[zk]

[quote=patientrenter]Prices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.

If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.[/quote]

Perhaps it’s time for you to come up with a new moniker.

In any case, if 25% of a million and a half is peanuts to you, sounds like you don’t have to worry about it. It’s certainly not peanuts to me. Maybe 25% is peanuts compared to what it went up. But it’s still not peanuts to me.

I don’t hold the same faith in the government’s ability to hold up prices as you do. The government wasn’t able to stop the low end from dropping over 50%. If the high end drops that much (I doubt it will, but not because of government intervention), then we’ve moved even further away from “peanuts.” Perhaps prices won’t drop all the way to their natural economic level, but, if the article is correct and the declines accelerate henceforth, we should see some significant (as opposed to peanuts) peak-to-trough declines.

[zk]

[quote=patientrenter]Prices at the peak (in areas that were developed in 1996 so we can compare prices now to prices then) were about 4-5 times higher than back in 1996. So a drop of 25% from the peak – a global residential real estate peak that was unprecedented in recorded history – is peanuts.

If the price decreases at the high end continue on their normal, natural course to a cyclical low, then the federal govt will come up with a new way to funnel more money into the high end. I don’t expect prices to be allowed to get anywhere close to their natural economic level at the bottom of a RE cycle, either at the low end of the market or at the high end.[/quote]

Perhaps it’s time for you to come up with a new moniker.

In any case, if 25% of a million and a half is peanuts to you, sounds like you don’t have to worry about it. It’s certainly not peanuts to me. Maybe 25% is peanuts compared to what it went up. But it’s still not peanuts to me.

I don’t hold the same faith in the government’s ability to hold up prices as you do. The government wasn’t able to stop the low end from dropping over 50%. If the high end drops that much (I doubt it will, but not because of government intervention), then we’ve moved even further away from “peanuts.” Perhaps prices won’t drop all the way to their natural economic level, but, if the article is correct and the declines accelerate henceforth, we should see some significant (as opposed to peanuts) peak-to-trough declines.

[zk]

[quote=Portlock]Does anyone think that if humans hadn’t developed agriculture which started us on the rise to civilization, that a pristine planet might have eventually given rise to a second sentient earth species? Besides us monkeys? Should I put my wine down?[/quote]

It still might. Who’s to say what might happen over the next million or billion years. Modern humans have only been around for a tiny fraction of the Earth’s “life” period. If a virus or a meteor comes along or we do something stupid any time in the next million years, we’ll still have only been here for a small fraction of the time life has been on Earth. Any thing could happen after that. Even if we stick around for that long, who’s to say some other species couldn’t evolve to be as smart as us (or smarter) right along side us?

No wine here. Heck, I drink wine to escape thoughts like these.

[zk]

[quote=Portlock]Does anyone think that if humans hadn’t developed agriculture which started us on the rise to civilization, that a pristine planet might have eventually given rise to a second sentient earth species? Besides us monkeys? Should I put my wine down?[/quote]

It still might. Who’s to say what might happen over the next million or billion years. Modern humans have only been around for a tiny fraction of the Earth’s “life” period. If a virus or a meteor comes along or we do something stupid any time in the next million years, we’ll still have only been here for a small fraction of the time life has been on Earth. Any thing could happen after that. Even if we stick around for that long, who’s to say some other species couldn’t evolve to be as smart as us (or smarter) right along side us?

No wine here. Heck, I drink wine to escape thoughts like these.

[zk]

[quote=Portlock]Does anyone think that if humans hadn’t developed agriculture which started us on the rise to civilization, that a pristine planet might have eventually given rise to a second sentient earth species? Besides us monkeys? Should I put my wine down?[/quote]

It still might. Who’s to say what might happen over the next million or billion years. Modern humans have only been around for a tiny fraction of the Earth’s “life” period. If a virus or a meteor comes along or we do something stupid any time in the next million years, we’ll still have only been here for a small fraction of the time life has been on Earth. Any thing could happen after that. Even if we stick around for that long, who’s to say some other species couldn’t evolve to be as smart as us (or smarter) right along side us?

No wine here. Heck, I drink wine to escape thoughts like these.

[zk]

[quote=Portlock]Does anyone think that if humans hadn’t developed agriculture which started us on the rise to civilization, that a pristine planet might have eventually given rise to a second sentient earth species? Besides us monkeys? Should I put my wine down?[/quote]

It still might. Who’s to say what might happen over the next million or billion years. Modern humans have only been around for a tiny fraction of the Earth’s “life” period. If a virus or a meteor comes along or we do something stupid any time in the next million years, we’ll still have only been here for a small fraction of the time life has been on Earth. Any thing could happen after that. Even if we stick around for that long, who’s to say some other species couldn’t evolve to be as smart as us (or smarter) right along side us?

No wine here. Heck, I drink wine to escape thoughts like these.

[zk]

[quote=Portlock]Does anyone think that if humans hadn’t developed agriculture which started us on the rise to civilization, that a pristine planet might have eventually given rise to a second sentient earth species? Besides us monkeys? Should I put my wine down?[/quote]

It still might. Who’s to say what might happen over the next million or billion years. Modern humans have only been around for a tiny fraction of the Earth’s “life” period. If a virus or a meteor comes along or we do something stupid any time in the next million years, we’ll still have only been here for a small fraction of the time life has been on Earth. Any thing could happen after that. Even if we stick around for that long, who’s to say some other species couldn’t evolve to be as smart as us (or smarter) right along side us?

No wine here. Heck, I drink wine to escape thoughts like these.

[zk]

[quote=patientrenter]I think our planet would be much better of with a stable population of about 500 million. Finally, open spaces, room for genuinely wild species to thrive, less trash everywhere….[/quote]

When you say, “our planet would be better off,” you mean, “the people on our planet would be better off,” right? I mean, eventually, humans will probably cease to exist, and “our” planet will, over a million or a billion years, repair itself and eliminate virtually all traces that we ever existed. So, what we’re really talking about here isn’t the Earth, but the Earth’s ability to provide people with open spaces to enjoy and trash to not see.

Or am I missing something?

[zk]

[quote=patientrenter]I think our planet would be much better of with a stable population of about 500 million. Finally, open spaces, room for genuinely wild species to thrive, less trash everywhere….[/quote]

When you say, “our planet would be better off,” you mean, “the people on our planet would be better off,” right? I mean, eventually, humans will probably cease to exist, and “our” planet will, over a million or a billion years, repair itself and eliminate virtually all traces that we ever existed. So, what we’re really talking about here isn’t the Earth, but the Earth’s ability to provide people with open spaces to enjoy and trash to not see.

Or am I missing something?

[zk]

[quote=patientrenter]I think our planet would be much better of with a stable population of about 500 million. Finally, open spaces, room for genuinely wild species to thrive, less trash everywhere….[/quote]

When you say, “our planet would be better off,” you mean, “the people on our planet would be better off,” right? I mean, eventually, humans will probably cease to exist, and “our” planet will, over a million or a billion years, repair itself and eliminate virtually all traces that we ever existed. So, what we’re really talking about here isn’t the Earth, but the Earth’s ability to provide people with open spaces to enjoy and trash to not see.

Or am I missing something?

[zk]

[quote=patientrenter]I think our planet would be much better of with a stable population of about 500 million. Finally, open spaces, room for genuinely wild species to thrive, less trash everywhere….[/quote]

When you say, “our planet would be better off,” you mean, “the people on our planet would be better off,” right? I mean, eventually, humans will probably cease to exist, and “our” planet will, over a million or a billion years, repair itself and eliminate virtually all traces that we ever existed. So, what we’re really talking about here isn’t the Earth, but the Earth’s ability to provide people with open spaces to enjoy and trash to not see.

Or am I missing something?

[zk]

[quote=patientrenter]I think our planet would be much better of with a stable population of about 500 million. Finally, open spaces, room for genuinely wild species to thrive, less trash everywhere….[/quote]

When you say, “our planet would be better off,” you mean, “the people on our planet would be better off,” right? I mean, eventually, humans will probably cease to exist, and “our” planet will, over a million or a billion years, repair itself and eliminate virtually all traces that we ever existed. So, what we’re really talking about here isn’t the Earth, but the Earth’s ability to provide people with open spaces to enjoy and trash to not see.

Or am I missing something?

[zk]

[quote=surveyor][quote=dpalmer]That question isn’t spectacularly difficult. It’s a trig question. Also you failed to post the diagram that goes with it.

Whoa!!! Look at all those buttons!!! OMG HOW COULD ANYONE HANDLE THAT OMG!!!! NUCLEAR MISSILE SUPER IQ WOWZ!!![/quote]

Even without the diagram, if it’s so obvious how to solve it, you can walk through how to solve it without the diagram. Right?

And I sure hope you keep that attitude the next time you fly the friendly skies…[/quote]

It’s not a trig question. It could be answered with trig, of course, but trig isn’t required. And it’s not a difficult question at all(if you have all the required info, which isn’t given here). Any 8th grader who had average intelligence and had received the proper instruction could answer that question.

[zk]

[quote=surveyor][quote=dpalmer]That question isn’t spectacularly difficult. It’s a trig question. Also you failed to post the diagram that goes with it.

Whoa!!! Look at all those buttons!!! OMG HOW COULD ANYONE HANDLE THAT OMG!!!! NUCLEAR MISSILE SUPER IQ WOWZ!!![/quote]

Even without the diagram, if it’s so obvious how to solve it, you can walk through how to solve it without the diagram. Right?

And I sure hope you keep that attitude the next time you fly the friendly skies…[/quote]

It’s not a trig question. It could be answered with trig, of course, but trig isn’t required. And it’s not a difficult question at all(if you have all the required info, which isn’t given here). Any 8th grader who had average intelligence and had received the proper instruction could answer that question.

[zk]

[quote=surveyor][quote=dpalmer]That question isn’t spectacularly difficult. It’s a trig question. Also you failed to post the diagram that goes with it.

Whoa!!! Look at all those buttons!!! OMG HOW COULD ANYONE HANDLE THAT OMG!!!! NUCLEAR MISSILE SUPER IQ WOWZ!!![/quote]

Even without the diagram, if it’s so obvious how to solve it, you can walk through how to solve it without the diagram. Right?

And I sure hope you keep that attitude the next time you fly the friendly skies…[/quote]

It’s not a trig question. It could be answered with trig, of course, but trig isn’t required. And it’s not a difficult question at all(if you have all the required info, which isn’t given here). Any 8th grader who had average intelligence and had received the proper instruction could answer that question.

[Author]

Posts