[larrylujack]

[quote=moscin]We are considering a move from CT to either Rancho Bernardo, specifically the trails or Poway, probably the heritage.[/quote]

Live in Poway, work in CV. I’d never live in CV, Poway more laid back, better community feel, larger lots, far less cookie cutter mcmansion dreck than in CV (at least in the RB trails and heritage areas you mentioned, based upon these your budget must be at least 1M+).
Others mentioned CV, but CV is about as milktoast a community as San Diego has, the primary upsides being the schools and coastal proximity. For the same $ plan on getting less house/property in CV.

[larrylujack]

[quote=StaunchLibertarian]Anyone who believes in free-market principles should be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would not be built without federally-guaranteed loans. Private investors realize the risk is greater than the reward and will not provide financing without the government guaranteeing that the loan will be paid back.

In fact, nuclear power is so uneconomical that if the government were to purchase power on the open market and give it away for free it would be cheaper than subsidizing nuclear power plants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-tale-of-nuclear-disas_b_844635.html

Additionally, there is no safe, economical way to store the spent fuel. Fukushima has 26x as much nuclear fuel on site as Chernobyl simply because all of the fuel ever used there is still stored there in the spent fuel pools.

This is clearly not safe. One of the explosions blew portions of the spent fuel up to a mile away from the plant.

The U.S. has 23 nuclear plants that are just like Fukushima. They store all of the spent fuel on-site above the reactors and are ticking time bombs.

Further, decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is hugely expensive. It’s a process that can last up to 50 years and cost tens of billions of dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

Why would anyone be in favor of nuclear power? Many environmentalists are against nuclear power for obvious reasons (although some support them because they believe that they won’t contribute to global warming).

However, anyone who believes in free market principles should also be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would never be built in a truly free market with no federally-guaranteed loans.[/quote]

Spot on post.

to add, 1) no insurance company will insure nuke plants due to the huge and and uncalculatable cost of potential nuke failure and 2) no financing is available without US govt loan guarantees as a subsidy.
if truly the US followed free markets, nuke power would have been buried many years ago.

[larrylujack]

[quote=StaunchLibertarian]Anyone who believes in free-market principles should be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would not be built without federally-guaranteed loans. Private investors realize the risk is greater than the reward and will not provide financing without the government guaranteeing that the loan will be paid back.

In fact, nuclear power is so uneconomical that if the government were to purchase power on the open market and give it away for free it would be cheaper than subsidizing nuclear power plants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-tale-of-nuclear-disas_b_844635.html

Additionally, there is no safe, economical way to store the spent fuel. Fukushima has 26x as much nuclear fuel on site as Chernobyl simply because all of the fuel ever used there is still stored there in the spent fuel pools.

This is clearly not safe. One of the explosions blew portions of the spent fuel up to a mile away from the plant.

The U.S. has 23 nuclear plants that are just like Fukushima. They store all of the spent fuel on-site above the reactors and are ticking time bombs.

Further, decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is hugely expensive. It’s a process that can last up to 50 years and cost tens of billions of dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

Why would anyone be in favor of nuclear power? Many environmentalists are against nuclear power for obvious reasons (although some support them because they believe that they won’t contribute to global warming).

However, anyone who believes in free market principles should also be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would never be built in a truly free market with no federally-guaranteed loans.[/quote]

Spot on post.

to add, 1) no insurance company will insure nuke plants due to the huge and and uncalculatable cost of potential nuke failure and 2) no financing is available without US govt loan guarantees as a subsidy.
if truly the US followed free markets, nuke power would have been buried many years ago.

[larrylujack]

[quote=StaunchLibertarian]Anyone who believes in free-market principles should be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would not be built without federally-guaranteed loans. Private investors realize the risk is greater than the reward and will not provide financing without the government guaranteeing that the loan will be paid back.

In fact, nuclear power is so uneconomical that if the government were to purchase power on the open market and give it away for free it would be cheaper than subsidizing nuclear power plants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-tale-of-nuclear-disas_b_844635.html

Additionally, there is no safe, economical way to store the spent fuel. Fukushima has 26x as much nuclear fuel on site as Chernobyl simply because all of the fuel ever used there is still stored there in the spent fuel pools.

This is clearly not safe. One of the explosions blew portions of the spent fuel up to a mile away from the plant.

The U.S. has 23 nuclear plants that are just like Fukushima. They store all of the spent fuel on-site above the reactors and are ticking time bombs.

Further, decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is hugely expensive. It’s a process that can last up to 50 years and cost tens of billions of dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

Why would anyone be in favor of nuclear power? Many environmentalists are against nuclear power for obvious reasons (although some support them because they believe that they won’t contribute to global warming).

However, anyone who believes in free market principles should also be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would never be built in a truly free market with no federally-guaranteed loans.[/quote]

Spot on post.

to add, 1) no insurance company will insure nuke plants due to the huge and and uncalculatable cost of potential nuke failure and 2) no financing is available without US govt loan guarantees as a subsidy.
if truly the US followed free markets, nuke power would have been buried many years ago.

[larrylujack]

[quote=StaunchLibertarian]Anyone who believes in free-market principles should be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would not be built without federally-guaranteed loans. Private investors realize the risk is greater than the reward and will not provide financing without the government guaranteeing that the loan will be paid back.

In fact, nuclear power is so uneconomical that if the government were to purchase power on the open market and give it away for free it would be cheaper than subsidizing nuclear power plants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-tale-of-nuclear-disas_b_844635.html

Additionally, there is no safe, economical way to store the spent fuel. Fukushima has 26x as much nuclear fuel on site as Chernobyl simply because all of the fuel ever used there is still stored there in the spent fuel pools.

This is clearly not safe. One of the explosions blew portions of the spent fuel up to a mile away from the plant.

The U.S. has 23 nuclear plants that are just like Fukushima. They store all of the spent fuel on-site above the reactors and are ticking time bombs.

Further, decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is hugely expensive. It’s a process that can last up to 50 years and cost tens of billions of dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

Why would anyone be in favor of nuclear power? Many environmentalists are against nuclear power for obvious reasons (although some support them because they believe that they won’t contribute to global warming).

However, anyone who believes in free market principles should also be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would never be built in a truly free market with no federally-guaranteed loans.[/quote]

Spot on post.

to add, 1) no insurance company will insure nuke plants due to the huge and and uncalculatable cost of potential nuke failure and 2) no financing is available without US govt loan guarantees as a subsidy.
if truly the US followed free markets, nuke power would have been buried many years ago.

[larrylujack]

[quote=StaunchLibertarian]Anyone who believes in free-market principles should be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would not be built without federally-guaranteed loans. Private investors realize the risk is greater than the reward and will not provide financing without the government guaranteeing that the loan will be paid back.

In fact, nuclear power is so uneconomical that if the government were to purchase power on the open market and give it away for free it would be cheaper than subsidizing nuclear power plants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/the-tale-of-nuclear-disas_b_844635.html

Additionally, there is no safe, economical way to store the spent fuel. Fukushima has 26x as much nuclear fuel on site as Chernobyl simply because all of the fuel ever used there is still stored there in the spent fuel pools.

This is clearly not safe. One of the explosions blew portions of the spent fuel up to a mile away from the plant.

The U.S. has 23 nuclear plants that are just like Fukushima. They store all of the spent fuel on-site above the reactors and are ticking time bombs.

Further, decommissioning a nuclear power plant at the end of its useful life is hugely expensive. It’s a process that can last up to 50 years and cost tens of billions of dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

Why would anyone be in favor of nuclear power? Many environmentalists are against nuclear power for obvious reasons (although some support them because they believe that they won’t contribute to global warming).

However, anyone who believes in free market principles should also be against nuclear power. Nuclear power plants would never be built in a truly free market with no federally-guaranteed loans.[/quote]

Spot on post.

to add, 1) no insurance company will insure nuke plants due to the huge and and uncalculatable cost of potential nuke failure and 2) no financing is available without US govt loan guarantees as a subsidy.
if truly the US followed free markets, nuke power would have been buried many years ago.

[larrylujack]

[quote=ucodegen]Looks like Japan is going to both.. bail it out.. and take control of TEPCO to a certain extent.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Japan-plans-to-bail-out-rb-1193946944.html?x=0%5B/quote%5D

TEPCO is essentially bankrupt/insolvent, and will be taken over since they have astonishingly inept management and the nuke disaster will become worse before it gets better. Count on it.

[larrylujack]

[quote=ucodegen]Looks like Japan is going to both.. bail it out.. and take control of TEPCO to a certain extent.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Japan-plans-to-bail-out-rb-1193946944.html?x=0%5B/quote%5D

TEPCO is essentially bankrupt/insolvent, and will be taken over since they have astonishingly inept management and the nuke disaster will become worse before it gets better. Count on it.

[larrylujack]

[quote=ucodegen]Looks like Japan is going to both.. bail it out.. and take control of TEPCO to a certain extent.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Japan-plans-to-bail-out-rb-1193946944.html?x=0%5B/quote%5D

TEPCO is essentially bankrupt/insolvent, and will be taken over since they have astonishingly inept management and the nuke disaster will become worse before it gets better. Count on it.

[larrylujack]

[quote=ucodegen]Looks like Japan is going to both.. bail it out.. and take control of TEPCO to a certain extent.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Japan-plans-to-bail-out-rb-1193946944.html?x=0%5B/quote%5D

TEPCO is essentially bankrupt/insolvent, and will be taken over since they have astonishingly inept management and the nuke disaster will become worse before it gets better. Count on it.

[larrylujack]

[quote=ucodegen]Looks like Japan is going to both.. bail it out.. and take control of TEPCO to a certain extent.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Japan-plans-to-bail-out-rb-1193946944.html?x=0%5B/quote%5D

TEPCO is essentially bankrupt/insolvent, and will be taken over since they have astonishingly inept management and the nuke disaster will become worse before it gets better. Count on it.

[larrylujack]

I lived and graduated from UI, both of my siblings went to law school in the MW, one to IU the other NU and my pop lives in MI along the lake (he gets a ton of snow!). suffice it to say, I do not miss the horrible weather one bit and don’t see much going for MI near term as far as business opportunities. Bottom line is talented folks prefer to live in nicer climates given the choice.
I also seriously doubt there is much going for MI from an investment perspective given the death of manufacturing in the auto industry, and to the extent that there are small company spin offs out of the MI universities, they run lean and mean and simply do not hire nearly the number of people as traditional manufacturers. Being in the Bio and tech space, MI does not stand out, and in fact, if you want to live in a winter wonderland, WI has much more going for it.
But, if you want to buy at a possible bottom, and If your investment horizon is long enough, like 50-100 years, than go for MI. I see more business opportunity on the west and east coasts, and Asia.

[larrylujack]

I lived and graduated from UI, both of my siblings went to law school in the MW, one to IU the other NU and my pop lives in MI along the lake (he gets a ton of snow!). suffice it to say, I do not miss the horrible weather one bit and don’t see much going for MI near term as far as business opportunities. Bottom line is talented folks prefer to live in nicer climates given the choice.
I also seriously doubt there is much going for MI from an investment perspective given the death of manufacturing in the auto industry, and to the extent that there are small company spin offs out of the MI universities, they run lean and mean and simply do not hire nearly the number of people as traditional manufacturers. Being in the Bio and tech space, MI does not stand out, and in fact, if you want to live in a winter wonderland, WI has much more going for it.
But, if you want to buy at a possible bottom, and If your investment horizon is long enough, like 50-100 years, than go for MI. I see more business opportunity on the west and east coasts, and Asia.

[larrylujack]

I lived and graduated from UI, both of my siblings went to law school in the MW, one to IU the other NU and my pop lives in MI along the lake (he gets a ton of snow!). suffice it to say, I do not miss the horrible weather one bit and don’t see much going for MI near term as far as business opportunities. Bottom line is talented folks prefer to live in nicer climates given the choice.
I also seriously doubt there is much going for MI from an investment perspective given the death of manufacturing in the auto industry, and to the extent that there are small company spin offs out of the MI universities, they run lean and mean and simply do not hire nearly the number of people as traditional manufacturers. Being in the Bio and tech space, MI does not stand out, and in fact, if you want to live in a winter wonderland, WI has much more going for it.
But, if you want to buy at a possible bottom, and If your investment horizon is long enough, like 50-100 years, than go for MI. I see more business opportunity on the west and east coasts, and Asia.

[larrylujack]

I lived and graduated from UI, both of my siblings went to law school in the MW, one to IU the other NU and my pop lives in MI along the lake (he gets a ton of snow!). suffice it to say, I do not miss the horrible weather one bit and don’t see much going for MI near term as far as business opportunities. Bottom line is talented folks prefer to live in nicer climates given the choice.
I also seriously doubt there is much going for MI from an investment perspective given the death of manufacturing in the auto industry, and to the extent that there are small company spin offs out of the MI universities, they run lean and mean and simply do not hire nearly the number of people as traditional manufacturers. Being in the Bio and tech space, MI does not stand out, and in fact, if you want to live in a winter wonderland, WI has much more going for it.
But, if you want to buy at a possible bottom, and If your investment horizon is long enough, like 50-100 years, than go for MI. I see more business opportunity on the west and east coasts, and Asia.

[Author]

Posts