[DWCAP]

flu, your kid speaks american? Considering the diversity of the language skills in this country, that may not be a good thing. Wouldnt english be better?

🙂

[DWCAP]

flu, your kid speaks american? Considering the diversity of the language skills in this country, that may not be a good thing. Wouldnt english be better?

🙂

[DWCAP]

[quote=SanDiegoDave]Everybody in this whole stadium scenario is an idiot. The team. The Mayor. The city council. The developers. The whole lot of ’em.

The existing Qualcomm stadium land is the best place to build a new stadium. It is centrally located in the county, at the merger of all the major freeways and the trolley, just minutes from the airport & downtown, and nearby dozens of hotels. What f*cking more do they need?!?

Have any of these people bothered to look around at what other teams did when they built new stadiums? Nobody is asking for $1 billion to be spent on new office spaces and residential. What’s needed is a new stadium. Period.

The Chicago Bears built their new stadium at the exact same spot as the old Soldier Field. During that season, the Bears played at U of I-Urbana-Champaign. When the Green Bay Packers renovated Lambeau Field, they played at U of Wisconsin’s Badger stadium.

So I ask: What is the big deal about having the Chargers play up at the L.A. Coliseum for a season while Qualcomm gets demolished and rebuilt? If anything, it would expand the Chargers’ fan base.

Build a new stadium right at the same sight. Any other site is not optimal by comparison – not by a long shot.[/quote]

The point of the office parks, condo’s, hotels, or any of the other crap they wanna build is to defray the cost of building the stadium. Everyone in any way involved is too cheap to actually build the stadium, so they are trying to hide the costs in other building projects.
I say they build a parking structure on the fields behind Qcomm, give away free stuff to people who take the trolly and charge extra for parking to pay for it, and then build the new stadium right next to the old one in the parking lot. Tear down the old one, make it prefered parking (it would be closer to the stadium than the parking structure) and call it a day.

The whole reason they want a new stadium is because they want more luxery boxes and prefered seating, and all the stuff that makes corporate sponsorship so profitable. So use that new stuff to pay for the new stadium, and stop trying to kid yourselves into thinking people are gonna drive to way inland Chula Vista just so you can hid/avoid your construction costs.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SanDiegoDave]Everybody in this whole stadium scenario is an idiot. The team. The Mayor. The city council. The developers. The whole lot of ’em.

The existing Qualcomm stadium land is the best place to build a new stadium. It is centrally located in the county, at the merger of all the major freeways and the trolley, just minutes from the airport & downtown, and nearby dozens of hotels. What f*cking more do they need?!?

Have any of these people bothered to look around at what other teams did when they built new stadiums? Nobody is asking for $1 billion to be spent on new office spaces and residential. What’s needed is a new stadium. Period.

The Chicago Bears built their new stadium at the exact same spot as the old Soldier Field. During that season, the Bears played at U of I-Urbana-Champaign. When the Green Bay Packers renovated Lambeau Field, they played at U of Wisconsin’s Badger stadium.

So I ask: What is the big deal about having the Chargers play up at the L.A. Coliseum for a season while Qualcomm gets demolished and rebuilt? If anything, it would expand the Chargers’ fan base.

Build a new stadium right at the same sight. Any other site is not optimal by comparison – not by a long shot.[/quote]

The point of the office parks, condo’s, hotels, or any of the other crap they wanna build is to defray the cost of building the stadium. Everyone in any way involved is too cheap to actually build the stadium, so they are trying to hide the costs in other building projects.
I say they build a parking structure on the fields behind Qcomm, give away free stuff to people who take the trolly and charge extra for parking to pay for it, and then build the new stadium right next to the old one in the parking lot. Tear down the old one, make it prefered parking (it would be closer to the stadium than the parking structure) and call it a day.

The whole reason they want a new stadium is because they want more luxery boxes and prefered seating, and all the stuff that makes corporate sponsorship so profitable. So use that new stuff to pay for the new stadium, and stop trying to kid yourselves into thinking people are gonna drive to way inland Chula Vista just so you can hid/avoid your construction costs.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SanDiegoDave]Everybody in this whole stadium scenario is an idiot. The team. The Mayor. The city council. The developers. The whole lot of ’em.

The existing Qualcomm stadium land is the best place to build a new stadium. It is centrally located in the county, at the merger of all the major freeways and the trolley, just minutes from the airport & downtown, and nearby dozens of hotels. What f*cking more do they need?!?

Have any of these people bothered to look around at what other teams did when they built new stadiums? Nobody is asking for $1 billion to be spent on new office spaces and residential. What’s needed is a new stadium. Period.

The Chicago Bears built their new stadium at the exact same spot as the old Soldier Field. During that season, the Bears played at U of I-Urbana-Champaign. When the Green Bay Packers renovated Lambeau Field, they played at U of Wisconsin’s Badger stadium.

So I ask: What is the big deal about having the Chargers play up at the L.A. Coliseum for a season while Qualcomm gets demolished and rebuilt? If anything, it would expand the Chargers’ fan base.

Build a new stadium right at the same sight. Any other site is not optimal by comparison – not by a long shot.[/quote]

The point of the office parks, condo’s, hotels, or any of the other crap they wanna build is to defray the cost of building the stadium. Everyone in any way involved is too cheap to actually build the stadium, so they are trying to hide the costs in other building projects.
I say they build a parking structure on the fields behind Qcomm, give away free stuff to people who take the trolly and charge extra for parking to pay for it, and then build the new stadium right next to the old one in the parking lot. Tear down the old one, make it prefered parking (it would be closer to the stadium than the parking structure) and call it a day.

The whole reason they want a new stadium is because they want more luxery boxes and prefered seating, and all the stuff that makes corporate sponsorship so profitable. So use that new stuff to pay for the new stadium, and stop trying to kid yourselves into thinking people are gonna drive to way inland Chula Vista just so you can hid/avoid your construction costs.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SanDiegoDave]Everybody in this whole stadium scenario is an idiot. The team. The Mayor. The city council. The developers. The whole lot of ’em.

The existing Qualcomm stadium land is the best place to build a new stadium. It is centrally located in the county, at the merger of all the major freeways and the trolley, just minutes from the airport & downtown, and nearby dozens of hotels. What f*cking more do they need?!?

Have any of these people bothered to look around at what other teams did when they built new stadiums? Nobody is asking for $1 billion to be spent on new office spaces and residential. What’s needed is a new stadium. Period.

The Chicago Bears built their new stadium at the exact same spot as the old Soldier Field. During that season, the Bears played at U of I-Urbana-Champaign. When the Green Bay Packers renovated Lambeau Field, they played at U of Wisconsin’s Badger stadium.

So I ask: What is the big deal about having the Chargers play up at the L.A. Coliseum for a season while Qualcomm gets demolished and rebuilt? If anything, it would expand the Chargers’ fan base.

Build a new stadium right at the same sight. Any other site is not optimal by comparison – not by a long shot.[/quote]

The point of the office parks, condo’s, hotels, or any of the other crap they wanna build is to defray the cost of building the stadium. Everyone in any way involved is too cheap to actually build the stadium, so they are trying to hide the costs in other building projects.
I say they build a parking structure on the fields behind Qcomm, give away free stuff to people who take the trolly and charge extra for parking to pay for it, and then build the new stadium right next to the old one in the parking lot. Tear down the old one, make it prefered parking (it would be closer to the stadium than the parking structure) and call it a day.

The whole reason they want a new stadium is because they want more luxery boxes and prefered seating, and all the stuff that makes corporate sponsorship so profitable. So use that new stuff to pay for the new stadium, and stop trying to kid yourselves into thinking people are gonna drive to way inland Chula Vista just so you can hid/avoid your construction costs.

[DWCAP]

[quote=SanDiegoDave]Everybody in this whole stadium scenario is an idiot. The team. The Mayor. The city council. The developers. The whole lot of ’em.

The existing Qualcomm stadium land is the best place to build a new stadium. It is centrally located in the county, at the merger of all the major freeways and the trolley, just minutes from the airport & downtown, and nearby dozens of hotels. What f*cking more do they need?!?

Have any of these people bothered to look around at what other teams did when they built new stadiums? Nobody is asking for $1 billion to be spent on new office spaces and residential. What’s needed is a new stadium. Period.

The Chicago Bears built their new stadium at the exact same spot as the old Soldier Field. During that season, the Bears played at U of I-Urbana-Champaign. When the Green Bay Packers renovated Lambeau Field, they played at U of Wisconsin’s Badger stadium.

So I ask: What is the big deal about having the Chargers play up at the L.A. Coliseum for a season while Qualcomm gets demolished and rebuilt? If anything, it would expand the Chargers’ fan base.

Build a new stadium right at the same sight. Any other site is not optimal by comparison – not by a long shot.[/quote]

The point of the office parks, condo’s, hotels, or any of the other crap they wanna build is to defray the cost of building the stadium. Everyone in any way involved is too cheap to actually build the stadium, so they are trying to hide the costs in other building projects.
I say they build a parking structure on the fields behind Qcomm, give away free stuff to people who take the trolly and charge extra for parking to pay for it, and then build the new stadium right next to the old one in the parking lot. Tear down the old one, make it prefered parking (it would be closer to the stadium than the parking structure) and call it a day.

The whole reason they want a new stadium is because they want more luxery boxes and prefered seating, and all the stuff that makes corporate sponsorship so profitable. So use that new stuff to pay for the new stadium, and stop trying to kid yourselves into thinking people are gonna drive to way inland Chula Vista just so you can hid/avoid your construction costs.

[DWCAP]

[quote=5yearwaiter]

1) What if our Fed would increase higer interest rates in all other sectors but not housing or mortgage(may be it standardise a level say 6%) – what would be the situation if this happens?.

[/quote]

If you mean the fed sets the rates, then who knows cause the fed doesnt do that, it just influences rates as bob said.

If you mean that the government (regardless of which branch) steps in and says that morgages cant go above 6% no matter what, then effective demand will plumet. Not becuase people wont want to buy, cause they will, but because lenders will not want to lend. It is basic supply and demand. If the price is fixed too low, then demand to buy houses will outstrip supply of loans and more and more marginal buyers will be unable to secure financing.

That is unless the government starts offering their own financing to replace what is lost, but then they will be directly competing with the banks and will unleash hell on the banking sector as loans become unprofitable for them. Sounds like a totally retarded plan to me, but then I wouldnt put it past some of the ‘winners’ we have ‘leading’ this country.

[DWCAP]

[quote=5yearwaiter]

1) What if our Fed would increase higer interest rates in all other sectors but not housing or mortgage(may be it standardise a level say 6%) – what would be the situation if this happens?.

[/quote]

If you mean the fed sets the rates, then who knows cause the fed doesnt do that, it just influences rates as bob said.

If you mean that the government (regardless of which branch) steps in and says that morgages cant go above 6% no matter what, then effective demand will plumet. Not becuase people wont want to buy, cause they will, but because lenders will not want to lend. It is basic supply and demand. If the price is fixed too low, then demand to buy houses will outstrip supply of loans and more and more marginal buyers will be unable to secure financing.

That is unless the government starts offering their own financing to replace what is lost, but then they will be directly competing with the banks and will unleash hell on the banking sector as loans become unprofitable for them. Sounds like a totally retarded plan to me, but then I wouldnt put it past some of the ‘winners’ we have ‘leading’ this country.

[DWCAP]

[quote=5yearwaiter]

1) What if our Fed would increase higer interest rates in all other sectors but not housing or mortgage(may be it standardise a level say 6%) – what would be the situation if this happens?.

[/quote]

If you mean the fed sets the rates, then who knows cause the fed doesnt do that, it just influences rates as bob said.

If you mean that the government (regardless of which branch) steps in and says that morgages cant go above 6% no matter what, then effective demand will plumet. Not becuase people wont want to buy, cause they will, but because lenders will not want to lend. It is basic supply and demand. If the price is fixed too low, then demand to buy houses will outstrip supply of loans and more and more marginal buyers will be unable to secure financing.

That is unless the government starts offering their own financing to replace what is lost, but then they will be directly competing with the banks and will unleash hell on the banking sector as loans become unprofitable for them. Sounds like a totally retarded plan to me, but then I wouldnt put it past some of the ‘winners’ we have ‘leading’ this country.

[DWCAP]

[quote=5yearwaiter]

1) What if our Fed would increase higer interest rates in all other sectors but not housing or mortgage(may be it standardise a level say 6%) – what would be the situation if this happens?.

[/quote]

If you mean the fed sets the rates, then who knows cause the fed doesnt do that, it just influences rates as bob said.

If you mean that the government (regardless of which branch) steps in and says that morgages cant go above 6% no matter what, then effective demand will plumet. Not becuase people wont want to buy, cause they will, but because lenders will not want to lend. It is basic supply and demand. If the price is fixed too low, then demand to buy houses will outstrip supply of loans and more and more marginal buyers will be unable to secure financing.

That is unless the government starts offering their own financing to replace what is lost, but then they will be directly competing with the banks and will unleash hell on the banking sector as loans become unprofitable for them. Sounds like a totally retarded plan to me, but then I wouldnt put it past some of the ‘winners’ we have ‘leading’ this country.

[DWCAP]

[quote=5yearwaiter]

1) What if our Fed would increase higer interest rates in all other sectors but not housing or mortgage(may be it standardise a level say 6%) – what would be the situation if this happens?.

[/quote]

If you mean the fed sets the rates, then who knows cause the fed doesnt do that, it just influences rates as bob said.

If you mean that the government (regardless of which branch) steps in and says that morgages cant go above 6% no matter what, then effective demand will plumet. Not becuase people wont want to buy, cause they will, but because lenders will not want to lend. It is basic supply and demand. If the price is fixed too low, then demand to buy houses will outstrip supply of loans and more and more marginal buyers will be unable to secure financing.

That is unless the government starts offering their own financing to replace what is lost, but then they will be directly competing with the banks and will unleash hell on the banking sector as loans become unprofitable for them. Sounds like a totally retarded plan to me, but then I wouldnt put it past some of the ‘winners’ we have ‘leading’ this country.

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj]
That’s a nice analysis of the REVENUE part of the equation, but it doesn’t explain why California’s SPENDING has increased at TWICE the rate it should have over the last 10 years based on inflation and population growth. Why Dr. Krugman tries to perform an analysis of CA’s income statement without a discussion of costs (re: spending) – that is, reducing them – speaks volumes regarding his own agenda. [/quote]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik28-2009may28,0,5001566,full.column

Interesting story on the budget. Claims that if you substitute the CPI for some state government price index, growth in spending is very close close to neutral with 1998-99.

I suppose I could see this. Health care and education make up a majority of the state budget, and those costs have been outpacing the CPI for years.

Still, even when they use ‘their’ numbers the budget outpaced “par” by a little. So the argument isnt wrong as the author implies, just not the whole story, as is usual.

[quote] During this time frame, which embraced two booms (dot-com and housing) and two busts (ditto), the state’s population grew about 30% to about 38 million, and inflation charged ahead by 50%. The budget’s growth, the legislative analyst found, exceeded these factors by only an average of 0.2% a year.[/quote]

And his argument that people didnt speak out is total crap. People not voting is a way of speaking out, it says “We are not gonna go along with every cockamamy idea you come up, we elected you, you figure it out.” If they had ment anything differnt, they woulda voted.

[quote]This makes a mockery of Schwarzenegger’s claim that the election delivered a “loud and clear” message. What message? Proposition 1A, if passed, would have extended a parcel of tax increases for an additional two years. Who’s to say that the 81% of eligible voters who just stayed home didn’t intend to endorse the tax increase?[/quote]

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj]
That’s a nice analysis of the REVENUE part of the equation, but it doesn’t explain why California’s SPENDING has increased at TWICE the rate it should have over the last 10 years based on inflation and population growth. Why Dr. Krugman tries to perform an analysis of CA’s income statement without a discussion of costs (re: spending) – that is, reducing them – speaks volumes regarding his own agenda. [/quote]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik28-2009may28,0,5001566,full.column

Interesting story on the budget. Claims that if you substitute the CPI for some state government price index, growth in spending is very close close to neutral with 1998-99.

I suppose I could see this. Health care and education make up a majority of the state budget, and those costs have been outpacing the CPI for years.

Still, even when they use ‘their’ numbers the budget outpaced “par” by a little. So the argument isnt wrong as the author implies, just not the whole story, as is usual.

[quote] During this time frame, which embraced two booms (dot-com and housing) and two busts (ditto), the state’s population grew about 30% to about 38 million, and inflation charged ahead by 50%. The budget’s growth, the legislative analyst found, exceeded these factors by only an average of 0.2% a year.[/quote]

And his argument that people didnt speak out is total crap. People not voting is a way of speaking out, it says “We are not gonna go along with every cockamamy idea you come up, we elected you, you figure it out.” If they had ment anything differnt, they woulda voted.

[quote]This makes a mockery of Schwarzenegger’s claim that the election delivered a “loud and clear” message. What message? Proposition 1A, if passed, would have extended a parcel of tax increases for an additional two years. Who’s to say that the 81% of eligible voters who just stayed home didn’t intend to endorse the tax increase?[/quote]

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj]
That’s a nice analysis of the REVENUE part of the equation, but it doesn’t explain why California’s SPENDING has increased at TWICE the rate it should have over the last 10 years based on inflation and population growth. Why Dr. Krugman tries to perform an analysis of CA’s income statement without a discussion of costs (re: spending) – that is, reducing them – speaks volumes regarding his own agenda. [/quote]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik28-2009may28,0,5001566,full.column

Interesting story on the budget. Claims that if you substitute the CPI for some state government price index, growth in spending is very close close to neutral with 1998-99.

I suppose I could see this. Health care and education make up a majority of the state budget, and those costs have been outpacing the CPI for years.

Still, even when they use ‘their’ numbers the budget outpaced “par” by a little. So the argument isnt wrong as the author implies, just not the whole story, as is usual.

[quote] During this time frame, which embraced two booms (dot-com and housing) and two busts (ditto), the state’s population grew about 30% to about 38 million, and inflation charged ahead by 50%. The budget’s growth, the legislative analyst found, exceeded these factors by only an average of 0.2% a year.[/quote]

And his argument that people didnt speak out is total crap. People not voting is a way of speaking out, it says “We are not gonna go along with every cockamamy idea you come up, we elected you, you figure it out.” If they had ment anything differnt, they woulda voted.

[quote]This makes a mockery of Schwarzenegger’s claim that the election delivered a “loud and clear” message. What message? Proposition 1A, if passed, would have extended a parcel of tax increases for an additional two years. Who’s to say that the 81% of eligible voters who just stayed home didn’t intend to endorse the tax increase?[/quote]

[Author]

Posts