[ucodegen]

I agree with evolusd.

There have been studies of poor people who win multi-million dollar lotteries. They are generally poor again in 1 to 2 years. It is amazing how they manage to burn through so much money.

The difference between rich and poor has been proven to be in the spending and saving habits. If a poor person has extra money, they immediately spend it. They also don’t want to cut back. The prefer to try to spend like they are rich.

People who became wealthy (as opposed to inherited weath) try to find ways to make that extra money work for them.

Banks make money without the ‘vulnerable’. You are forgetting construction and business loans for large companies. It would be interesting to find out just who this
‘banking industry chief’ is.

[ucodegen]

I agree with evolusd.

There have been studies of poor people who win multi-million dollar lotteries. They are generally poor again in 1 to 2 years. It is amazing how they manage to burn through so much money.

The difference between rich and poor has been proven to be in the spending and saving habits. If a poor person has extra money, they immediately spend it. They also don’t want to cut back. The prefer to try to spend like they are rich.

People who became wealthy (as opposed to inherited weath) try to find ways to make that extra money work for them.

Banks make money without the ‘vulnerable’. You are forgetting construction and business loans for large companies. It would be interesting to find out just who this
‘banking industry chief’ is.

[ucodegen]

I agree with evolusd.

There have been studies of poor people who win multi-million dollar lotteries. They are generally poor again in 1 to 2 years. It is amazing how they manage to burn through so much money.

The difference between rich and poor has been proven to be in the spending and saving habits. If a poor person has extra money, they immediately spend it. They also don’t want to cut back. The prefer to try to spend like they are rich.

People who became wealthy (as opposed to inherited weath) try to find ways to make that extra money work for them.

Banks make money without the ‘vulnerable’. You are forgetting construction and business loans for large companies. It would be interesting to find out just who this
‘banking industry chief’ is.

[ucodegen]

There is already a Super capacitor. It is 1 farad in the size of a quarter.

The problem is physics. You can always have fuel based systems containing more energy than battery, and battery can always contain more energy than capacitor. It all has to do with how the energy is stored.

Fuel stores energy in the bonds between atoms. These bonds involve sharing of multiple electrons. In addition, most fuels expand dramatically when oxidized.

Batteries store energy in valence electrons. Some dissolved metals can have different charges when in solution. You will generally have one to two electron differences between metal ions.

Capacitors can store charges on surfaces of structures in the capacitor.

Simple summary:
Fuel ends up storing energy between atoms.
Batteries end up storing energy on atoms.
Capacitors end up storing energy on structures of atoms.

It is the nature of what they are and the physical process involved.

[ucodegen]

There is already a Super capacitor. It is 1 farad in the size of a quarter.

The problem is physics. You can always have fuel based systems containing more energy than battery, and battery can always contain more energy than capacitor. It all has to do with how the energy is stored.

Fuel stores energy in the bonds between atoms. These bonds involve sharing of multiple electrons. In addition, most fuels expand dramatically when oxidized.

Batteries store energy in valence electrons. Some dissolved metals can have different charges when in solution. You will generally have one to two electron differences between metal ions.

Capacitors can store charges on surfaces of structures in the capacitor.

Simple summary:
Fuel ends up storing energy between atoms.
Batteries end up storing energy on atoms.
Capacitors end up storing energy on structures of atoms.

It is the nature of what they are and the physical process involved.

[ucodegen]

There is already a Super capacitor. It is 1 farad in the size of a quarter.

The problem is physics. You can always have fuel based systems containing more energy than battery, and battery can always contain more energy than capacitor. It all has to do with how the energy is stored.

Fuel stores energy in the bonds between atoms. These bonds involve sharing of multiple electrons. In addition, most fuels expand dramatically when oxidized.

Batteries store energy in valence electrons. Some dissolved metals can have different charges when in solution. You will generally have one to two electron differences between metal ions.

Capacitors can store charges on surfaces of structures in the capacitor.

Simple summary:
Fuel ends up storing energy between atoms.
Batteries end up storing energy on atoms.
Capacitors end up storing energy on structures of atoms.

It is the nature of what they are and the physical process involved.

[ucodegen]

There is already a Super capacitor. It is 1 farad in the size of a quarter.

The problem is physics. You can always have fuel based systems containing more energy than battery, and battery can always contain more energy than capacitor. It all has to do with how the energy is stored.

Fuel stores energy in the bonds between atoms. These bonds involve sharing of multiple electrons. In addition, most fuels expand dramatically when oxidized.

Batteries store energy in valence electrons. Some dissolved metals can have different charges when in solution. You will generally have one to two electron differences between metal ions.

Capacitors can store charges on surfaces of structures in the capacitor.

Simple summary:
Fuel ends up storing energy between atoms.
Batteries end up storing energy on atoms.
Capacitors end up storing energy on structures of atoms.

It is the nature of what they are and the physical process involved.

[ucodegen]

There is already a Super capacitor. It is 1 farad in the size of a quarter.

The problem is physics. You can always have fuel based systems containing more energy than battery, and battery can always contain more energy than capacitor. It all has to do with how the energy is stored.

Fuel stores energy in the bonds between atoms. These bonds involve sharing of multiple electrons. In addition, most fuels expand dramatically when oxidized.

Batteries store energy in valence electrons. Some dissolved metals can have different charges when in solution. You will generally have one to two electron differences between metal ions.

Capacitors can store charges on surfaces of structures in the capacitor.

Simple summary:
Fuel ends up storing energy between atoms.
Batteries end up storing energy on atoms.
Capacitors end up storing energy on structures of atoms.

It is the nature of what they are and the physical process involved.

[ucodegen]

@asianautica
I understand the 2nd hump. But I’m pretty sure the people in the first and 2nd hump buy in different area. That is how I explain move up areas lagging way behind entry level areas.

I disagree. There is a time lag between the two ‘humps’ on resets. The difference is when it was originated. If you look at Fed rates during the period, the Option-ARMs were done when the Fed rates were higher. I think the lagging on ‘move-up’ areas is due to buyers having a bit more equity when they bought in (not that they have it now) and a stronger belief that the area never goes down. I need to dig through my computer files.. I think I have a more recent graph than that one. It showed the first ‘hump’ shrinking, but the second ‘hump’ getting bigger. I suspect people ref’ing out of more ‘standard’ loan products into Option-ARMs.

@tomato — read the bubble primer!! Pure economics is important because it addresses the ability to afford(as opposed to financial gambling) the house. Option-ARMs are last ditch trying to get in.. and if need be get out before things go south. When they become widely used, get the heck out of dodge because the drop will be rapid. BTW: in addition to sd_bear’s comments: Emotions also have an effect on the way down (I don’t want to buy into a house when I can get it cheaper next year!!). It displays itself as ‘momentum’ in the prices and causes ‘overshoot’ and temporary market inequities. (ref efficient market theory)

You are now stuck firmly between both zones.
Humm.. If you bought a house for $35k in 1970, it would be worth about $600k (market peak) on the high end.. for an average appreciation of 7.7% per year compounded. If I bought BRKA on Nov 11, 1976 after doing nothing with the money for 7 years, I would have $64,410,447.. makes you go humm.. So what do you think I am doing with my money right now?? If you just took the 20% down of $7,000 in 1970.. did nothing for almost 7 years and then bought BRKA.. you would have $12,882,089.

[ucodegen]

@asianautica
I understand the 2nd hump. But I’m pretty sure the people in the first and 2nd hump buy in different area. That is how I explain move up areas lagging way behind entry level areas.

I disagree. There is a time lag between the two ‘humps’ on resets. The difference is when it was originated. If you look at Fed rates during the period, the Option-ARMs were done when the Fed rates were higher. I think the lagging on ‘move-up’ areas is due to buyers having a bit more equity when they bought in (not that they have it now) and a stronger belief that the area never goes down. I need to dig through my computer files.. I think I have a more recent graph than that one. It showed the first ‘hump’ shrinking, but the second ‘hump’ getting bigger. I suspect people ref’ing out of more ‘standard’ loan products into Option-ARMs.

@tomato — read the bubble primer!! Pure economics is important because it addresses the ability to afford(as opposed to financial gambling) the house. Option-ARMs are last ditch trying to get in.. and if need be get out before things go south. When they become widely used, get the heck out of dodge because the drop will be rapid. BTW: in addition to sd_bear’s comments: Emotions also have an effect on the way down (I don’t want to buy into a house when I can get it cheaper next year!!). It displays itself as ‘momentum’ in the prices and causes ‘overshoot’ and temporary market inequities. (ref efficient market theory)

You are now stuck firmly between both zones.
Humm.. If you bought a house for $35k in 1970, it would be worth about $600k (market peak) on the high end.. for an average appreciation of 7.7% per year compounded. If I bought BRKA on Nov 11, 1976 after doing nothing with the money for 7 years, I would have $64,410,447.. makes you go humm.. So what do you think I am doing with my money right now?? If you just took the 20% down of $7,000 in 1970.. did nothing for almost 7 years and then bought BRKA.. you would have $12,882,089.

[ucodegen]

@asianautica
I understand the 2nd hump. But I’m pretty sure the people in the first and 2nd hump buy in different area. That is how I explain move up areas lagging way behind entry level areas.

I disagree. There is a time lag between the two ‘humps’ on resets. The difference is when it was originated. If you look at Fed rates during the period, the Option-ARMs were done when the Fed rates were higher. I think the lagging on ‘move-up’ areas is due to buyers having a bit more equity when they bought in (not that they have it now) and a stronger belief that the area never goes down. I need to dig through my computer files.. I think I have a more recent graph than that one. It showed the first ‘hump’ shrinking, but the second ‘hump’ getting bigger. I suspect people ref’ing out of more ‘standard’ loan products into Option-ARMs.

@tomato — read the bubble primer!! Pure economics is important because it addresses the ability to afford(as opposed to financial gambling) the house. Option-ARMs are last ditch trying to get in.. and if need be get out before things go south. When they become widely used, get the heck out of dodge because the drop will be rapid. BTW: in addition to sd_bear’s comments: Emotions also have an effect on the way down (I don’t want to buy into a house when I can get it cheaper next year!!). It displays itself as ‘momentum’ in the prices and causes ‘overshoot’ and temporary market inequities. (ref efficient market theory)

You are now stuck firmly between both zones.
Humm.. If you bought a house for $35k in 1970, it would be worth about $600k (market peak) on the high end.. for an average appreciation of 7.7% per year compounded. If I bought BRKA on Nov 11, 1976 after doing nothing with the money for 7 years, I would have $64,410,447.. makes you go humm.. So what do you think I am doing with my money right now?? If you just took the 20% down of $7,000 in 1970.. did nothing for almost 7 years and then bought BRKA.. you would have $12,882,089.

[ucodegen]

@asianautica
I understand the 2nd hump. But I’m pretty sure the people in the first and 2nd hump buy in different area. That is how I explain move up areas lagging way behind entry level areas.

I disagree. There is a time lag between the two ‘humps’ on resets. The difference is when it was originated. If you look at Fed rates during the period, the Option-ARMs were done when the Fed rates were higher. I think the lagging on ‘move-up’ areas is due to buyers having a bit more equity when they bought in (not that they have it now) and a stronger belief that the area never goes down. I need to dig through my computer files.. I think I have a more recent graph than that one. It showed the first ‘hump’ shrinking, but the second ‘hump’ getting bigger. I suspect people ref’ing out of more ‘standard’ loan products into Option-ARMs.

@tomato — read the bubble primer!! Pure economics is important because it addresses the ability to afford(as opposed to financial gambling) the house. Option-ARMs are last ditch trying to get in.. and if need be get out before things go south. When they become widely used, get the heck out of dodge because the drop will be rapid. BTW: in addition to sd_bear’s comments: Emotions also have an effect on the way down (I don’t want to buy into a house when I can get it cheaper next year!!). It displays itself as ‘momentum’ in the prices and causes ‘overshoot’ and temporary market inequities. (ref efficient market theory)

You are now stuck firmly between both zones.
Humm.. If you bought a house for $35k in 1970, it would be worth about $600k (market peak) on the high end.. for an average appreciation of 7.7% per year compounded. If I bought BRKA on Nov 11, 1976 after doing nothing with the money for 7 years, I would have $64,410,447.. makes you go humm.. So what do you think I am doing with my money right now?? If you just took the 20% down of $7,000 in 1970.. did nothing for almost 7 years and then bought BRKA.. you would have $12,882,089.

[ucodegen]

@asianautica
I understand the 2nd hump. But I’m pretty sure the people in the first and 2nd hump buy in different area. That is how I explain move up areas lagging way behind entry level areas.

I disagree. There is a time lag between the two ‘humps’ on resets. The difference is when it was originated. If you look at Fed rates during the period, the Option-ARMs were done when the Fed rates were higher. I think the lagging on ‘move-up’ areas is due to buyers having a bit more equity when they bought in (not that they have it now) and a stronger belief that the area never goes down. I need to dig through my computer files.. I think I have a more recent graph than that one. It showed the first ‘hump’ shrinking, but the second ‘hump’ getting bigger. I suspect people ref’ing out of more ‘standard’ loan products into Option-ARMs.

@tomato — read the bubble primer!! Pure economics is important because it addresses the ability to afford(as opposed to financial gambling) the house. Option-ARMs are last ditch trying to get in.. and if need be get out before things go south. When they become widely used, get the heck out of dodge because the drop will be rapid. BTW: in addition to sd_bear’s comments: Emotions also have an effect on the way down (I don’t want to buy into a house when I can get it cheaper next year!!). It displays itself as ‘momentum’ in the prices and causes ‘overshoot’ and temporary market inequities. (ref efficient market theory)

You are now stuck firmly between both zones.
Humm.. If you bought a house for $35k in 1970, it would be worth about $600k (market peak) on the high end.. for an average appreciation of 7.7% per year compounded. If I bought BRKA on Nov 11, 1976 after doing nothing with the money for 7 years, I would have $64,410,447.. makes you go humm.. So what do you think I am doing with my money right now?? If you just took the 20% down of $7,000 in 1970.. did nothing for almost 7 years and then bought BRKA.. you would have $12,882,089.

[ucodegen]

67 years old. Did you not have a retirement plan? Was she that bad of a mom that the kids don’t want to help her? She has no other family, brother, sister, aunt? Can’t she worse case, move to Phoenix and work at a Starbucks for $10 an hour. Again – poor choices.

Its kind of strange, I have some familiarity with people who end up going this way. My father used and/or screwed over anyone who was associated with him or tried to help him. After a while, people just stayed away. He was never there for the kids. He quit a well paying job to do stock speculating. Because of the noise of the kids, he insisted on buying another house. He did not do that well at investing, but insisted on continuing (and not going back to the 9 to 5, in spite of responsibilities of a family). He didn’t want anyone to be his boss. My mom ended up carrying the cost of the first house and part of the second.. which she later found out he was using as a love-nest.. in a shit hits the fan moment.

In the divorce, he basically got both houses because my mom wanted her income and retirement to be free and clear of him. She took the kids and raised them. The end result was that my mom prospered and he sort of floated along, alienating everyone who tried to help. He also ended up with very little money to his name.

Moral of this is that when you seem something like what has happened to that 67 year old woman, it is probably Karma doing its payback. Another thing to realize is that one bad decision doesn’t take someone and put them on the street like this. It takes a succession of decisions, their consequences and not learning from them.

PS: 67 is old enough to draw Social Security…

@bsrsharma
I am weak on family law; does the law not provide for alimony for someone in her situation, especially if her ex-spouse is well off? If she spent her life as a homemaker, she deserves that in any sane society.

Alimony, not necessarily.. BUT she gets half of all assets in most community property states. After the divorce, the two are essentially separate individuals. It is tricky to go back and have additional monies levied because one of the two made a series of bad decisions after the divorce. In many ways, you don’t even want to open the door to that. It would also open the door to being sued for support because someone you once dated and lived with is now having financial problems. NOTE: she could have been one of those women who divorced the husband and took him to the cleaners. People saw what she was doing and it left a bad taste.

There are so many variables.. but I do know that in general, if you do good to others, it comes back to you in times of need (Karma).

[ucodegen]

67 years old. Did you not have a retirement plan? Was she that bad of a mom that the kids don’t want to help her? She has no other family, brother, sister, aunt? Can’t she worse case, move to Phoenix and work at a Starbucks for $10 an hour. Again – poor choices.

Its kind of strange, I have some familiarity with people who end up going this way. My father used and/or screwed over anyone who was associated with him or tried to help him. After a while, people just stayed away. He was never there for the kids. He quit a well paying job to do stock speculating. Because of the noise of the kids, he insisted on buying another house. He did not do that well at investing, but insisted on continuing (and not going back to the 9 to 5, in spite of responsibilities of a family). He didn’t want anyone to be his boss. My mom ended up carrying the cost of the first house and part of the second.. which she later found out he was using as a love-nest.. in a shit hits the fan moment.

In the divorce, he basically got both houses because my mom wanted her income and retirement to be free and clear of him. She took the kids and raised them. The end result was that my mom prospered and he sort of floated along, alienating everyone who tried to help. He also ended up with very little money to his name.

Moral of this is that when you seem something like what has happened to that 67 year old woman, it is probably Karma doing its payback. Another thing to realize is that one bad decision doesn’t take someone and put them on the street like this. It takes a succession of decisions, their consequences and not learning from them.

PS: 67 is old enough to draw Social Security…

@bsrsharma
I am weak on family law; does the law not provide for alimony for someone in her situation, especially if her ex-spouse is well off? If she spent her life as a homemaker, she deserves that in any sane society.

Alimony, not necessarily.. BUT she gets half of all assets in most community property states. After the divorce, the two are essentially separate individuals. It is tricky to go back and have additional monies levied because one of the two made a series of bad decisions after the divorce. In many ways, you don’t even want to open the door to that. It would also open the door to being sued for support because someone you once dated and lived with is now having financial problems. NOTE: she could have been one of those women who divorced the husband and took him to the cleaners. People saw what she was doing and it left a bad taste.

There are so many variables.. but I do know that in general, if you do good to others, it comes back to you in times of need (Karma).

[Author]

Posts