[livinincali]

[quote=SD Realtor]Agreed with CAR and Flyer, it has nothing to do with material objects. The one thing that I do not agree with in the article has to do with the presidential candidates. To me there really is no way to eliminate the change. I don’t think a Romney or Obama candidacy will make a difference. The acceleration of poverty, food stamp enrollment, differential between rich and poor has grown substantially under Obama. Similarly Wall Street has recorded phenomenal profits. Regardless of who is president the numbers are way way to staggering to change what will happen.[/quote]

I tend to agree. We’ll likely take the brick wall approach because we’ve reached the critical mass where too many on reliant on government to take care of them. It’s been an extremely long time since we’ve seen the fall of a nanny state so it’s difficult to know how things will play out. Argentina, Iceland, Mexico, and other countries that have seen economic collapse didn’t start off with a population with such extreme entitlements. They were poor before, they were poor after, they were lucky to have food and shelter over their head. We’ll be going from comfortable retirements, easy access to world class health care and independent living to something much less. There will be quite a bit of anger and outrage in that process, but it is inevitable because we refuse to deal with the issue.

We lived above our means for a long time and are desperate to prevent the revision to the mean. People will come to accepting 30% less than they thought they would get eventually. A wheel chair instead of a hip replacement. Community living instead of independent living with a car. 1200 SF houses for the middle class instead of 2500SF houses. Hopefully nothing life threatening but you never know how the angry mob is going to react.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]Fossil fuel use per annum per capita in NYC is actually very low as compared to the rest of the country. Shared walls in apartments and houses make for good insulation, and daily travel distances are quite small.

But those things only work in a big city. What we need is a grand-scale project to convert the US economy into one based mostly on electricity and hydrogen produced using nuclear, hydro, and renewables. This should be combined with conservation wherever feasible without reducing comforts. It can be done — the challenges are engineering and financial problems at this point, not questions of theoretical physics.

The idea is to effect positive change WITHOUT reducing comforts.[/quote]

If you include nuclear and especially LFTR (Liquid fluoride thorium reactors) it can be done. The problem is you’re fighting one hell of a fight against the environmentalists because you advocating nuclear and coal in the same sentence. There’ just no way to produce significant base load generating capabilities using renewables. Solar thermal with liquid salt might work in the Mohave desert as a base load generating technology, but you’d have to cover massive amounts of land with mirrors. I.e. like half of the Mohave to replace the west coast current energy demand.

Fusion might be a holy grail but we’re still decades away from commercial use. The ITER in Europe won’t be ready to start experiments until 2019 and the LIFE project in Livermore is still working on component tests.

[livinincali]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]
The difference between me and Fox News is that I do not speculate that there was a mistake, blunders or cover-up until the facts of the case are clear. I give benefit of doubt to administration, just as others gave benefit of doubt to Bush administration in the previous case that I brought up even till today. If one doesn’t do that then I must conclude that they are not objective.
[/quote]

The administration lost the benefit of the doubt when their cover up story was proven as false. It’s pretty clear that this was a coordinated terrorist attack at this point, while the administration attempted to paint it as a protest out of control. Once your cover up story is proven to be false you’ve lost your credibility. Now the burden of proof is on your side. It’s not a left/right thing to me, it’s a credibility problem.

[livinincali]

[quote=Jazzman]I think you are going to start to see a migration from east to west.[/quote]

That might last a little while until that 8+ earthquake shows up.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]Sorry, flu, but you’re wrong about the system being set up to be inefficient and lethargic, and also about nobody wanting to save money and reduce spending. The public sector gets a lot more done with less money than most private entities. Just because Fox News spews a lot of BS about the inefficiency of govt/efficiency of the private sector, it doesn’t make it true. If you compare apples to apples, you’ll see that a lot of government activities are carried out for a lot less money than what private companies could do it for, and they often handle more complex situations, and do it faster and better as well.

Yes, the government is top-heavy, and there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse (especially where private contractors and RE developers are concerned). But that tends to be concentrated at the political level, not at the ground level. When people compare things like the AAA vs the DMV, they often forget that the DMV processes far more transactions and also handles the most complex jobs.[/quote]

I’ve worked in both and I have to say that the private sector tends to be more efficient with it’s business processes. The problem with most government services is a convoluted set of business processes that slowly built up over time. The reason privatization doesn’t work that well is because the private sector isn’t allowed to change the business process I.e. the Red Tape that never goes away even when you try to privatize. A private company might have a really efficient way of processing water bills but they have no understanding of all the quirky business rules involved so the private sector gets bogged down with the funky rules and end up with cost overruns.

Say you privatized trash collection but forced the private company to pick up trash on the exact same routes/times even if they were extremely inefficient. Your private company might be able to design a route to pick up all the trash in 4 days with 20% less miles driving but if the government tells you can’t do that because the citizens are used to the old way and can’t be asked to change, then of course it’s going to cost more. That was my experience in working with the city. Too many egos with inefficient processes that they weren’t willing to change even if they was a better way to do things.

Of course when you’ve worked in that environment you either believe that your process is actually efficient or you just accept it because efforts to change it are met with too much resistance.

[livinincali]

This incident becomes stranger and stranger and it looks like a cover up that’s starting to fall apart. General Ham which was a 4 star general in command of African operations was relieved of duty for ignoring an order to stand down.

http://times247.com/articles/is-a-general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi

Essentially somebody above the commander of the region ordered a stand down and most likely it would have to white house or joint chiefs. It’s just fishy that you have a youtube protest story cooked up so quickly to explain the situation.

Based purely of speculation I’m guessing we had some kind of “Fast and the Furious” operation going on over there and in order to prevent people from finding out about it we decided we’ll sacrifice a couple of American lives and use a cover up story. The reality is unless somebody big up in the administration decides to talk they’ll probably successful cover it up but if somebody does talk then you have the possibility of something bigger than Watergate, assuming Obama gets re-elected. Of course Obama will probably try to shove Hilary under the bus if that happens.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]
You are totally right about being nice to your kids. I don’t see any other way to deal with this issue outside of foisting it upon the kids. Not what anyone wants to do, but until we come up with a better solution, it’s the only way we’ll be able to manage this number of elderly patients.

Personally, I’m in love with the way they manage things in some European countries, but that would be “socialism,” and we can’t have that here.[/quote]

It’s always going to boil down to your kids or somebody’s kids. The current generation of retirees are reaping the benefits of having a lot of children. As soon as you personally stop being productive you rely on others to provide you with the basic necessities of life. The reality is that we don’t have enough resources for everybody to be taken care of but still maintain an independent lifestyle going forward. In essence there’s just not enough kids to support the next generation of retirees at the current level of care. If you’re not moving in the with kids you’ll probably have to move in with other seniors so that a single care taker can provide for more than 1 person.

Automation will help somewhat, but it’s going to come down to working longer in life assuming you’re able and living with less than you thought. That’s just how the demographics and math work out, unfortunately.

[livinincali]

This seems like a pretty good source of data on the various CA propositions. I like how it shows how much money has been spent on each side and who it came from.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2012_ballot_propositions

It’s amazing that CA labor unions had more than 50 million to spend on fighting 32 and another 20+ million on supporting 30. If you want to see a comparable corporate interest prop look at 37 where big corps spent about 35 million.

The labor union coffers are going to be bare if they lose.

The other big spenders where individuals that had a pet project Molly Munger and Charles Munger have over 50 million on a pro 38, anti 30.

[livinincali]

[quote=poorgradstudent]
40 – need to research[/quote]

40 is essentially a non event. It’s a carry over from the republican party suing over the Citizen’s drawn CA senate district maps. In essence the republican party lost their supreme court case and gave up the fight but the referendum remains on the ballot because they already turned in the signatures. Nobody is running a No on 40 campaign. The quickest way to resolve the issue is a Yes on 40 vote. If you vote no and the no votes win it will go back to the CA supreme court which is likely to uphold the maps as they are currently drawn. Of course that option takes time and money, and it’s possible that supreme court comes up with some other funky ruling that would make things even worse.

[livinincali]

[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=svelte]Obama.

no on all props except 30 and 40.

wifey almost has me talked into yes on the 3 strikes one. we’ll see. her point that drug infractions shouldn’t count is valid. plus she’s a very nice squeeze.[/quote]
The three strikes one will save the state and taxpayers money on prisons. That’s also actually why I’m leaning yes on ending the death penalty; it’s actually more expensive to put someone to death than to just lock them up for life.[/quote]

The cheapest thing would be to swiftly execute death row inmates, but that’s currently not a choice in CA. When faced with the choice of expensive appeals while you’re on death row until you actually die in prison vs. a cheaper life in prison without possibility of parole it seems like option 2 is the way to go. The result is the same and I don’t think the deterrent factor matters too much when you’re probably doing life in prison anyways. People who commit these type of acts know they’re done if they get caught.

[livinincali]

Out prison system has a dismal track record at reforming people, so in general once a criminal always a criminal. The problem is we create a lot of crimes that don’t really harm people. If you chose to buy or sell drugs it’s really none of my business and it doesn’t harm me at all. Why should I pay to imprison you if you commit what amounts to a I want to be able to tell you what to do crime.

Just getting rid of non-violent drug related crimes probably shrinks the prison system and 3 strikes by 50%.

[livinincali]

[quote=blake]What’s the chance that one day you will be asked to pay your “fair share” of tax on your Roth withdrawal if it reaches a certain threshold?[/quote]

That’s why I don’t waste time with a Roth anymore. I’ll take the guaranteed tax advantage now. It will be easy to attack the 10% of the population that benefits from a Roth in the future. Just like it’s easy to say tax the rich.

[livinincali]

You can’t right now unless you’re willing to take risk in the stock market casino. Why do you think entry level investment property is so incredibly hot right now? Everybody in your age bracket is desperately looking for low risk income streams.

[livinincali]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=livinincali]The market right now is one where there is low inventory and lower sales. Sales were good in the summer but they are weakening with the lower inventory. You have buyers that aren’t willing to pay significantly higher prices and you have sellers that won’t sell for current market prices. It’s a standoff and it could be this way for awhile.

I don’t buy the over corrected due to short sales and other arguments, the fact is there wasn’t a buyer at the higher prices whether you think there should be or not. There’s either a buyer that will pay you your price or there isn’t. If your neighbor found a buyer at a higher price you have to find your own buyer at a higher price. You only need to find and convince one to pay your price. In essence find your own sucker if you want to sell above market.[/quote]

livinincali, the reason there aren’t many buyers willing to pay prices circa when the market was ~normal (read: unmanipulated <=2003) in many local markets is because they are so used to "fire sales" at the market's "new normal" that they expect they are entitled to “fire sale” prices, even on well-located non-distressed properties which have been maintained properly. Close to zero percent of distressed property today priced at a “fire sale” price or whose seller is willing to accept a “fire sale” price has been maintained properly throughout the years … if ever at all. Much of it literally needs to be gutted and could likely not pass a termite clearance. In any case, the (institutional) sellers will not pay for the costly tenting and repairs.

You pay for what you get in this life … nothing more and nothing less. The “sucker” is actually the buyer (who is hell-bent on getting a “fire sale” price) who buys an REO without a Transfer Disclosure Stmt (TDS) . . . or a SS WITH a TDS where the (indigent or bankrupt) seller(s) lied through their teeth on it and also to their listing agent in order to consummate the deal and successfully dump “their” underwater property. The “sucker-buyer” then ends up finding out AFTER closing exactly what they bought (at the “fire sale” price). Practically speaking, a LOT of these issues cannot be seen and/or their extent cannot be determined by a $400 “home inspection” in escrow.

In other words, if there is a distressed listing in an area which attracts a buyer who wants it for a personal residence (but is otherwise unqualified to purchase in that area w/o buying a heavily-distressed property), there is very often a good reason for its “fire sale” price. If said listing was a “traditional or equity sale,” this same “sucker-buyer” would not even be considering it, as it would be too cost-prohibitive.

A REIT getting a few of these duds in a bulk sale can recover from this pickle, due to economies of scale and being well-funded. However, such a revelation AFTER closing can be financially devastating to an individual buyer, ESP a highly-leveraged FT buyer and/or head of a family with minor children.[/quote]

This is complete nonsense. You bought an asset that is relatively illiquid and because you have a desire to sell in a short term time frame you think it’s unfair that you’d have to come to market pricing. Just accept that fact that you have 2 choices, wait or sell for what the market will bear under current supply and demand. You’re trying to tell me that people would be happy to pay your price if there was no other competition.

Your making an argument that if other people wouldn’t sell there apple stock for less than $1000/sh I’d be able to sell my apple shares for $1000/sh. It’s BS. Sorry for your personal situation but there’s a massive amount of asset collection going on right and there’s going to be winners and losers.

You bought an asset that isn’t as desirable as you thought it would be. This game is going to continue as the next generation doesn’t share the same values as the previous generation. The next generation might not want a 3000+ SF bomber with no yard. You can’t force them to pay a premium for that even if you assumed that’s what they would want. Good luck guessing what the next generation is willing to trade their productivity for. You might be better off with Nintendo consoles.

I don’t know want they want, but you’re in a competition with your fellow retirees for their productivity, better figure out what they want, or figure out how to be happy with a reduced standard of living.

[livinincali]

The market right now is one where there is low inventory and lower sales. Sales were good in the summer but they are weakening with the lower inventory. You have buyers that aren’t willing to pay significantly higher prices and you have sellers that won’t sell for current market prices. It’s a standoff and it could be this way for awhile.

I don’t buy the over corrected due to short sales and other arguments, the fact is there wasn’t a buyer at the higher prices whether you think there should be or not. There’s either a buyer that will pay you your price or there isn’t. If your neighbor found a buyer at a higher price you have to find your own buyer at a higher price. You only need to find and convince one to pay your price. In essence find your own sucker if you want to sell above market.

[Author]

Posts