just incredible the lengths we have to go to for a couple of bps?

Bill Ford says "bankruptcy is not an option". Don't be ridiculous William Clay Ford the 3rd! (BK is always an option!) What say ya'll?

Oh, please. So you’re giving up just because some of the bloggers disagree with you? Tsk, tsk… This is beyond the straw man –this is just sour grapes.

Not the high caliber of debate I’ve come to expect from Sir Randall. I’m rather disappointed :-(

You are right. I should spend all of my waning free time constructing thoughtful answers just so someone can pick out the last line of my many paragraph argument, put italics around it, and say "why is that a bad thing?" or "what's wrong with the market deciding". Sorry, that's not debate. Half the time I hear "let the market decide" the commentor probably couldn't even define the relevant market and explain the mechanism by which it "decides", let alone tell me "what's wrong or right with letting it decide". Invoking free-market doctrine when convenient is nothing more than ideology, and does a disservice to those who truly favor free market solutions.

...but there I go again, just setting up more text to be quoted with a clever "challenge" or open-ended, generalized "refutation" tacked on the end.

…but there I go again, just setting up more text to be quoted with a clever “challenge” or open-ended, generalized “refutation” tacked on the end.

italics :)

My main feelings about global warming are similar to those with urban-sprawl.

Wow. I may have to re-think my stand on anthropogenic global warming. ;-)

Mainly, both require a complete lack of consideration for the future. Why must we as a society focus so much on ourselves? Can’t we take others (our children) into consideration?

Huh? How did we get from A to B here? Not "fighting" urban sprawl (by supporting more NIMBY anti-development regulations, I suppose) means I don't care about children? What about the role of massive illegal immigration & population growth in "sprawl"? What if I consider "caring about my children" to mean I want them to be able to afford a house here someday?

I just find it beyond amazing that California has allowed unrestricted construction to wipe out farming communities for the all mighty dollar. The fact that these farms feed us is completely ignored as everyone focuses on making every extra penny possible. I don’t have a problem with growth, but it should be controlled otherwise we end up with massive sprawling cities that cover the landscape.

I don't even know where to start with the logic disconnects here. "Controlled growth", meaning controlled housing supply, but NOT controlled demand (population/immigration).
Yeah... that's been working out REAL well for California over the last 30 years or so. :lol:

While considering moving to Portland, I have been reading about Measure 37. Essentially, Portland’s reputation as an environmentally friendly city is about to end as all land building restrictions that were imposed in the 1970’s are removed. What the hell is wrong with people today? Is there attitude essentially, “how dare my parents protect the environment?” While reading an article about the changes, a developer who worked hard to get the measure passed commented, “It is the American way.”

Thank God! I hope this thing passes with flying colors. Maybe the "spirit of 37" will spill over into CA if it does.

Randy writes:

You are right. ... let the market decide

Just kidding.

Relax Randy. We all love you and and most of us are thankful for your thoughtful responses and insights. If everyone here would ignore the ad hominen arguments and unsupported statements and respond thoughfully when they felt motivated, the overall dialog would definitely be better.

Cutting down on the personal insults would help too folks, not that I haven't been guilty from time to time (where's my buddy Vince?).

@Randy,

Don't like seeing your words quoted back in italics, eh? Tell you what --I'll quote MYSELF this time:

BTW, I never said we need to completely abolish ALL functions that a “Central Bank” typically performs. I just said that most of the USEFUL and NECESSARY functions (such as printing currency/coinage, protecting it from counterfeiters, etc.) is already being performed by the U.S. Treasury Dept.

I see no reason why they cannot simply absorb what (few) useful functions the Fed now performs exclusively, such as setting reserve requirements and regulating lenders. As far as counter-party risk oversight, and nominal interest rate setting, I’m pretty sure the open market has been able to do this effectively for centuries.

Points:
1. I STILL haven't gotten a response from you on this one.
2. Insulting/generalizing/dismissing the other side (no matter how weak/feeble you believe their arguments are) does not make for constructive debate.

1/4 pt. Waaaaah!

Relax Randy. We all love you and and most of us are thankful for your thoughtful responses and insights. If everyone here would ignore the ad hominen arguments and unsupported statements and respond thoughfully when they felt motivated, the overall dialog would definitely be better.

I agree. Let's keep insults, unproven assumptions about "the other side", and unsupported generalizations out of discussion.

I have always valued your input, Randy, and consider you to be one of the smartest, most articulate and logical people here. I immensely enjoy debating you, and more often than not am completely on your side of the argument. However, I think you are starting to take some of the Fed criticisms a tad too personally.

How long until "flip that house" gets replaced with "fuck that house".

Key sign the shit has truly hit the fan is the laying off of realtwhores. When they start getting hit their advice will be along the lines of, "sell for whatever you can, were there to help".

I have always valued your input, Randy, and consider you to be one of the smartest, most articulate and logical people here.

But Randy is our Caesar. He gives us wisdom and salad.

Hey, X,

It's getting close to the 4th. What do you think --have the BBQ on the weekend or the 4th itself?

Btw, just got Mrs. HARM's glasses from Mr. Schmoe --thanks.

El HARM-o how about the 3rd? I have to work on Wednesday, well if you call doing nothing all day, ok, so maybe I surf the net a bit.

Sir Randall is Viceroy of the Fat Stacks.

Global warming is not just about CO2 emissions. The reason the atmospheric concentrations are increasing so much is due to the massive deforestation over the past centuries as much as rising emissions. Urbanisation also creates hot spots - all that concrete etc.

Again, please show that the effects are:

1. global, and
2. mostly attributed to human activities

So far I have only heard attempted explanation of some warming effects as being attributed to human activities. Also, I have heard that many glaciers are shrinking, although the fact that some glaciers are growing is conveniently omitted.

X,

The 3rd is out for me --operating on a skeleton crew already, which means I'm "it" at the office. Sunday's spoken for, so that just leaves Sat & the 4th itself.