Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=spdrun]
Like it or not, a collage education will be a lot lot cheaper soon.
The internet online collage will forever change this.
it cannot be stopped
Sitting in isolation taking Intarweb correspondence courses really doesn’t compare with interacting with professors and other students in real life. Humans were designed for personal interaction, not to sit in a room and go back and forth with some kum-pootah.[/quote]
ITA
ParticipantToo true, scaredy.
ParticipantOwning a home has long been the #1 way for families to gain some wealth. It also provides predictable, lower-cost housing for seniors if people are able to buy earlier in life and have a paid-off house before retiring. Additionally, communities with high owner-occupancy rates tend to be cleaner and safer, with more engaged residents (though it’s likely that the types who could traditionally qualify for mortgages are more likely to be responsible neighbors). For these reasons alone, it makes sense for the govt to push for more owner-occupied housing.
The main reason for prices shooting up so much during the bubble, and even now, is because speculators and investors have been flooding into the housing market. I think this is damaging to the economy over the long run, not only because of the boom-bust nature of speculative markets, but also because it prevents stable ownership and the benefits it tends to bring to individual families and society, as a whole.
If we want to see stable communities while also giving as many people as possible the opportunity to own their own **affordable** home (which I believe is the right thing to do), we should enact policies that encourage this by keeping speculators out of the market, while providing assistance to buyers of a single, primary residence.
We should never have government-backed/subsidized mortgages for speculators/investors. No GSE, FHA, USDA, VA, etc. loans except for a single, primary residence. For FHA/VA loans with low downpayment requirements, the loan limits should be at or below the median price for the area; I agree with BG that these loans should be geared toward working-class neighborhoods, not beachfront properties or homes in exclusive areas.
All government-backed loans should have strict underwriting guidelines with low debt-to-income ratios and high credit score requirements.
Speculators should have to use the “free market” to get their financing; no need for the taxpayers/government to subsidize their profits.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter] Eating 1,000 calories/day and working out for 2+ hours/day isn’t something that most people can do for the long haul.[/quote]
Losing weight is a different story that gaining weight.
ketosis, the process of burning stored fat is painful and causes irritability, depression, loss of concentration, etc. — things that not conducive to work and family life.
That’s why most people don’t lose weight over and above water loss. They feel all excited, but that excitement soon turns to disappointment. Then they resume slow inexorable weight gain.
They key is to not to gain weight in the first place. Assuming you’re at ideal weight at age 18 or 20, 1 pound per year makes you overweight in 20 years. 2 pounds per year makes you obese.
[quote=CA renter] As for why people were generally thinner in the past, I think a huge part of it is the fact that people did physical work all day, and the fact that people ate “clean” foods (no pesticides, herbicides, chemical foods, etc.). But to say that they didn’t eat meat is totally wrong; they tended to eat a lot of meat (and lots of eggs!) back then, especially those who lived on farms, but working in the fields all day will burn those calories fast.[/quote]
If we live differently than in the past, should we also not eat differently?
People in the past did not have the knowledge or the medical technology we have now. That’s why they didn’t live longer.[/quote]
Some people are born overweight — and not having anything to do with the mother’s diet during pregnancy. Many people have never been “normal” weight in their entire lives.
As for eating differently now that we are more sedentary? I agree, but the food corporations are making more and more chemical-laden foods that are “quickly and easily prepared” for all those drones who come home after 10 hours at work. It’s not an easy transition.
ParticipantAnd a possible canary in the coal mine?
“Loan issuance is falling short of last year’s record $414 billion in the first six months after investors began pulling money from loan funds in April, snapping an unprecedented 95 straight weeks of inflows. Banks last year arranged a record $695 billion of U.S. loans sold to institutional investors such as mutual funds and collateralized loan obligations, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
“We had a minor correction in the loan market,” Gerry Murray, head of JPMorgan’s North America leveraged finance business, said in a phone interview. “There’s still plenty of capacity and deals are getting done with very attractive terms.”’
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=HLS]Tax laws can change at any time. IRA/401K is not a guarantee of anything other than risk.
The stock market is a legalized casino.
I’m amazed in the faith that exists believing that
this manipulated, unproven system is the security blanket for tens of millions of people.There is a chance that the stock market will collapse and the fallout will be far, far worse than what happened in 2008, which to me was no surprise and expected.
Most of the experts would just say that ‘nobody saw this coming'[/quote]
At the macro level the demographics say everybody should see the coming issues. The stock market at a macro level will fall because the supply demand imbalance caused by boomers in 401Ks is going to switch from net inflows to net outflows. It’s just a matter of time. When that shift occurs there will be a much higher supply of assets for sale versus the demand for the next generation to purchase them.
It will probably occur in real estate as well.Boomers are in the peak asset collection years right now. Asset prices are high because of that demand. Leverage makes the problem worse but even without it the problem would still exist.[/quote]
Totally agree with both of you on this.
And for those who haven’t seen it, yet:
“The point is that there is beaucoup leverage today, and it is among the professionals and corporations. Clearly, the chart below sent from a fellow trader around a week ago shows that someone is on margin.”
But is that money circulating through the economy? No, not at this time. Contrary to the trickle-down myth propagated by those at the top, when money is fed to the top of the economic pyramid, it tends to stay there.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V
These extremes suggest to me that something is going to transition in the near future. How that happens is anyone’s guess, but I think that the major deflationary currents that the Fed has been fighting so hard are about to become more visible, once again. And this time, it has the potential to be much worse, IMHO, because all the Fed/govt’s ammo is low and we are more leveraged in many ways than we’ve ever been in the past.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]2 hours of movement a day is reasonable.
In facts it’s weird to think of not kind of moving for that period every day. Sign of bad deal in society.[/quote]
Yes, two hours of movement is reasonable, but that’s not what’s required for many people to lose weight. They have to exercise vigorously for at least two hours, 5-7 days/week, without fail. Even then, many of them don’t look the way Brian thinks everyone should look.
I will never be convinced that it’s all about diet and exercise because I’ve seen first-hand too many people who did everything right, but failed to ever get (and stay) in the “normal” weight range for more than a few weeks/months. And the things these people had to do to get there were not sustainable. Eating 1,000 calories/day and working out for 2+ hours/day isn’t something that most people can do for the long haul.
As for why people were generally thinner in the past, I think a huge part of it is the fact that people did physical work all day, and the fact that people ate “clean” foods (no pesticides, herbicides, chemical foods, etc.). But to say that they didn’t eat meat is totally wrong; they tended to eat a lot of meat (and lots of eggs!) back then, especially those who lived on farms, but working in the fields all day will burn those calories fast.
ParticipantI used to be able to eat tons of total crap food without gaining a single pound, so also thought that all of those overweight people were really sneaking a pint of ice cream or something every night. Over the years, my eyes have been opened to the difficulties some people experience regarding their weight.
And with all due respect, asking people to run marathons or work out for 2+ hours/day is totally unrealistic. It’s this sort of mentality that causes overweight people to give up completely.
One more thing to keep in mind is that being underweight or normal weight does NOT mean that a person is fit or healthy. I’ve known quite a few overweight people who could easily outperform most skinny/normal weight people in almost any physically demanding task.
ParticipantI’ve seen it with my own eyes in my own family. I’ve known what all of these people eat and what they do on a daily basis. We have an endomorphic line and a more mesomorphic/ectomorphic line. There is NO QUESTION that there are far more important factors than diet and exercise.
And chemicals and hormones don’t cause food addictions that I know of; they affect how the body holds onto calories.
http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/is-your-medicine-cabinet-making-you-fat
It’s easy to be judgmental when you’re the one with a fast metabolism and a naturally high energy level; not so easy for those whose bodies store all of their calories as opposed to converting them to kinetic energy right away.
You know those studies showing that people who bounce their legs and squirm around a lot tend to be lighter? They’re not lighter because they move around; they move around because their bodies *automatically* convert the calories to kinetic energy…they can’t keep themselves from moving. OTOH, there are others who have to intentionally focus on making every movement, with every limb feeling exceptionally heavy and every movement requiring exhausting, deliberate action (those who some ignorant types might call “lazy”). This isn’t because some people are choosing to be “lazy,” their bodies are trying to store those calories, instead of burning them off!
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
I’m with Silicon Valley techies…. I don’t trust local government. I have more faith in the Federal government (with the exception of the military). As least they don’t have to raise taxes to spend more![/quote]
But even when the Fed “prints money” by buying bonds, they are increasing our debt load. Sure, you can say that we’ll never have to pay it back, but the more likely scenario is that taxes will have to increase at some point. Nothing is for free.
ParticipantPeople have already done that research (much higher spending on healthcare and prisons vs pre-Prop 13, IIRC). I’ll look for it if nobody else is willing to do so, but would greatly appreciate it if somebody else would do this research for a change. 😉
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=njtosd]
Obesity is indeed a problem – I thank my lucky stars that I have managed to avoid it. I know the food industry plays a part – but I’m not sure we know what the answer is. [/quote]Consuming too many calories is the problem.
I think the answer is obvious. Just look at old family picture of parents and grand parents.
We have more knowledge that ever, we but don’t use. Everybody has a smart phone or computer. They should log their food intake using a nifty app and the answer will be staring at them on the screen.
People are so full of it. they won’t even collect they own data so they make educated decisions.[/quote]
No, it’s not just about “diet (calories) and exercise.” We know that hormones, chemicals, medicines, etc. all play a role in weight gain or loss. We also know that each body is different and responds differently to certain foods, chemicals, and types of exercise.
If it were all about “diet and exercise,” then why can two people eat the same foods, get the same amount of exercise, and end up with entirely different bodies and fat compositions?
Why are some women naturally large-breasted while some are naturally flat-chested? Why do some people carry weight around their waist or upper body, while some carry their weight around their hips and thighs? We are all different; our bodies are responding to diet and exercise, and ALSO to chemicals and hormones in our food and environment. A hundred years ago, we had “clean” food with few, if any, pesticides or herbicides, no GMOs, no “chemical” foods created in laboratories. I think these changes in our food, water, air, medicines, etc. are every bit as culpable as diet and exercise.
ParticipantAccidentally posted the wrong link, above (2 for Prop Z). Here’s the other link for the most recent school bond measures in California:
http://ballotpedia.org/School_bond_elections_in_California
And the SD library:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/Sep/21/central-library-timeline/
ParticipantAnd one more thing, paramount, I’m willing to bet that we pay FAR more in taxes toward schools and other taxpayer-funded infrastructure and services that we do not use than you (or any of the other whiners here) are paying toward pensions for those wretched public employees. That’s the nature of a civilized democracy: we all have to pay for things we don’t like or use, and most of us also get something for a much lower price than what we’d have to pay if it were privatized.
I hate wars that benefit a handful of very well-connected people and corporations at the expense of taxpayers and people who live in weaker countries…but I still have to pay for them (and YOU!).
-
AuthorPosts
