Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Global Warming - Page 227







Post#5651 at 04-01-2016 03:25 PM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
04-01-2016, 03:25 PM #5651
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
There's little doubt that the Courts will weigh in.

Climate scientists have big new computers to develop their models.
Here's a couple of sites:

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/a...g-capabilities
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

The evidence is growing for the effects of AGW on severe weather. Many posts have been already made on this topic here on this thread.

https://www.climatecommunication.org...lobal-warming/

We need to be aware of this danger and be ready to act. We cannot act if Republicans rule our government.
Eric, computer models are not actual records of sensible weather over a statistically significant sample size, over a statistically significant areal span, over a statistically significant length of time. You may or may not understand the idea of measurement system analysis.
==========================================

#nevertrump







Post#5652 at 04-01-2016 03:43 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-01-2016, 03:43 PM #5652
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84 View Post
Eric, computer models are not actual records of sensible weather over a statistically significant sample size, over a statistically significant areal span, over a statistically significant length of time. You may or may not understand the idea of measurement system analysis.
Computer models are based on those stats. Everything has been measured and analyzed.

What is certainly clear from real evidence is that global warming is happening now, at a faster and greater degree by far than any time in the past. We also know that more severe weather is happening, sea levels are rising, glaciers and ice caps are melting, acidity levels in the ocean are rising, species are dying, etc. It doesn't even take computer models to arrive at this basic conclusion: what has been happening is likely to continue unless we get on another path. That path has to be: stop using fossil fuels. And vote out the Republican Party and its candidates that support fossil fuels and deny AGW.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5653 at 04-01-2016 08:11 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
04-01-2016, 08:11 PM #5653
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84 View Post
there is a whole other school of Climatology that thinks AGW will calm the weather.
It will because there will be less temperature contrast between the tropics and polar regions driving the global circulation, but that is after the warming has stopped and the new climate regime has stabilized, until the climate has stabilized into the "new normal" it is going to really suck.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#5654 at 04-02-2016 12:08 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-02-2016, 12:08 AM #5654
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

UK carbon emissions fall below 1920s levels. Renewables on the rise as coal declines.



http://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-emissi...ampaign=buffer

"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5655 at 04-02-2016 12:19 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-02-2016, 12:19 AM #5655
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

The new Tesla looks great!



http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/tesl...-vehicle-52503

Tesla unveils its “mass-market” Model 3 electric vehicle

By Giles Parkinson on 1 April 2016

Source: Tesla

Tesla Motors on Friday (Australian time) unveiled the Tesla Model 3, the electric vehicle that it hopes will hit the “mass-market” and lifts its total sales to 500,000 units a year by 2020 – a ten-fold increase on its current production.

This was no April Fool’s release. It was actually unveiled at the company’s California headquarters in the evening of March 31 local time. The event was broadcast live on the net, along with an option to reserve a vehicle, even though it will not go into production until late 2017.

“You will not be able to get a better car for that price,” Tesla founder and chief executive Elon Musk said of the $US35,000 vehicle. And punters seem to agree. Musk said that 115,000 reservations had already been received in the first 24 hours, and that’s before any of them had seen the vehicle.

Musk said the company had slowly transitioned to low-volume, high price and high performance cars, to “show the world that an electric vehicle can be the best car”, through to an SUV and now, a lower priced high volume vehicle.

The Model 3 looks similar to the Model S, although it will cost less than half the price.

“It is very important to accelerate transition to sustainable transport,” Musk said in his opening remarks. “This is important for future of the world,” he added, pointing to record high Co2 levels in the atmosphere, a sharp rise in average global temperatures last year, and the health impacts of vehicle emissions.

Musk said the Model 3 will fit 5 adults. The instrument panel has been compressed, and the front seats brought “a little further forward”. The rear roof pane is “one big piece of glass”. And it will fit a 7 foot surfboard inside, Musk said. (Ed: My Peugeot 207 wagon fits a 9’6″ surfboard inside, I should point out).

The high efficiency electric motor provides zero to 60 mph (100kmh) acceleration in less than six seconds. It is equipped with electric all-wheel drive.

Musk said the development costs and learnings of the Model S and the Model X are key for bringing down the cost of the Model 3......
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5656 at 04-02-2016 12:29 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-02-2016, 12:29 AM #5656
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Desdemona Despair: blogging the end of the world.

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2016...lta-faces.html
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5657 at 04-02-2016 12:34 AM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
04-02-2016, 12:34 AM #5657
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
http://www.autoguide.com/new-cars/tesla

Uh, it's still way too expensive. So, do you want a house or a Tesla?


  • MSRP Range: $80,000 - $132,000

MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#5658 at 04-02-2016 12:40 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-02-2016, 12:40 AM #5658
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Study Confirms World’s Coastal Cities Unsavable If We Don’t Slash Carbon Pollution
BY JOE ROMM MAR 31, 2016 2:36 PM

A new study confirms what leading climate scientists have warned about for many years now: Only very aggressive climate action can save the world’s coastal cities from inundation by century’s end.
We still could limit sea level rise to two feet this century if we keep total warming below 2°C, according to analysis using these new findings. Otherwise, we should be anticipating five to six feet of sea level rise by 2100 — which would generate hundreds of millions of refugees. That isn’t even the worst-case scenario.
This latest research from the journal Nature underscores that what the nation and the world do in the next decade or two will determine whether or not cities like Miami, Boston, New York, or New Orleans have any plausible chance to survive by 2100.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...bon-pollution/
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5659 at 04-02-2016 12:42 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-02-2016, 12:42 AM #5659
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
http://www.autoguide.com/new-cars/tesla

Uh, it's still way too expensive. So, do you want a house or a Tesla?


  • MSRP Range: $80,000 - $132,000

You think $35,000 is too expensive?

A house in a decent climate (culturally and physically) costs a million dollars or more today.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5660 at 04-02-2016 12:53 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-02-2016, 12:53 AM #5660
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

New Antarctic Melting Study Confirms Voting Republican Would Trigger Worldwide Catastrophe
By Jonathan Chait Follow @jonathanchait
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...acebook_nymag#

The good news on climate change is that the politics and the technology arrayed to transition the world away from greenhouse gasses are both moving rapidly and in tandem. The bad news is that the scale of the challenge itself may also be accelerating. A new study finds that the West Antarctic ice sheet may be melting at a far more rapid pace than previously believed. Sea-level rise is just one of the dangers posed by climate change, but that danger may be more imminent than anybody believed.

Let’s review the state of play heading into the presidential election. The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan is the largest element of its domestic program to reduce carbon emissions — it’s a set of targets for every state to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions from its power system. The Clean Power Plan faces a legal challenge from Republicans. The Supreme Court recently froze implementation of that plan until the courts resolve its status.

The challenge will be heard in the D.C. Circuit court on June 2. The panel hearing that case will consist of two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee, and is nearly certain to affirm the administration’s plan. Republicans will then appeal the case to the Supreme Court. But since the Court is currently tied 4–4, and five votes would be needed to overturn the D.C. Circuit, the case would be upheld. However, if Republicans block the appointment of Merrick Garland to the Court, which seems likely, and win the presidential election, which is possible, they can appoint the deciding justice. And that justice could well be seated in time to hear the appeal, quite likely dooming the Clean Power Plan.

A president determined to keep working to limit climate change could easily regroup in the face of a legal defeat and design a different set of climate regulations. The Clean Power Plan’s requirements do not take effect until 2022. But a Republican president would not do anything to limit climate change. The Republican Party is institutionally committed to blocking any action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The largest and most influential bloc of thought within the party dismisses the field of climate science as a massive hoax concocted by scientists to increase their own power (a theory expounded by Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, author of The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, and a believer that the existence of snow in February in Washington disproves climate science).

Senator Snowball.


A tinier, far less influential bloc within the party accepts the legitimacy of climate science but argues against any political action on the grounds that it would be impossible or hopelessly expensive. For instance, the Manhattan Institute’s James Manzi — one of the most moderate voices on climate science within the party — has urged Republicans to come up with non-science-denying reasons to permit the continued cost-free dumping of greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere. “The challenge posed by climate change is not one of averting a global disaster in which Manhattan becomes an underwater theme park … ” Manzi wrote in his last climate manifesto. “Despite the dire warnings from progressives, the best models show us that global warming is a problem that is expected to have only a limited impact on the world economy.”

In reality, the Manhattan-as-underwater-theme-park scenario remains very much in play. The latest modeling projects a sea rise of five to six feet by the end of the century, with a sea-level rise of a foot per decade after that. That rise could be mitigated if the political response under way worldwide continues. And things are happening. China is reducing the carbon intensity of its economy very rapidly. Innovators in the private sector, responding to signals from political leaders who have committed to carbon reductions, have brought down the cost of clean energy nearly to parity already, and the cost curve is continuing to head downward. It sounds partisan to say, but it remains true: The fate of humanity rests to a very large degree on keeping the Republican Party out of power for as long as possible.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...acebook_nymag#
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-27-2016 at 06:01 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5661 at 04-02-2016 01:28 AM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
04-02-2016, 01:28 AM #5661
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
You think $35,000 is too expensive?

A house in a decent climate (culturally and physically) costs a million dollars or more today.


You should have told me that I had the model S price , not the model 3 price, silly.


As for the million dollar houses in "desirable" areas , us proles can't afford that shit at all. Here's the standard sane formula for computing how much house you can afford. It's 2.5 * annual gross pay. You have to have a household income of $400,000 to afford a million dollar house!

But wait, there's more. Taxes!
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/h...tate-analysis/

I guessimate $10,000 in taxes on this joint. Eric doesn't have to worry about that 'cause prop 13 has his taxes capped.

Oh, wait, there's Truckee, CA.
http://www.trulia.com/property/30735...uckee-CA-96161
Now this is more like it. What's a little snow between friends? At least there won't be a water shortage. Location, location, location.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#5662 at 04-02-2016 05:00 AM by MordecaiK [at joined Mar 2014 #posts 1,086]
---
04-02-2016, 05:00 AM #5662
Join Date
Mar 2014
Posts
1,086

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
New Antarctic Melting Study Confirms Voting Republican Would Trigger Worldwide Catastrophe
By Jonathan Chait Follow @jonathanchait
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...acebook_nymag#

The good news on climate change is that the politics and the technology arrayed to transition the world away from greenhouse gasses are both moving rapidly and in tandem. The bad news is that the scale of the challenge itself may also be accelerating. A new study finds that the West Antarctic ice sheet may be melting at a far more rapid pace than previously believed. Sea-level rise is just one of the dangers posed by climate change, but that danger may be more imminent than anybody believed.

Let’s review the state of play heading into the presidential election. The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan is the largest element of its domestic program to reduce carbon emissions — it’s a set of targets for every state to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions from its power system. The Clean Power Plan faces a legal challenge from Republicans. The Supreme Court recently froze implementation of that plan until the courts resolve its status.

The challenge will be heard in the D.C. Circuit court on June 2. The panel hearing that case will consist of two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee, and is nearly certain to affirm the administration’s plan. Republicans will then appeal the case to the Supreme Court. But since the Court is currently tied 4–4, and five votes would be needed to overturn the D.C. Circuit, the case would be upheld. However, if Republicans block the appointment of Merrick Garland to the Court, which seems likely, and win the presidential election, which is possible, they can appoint the deciding justice. And that justice could well be seated in time to hear the appeal, quite likely dooming the Clean Power Plan.

A president determined to keep working to limit climate change could easily regroup in the face of a legal defeat and design a different set of climate regulations. The Clean Power Plan’s requirements do not take effect until 2022. But a Republican president would not do anything to limit climate change. The Republican Party is institutionally committed to blocking any action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The largest and most influential bloc of thought within the party dismisses the field of climate science as a massive hoax concocted by scientists to increase their own power (a theory expounded by Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, author of The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, and a believer that the existence of snow in February in Washington disproves climate science).

Senator Snowball.


A tinier, far less influential bloc within the party accepts the legitimacy of climate science but argues against any political action on the grounds that it would be impossible or hopelessly expensive. For instance, the Manhattan Institute’s James Manzi — one of the most moderate voices on climate science within the party — has urged Republicans to come up with non-science-denying reasons to permit the continued cost-free dumping of greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere. “The challenge posed by climate change is not one of averting a global disaster in which Manhattan becomes an underwater theme park … ” Manzi wrote in his last climate manifesto. “Despite the dire warnings from progressives, the best models show us that global warming is a problem that is expected to have only a limited impact on the world economy.”

In reality, the Manhattan-as-underwater-theme-park scenario remains very much in play. The latest modeling projects a sea rise of five to six feet by the end of the century, with a sea-level rise of a foot per decade after that. That rise could be mitigated if the political response under way worldwide continues. And things are happening. China is reducing the carbon intensity of its economy very rapidly. Innovators in the private sector, responding to signals from political leaders who have committed to carbon reductions, have brought down the cost of clean energy nearly to parity already, and the cost curve is continuing to head downward. It sounds partisan to say, but it remains true: The fate of humanity rests to a very large degree on keeping the Republican Party out of power for as long as possible.
Or conversely that climate change can be a) lived with and b) adapted to. A century is long enough time to adapt to a 5-6 foot rise in sea level. Cities can either be protected by sea walls ala New Orleans and Amsterdam or buildings on low lying ground demolished and material salvaged while construction shifts to higher ground. And in the meantime, productivity of agricultural areas improves with climate and areas previously unarable thaw out and become fertile. North Dakota and Minnesota are already undergoing a shift from wheat production to corn growing ( see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-more-corn-so/ and http://www.umu.se/english/about-umu/...ands.cid192811 .







Post#5663 at 04-02-2016 07:44 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
04-02-2016, 07:44 AM #5663
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
You think $35,000 is too expensive?

A house in a decent climate (culturally and physically) costs a million dollars or more today.
Most of America has brutally-hot summers (Dixie, the Desert Southwest), harsh winters (Alaska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, northern and western New York State, northern New England), or both (just about anything between I-40 in the south and I-90 in the north top the east of the Rockies.

The desirability of housing reflects desirability of the place to live, including economic opportunities. There's plenty of cheap housing in places where the coal has been mined out or where cars or their components used to be made but aren't anymore. When oil becomes irrelevant, the Oil Patch is going to be much like Coal Country.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#5664 at 04-02-2016 10:36 AM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
04-02-2016, 10:36 AM #5664
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
As for the million dollar houses in "desirable" areas , us proles can't afford that shit at all. Here's the standard sane formula for computing how much house you can afford. It's 2.5 * annual gross pay. You have to have a household income of $400,000 to afford a million dollar house!
Just a nit here -- Isn't that the formula for the amount of loan you can afford? If you have a ton of cash (say, from selling your coop in Manhattan), you can buy anything even if your income is squat.

Also, the formula is highly dependent on interest rates. Back in 1982, when interest rates for homes spiked into the teens, you couldn't rely on the 2.5 rule. The relevant rule was that the mortgage (including principal, interest, taxes, and insurance) should be no more than 30 percent of your gross monthly income, IIRC.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#5665 at 04-02-2016 04:17 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-02-2016, 04:17 PM #5665
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by MordecaiK View Post
Or conversely that climate change can be a) lived with and b) adapted to. A century is long enough time to adapt to a 5-6 foot rise in sea level. Cities can either be protected by sea walls ala New Orleans and Amsterdam or buildings on low lying ground demolished and material salvaged while construction shifts to higher ground.
Very expensive and disruptive, with landmarks and beaches lost, and lots of money and lives lost. Plus potential collapse of the food and water supply. And for what? So that a few CEOs can keep their fossil fuel profits? NO, we need to tell them they don't run the country, and they don't get to determine what kind of land we live in! NO to the fossil fuel bosses. Keep warming below 2C.

And in the meantime, productivity of agricultural areas improves with climate and areas previously unarable thaw out and become fertile. North Dakota and Minnesota are already undergoing a shift from wheat production to corn growing
And the further north you go, the less land there is. And we already have way too much corn.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-02-2016 at 04:28 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5666 at 04-02-2016 04:24 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-02-2016, 04:24 PM #5666
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
You should have told me that I had the model S price , not the model 3 price, silly.
Or, you could have read the article, silly.

As for the million dollar houses in "desirable" areas , us proles can't afford that shit at all. Here's the standard sane formula for computing how much house you can afford. It's 2.5 * annual gross pay. You have to have a household income of $400,000 to afford a million dollar house!
And they used to cost less than $100,000 not long ago. The house I grew up in, originally worth about $30,000, sold for $64,000 in 1976 (just yesterday, man). Now you couldn't get it for a million.

Compare a car to a house? Not likely.

But wait, there's more. Taxes!
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/h...tate-analysis/

I guessimate $10,000 in taxes on this joint. Eric doesn't have to worry about that 'cause prop 13 has his taxes capped.
Yeah, lucky me. A bit less. But try buying my house with your Oklahoma wages!

It's great what Tesla is doing. Somebody knows how to start and run a business in America. And he's doing it here in the SF South Bay Area, where you can't afford a house; not in a Republican trickle-down, anti-labor state, where the cultural and physical climate are not so good. And we just raised our minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5667 at 04-02-2016 09:42 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
04-02-2016, 09:42 PM #5667
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
Just a nit here -- Isn't that the formula for the amount of loan you can afford? If you have a ton of cash (say, from selling your coop in Manhattan), you can buy anything even if your income is squat.
No, that was the price of the house which in turn has a bearing on the mortgage size. That was the rule I had to follow when I got my first house in Houston in 1986 before stuff got insane. I also had to put down at least 20%. Mind you that was for a conventional mortgage. The prattle about Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac is just plain idiotic. Both of those belong in the dustbin of history! Of course if you pay cash from proceeds from another sale, then yeah, you can buy a house outright. However, in Houston , property taxes were something like 1.5 % of the total house price. You need income just to pay your property tax "rent". The interest rate on my mortgage was 10%, so that was pretty high as well. Since the 1980's were an era of rising wages, I paid my house off in 5 years just to chuck the mortgage.

Also, the formula is highly dependent on interest rates. Back in 1982, when interest rates for homes spiked into the teens, you couldn't rely on the 2.5 rule. The relevant rule was that the mortgage (including principal, interest, taxes, and insurance) should be no more than 30 percent of your gross monthly income, IIRC.
Well, I think it would be a very good idea in our bubble lands, say like Silicon Valley. That way, when the bubble pops, you won't be upside down.
[You also won't get hammered by property taxes you can't afford either.]
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#5668 at 04-02-2016 09:55 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
04-02-2016, 09:55 PM #5668
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Or, you could have read the article, silly.
Rags is lazy sometimes. You should have posted the relevant stuff, but you didn't.

And they used to cost less than $100,000 not long ago.
It's a frakking car! One can buy a used one for under $10,000.

The house I grew up in, originally worth about $30,000, sold for $64,000 in 1976 (just yesterday, man). Now you couldn't get it for a million.
You got that right. Prez Wilson is one of the worst presidents we ever had for bringing in the Federal Reserve. Anytime something goes from $30,000 to over $1,000,000,000 then something is really fucked up.

Compare a car to a house? Not likely.
I can. I got my house for $30,000. That means if a car costs more than that, it's way to expensive.

Yeah, lucky me. A bit less. But try buying my house with your Oklahoma wages!
You can buy a house in Oklahoma , very easy on Oklahoma wages. Even minimum wage folks can buy a house.

It's great what Tesla is doing. Somebody knows how to start and run a business in America.
I'll catch you next time around when I can score a used Tesla for about $3,000.

And he's doing it here in the SF South Bay Area, where you can't afford a house;
I'll take a real house over living in a fucking shipping container.
http://www.dwell.com/house-tours/art...-san-francisco

not in a Republican trickle-down, anti-labor state, where the cultural and physical climate are not so good. And we just raised our minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2022.
Uh, wait until your water runs out. Here's the California toilet of the future.


When the tap dries out, Eric is gonna need it. I'll take our wild climate over having to shit in a bucket anytime.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#5669 at 04-02-2016 10:48 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-02-2016, 10:48 PM #5669
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
You got that right. Prez Wilson is one of the worst presidents we ever had for bringing in the Federal Reserve. Anytime something goes from $30,000 to over $1,000,000,000 then something is really fucked up.
The Fed had nothing to do with it; it's the real estate speculators. We are becoming an aristocracy of landowners and renters.
I can. I got my house for $30,000. That means if a car costs more than that, it's way to expensive.
How much does a new car cost in OK?

A house costs THAT little? Must be a very undesirable place to live. Hard to believe tho.

I'll catch you next time around when I can score a used Tesla for about $3,000.
It may all depend on how much more juice its battery has, whether it's worth it to buy a used Tesla. We'll know later I suppose.

Uh, wait until your water runs out....
When the tap dries out, Eric is gonna need it. I'll take our wild climate over having to shit in a bucket anytime.
Well, I love the California climate; it's beauty is indescribable. So I guess it's worth it to be here, and be thirsty We pay through the nose for everything else here; why not water too?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5670 at 04-02-2016 11:07 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
04-02-2016, 11:07 PM #5670
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The Fed had nothing to do with it; it's the real estate speculators. We are becoming an aristocracy of landowners and renters.
The real estate speculators borrow money from the Fed via the banks. The Fed is to blame for rock bottom interest rates. In fact, they could hike interest rates to 5% and Rags would be most pleased, but lots of leveraged to the hilt speculators would experience a crash in their asset prices.

How much does a new car cost in OK?
New: about $25,000. Used $3000.00 Cars are a shitty "asset".

A house costs THAT little? Must be a very undesirable place to live. Hard to believe tho.
Yes, that's normal. It's not shitty. There's a park across the street and it's within walking distance of a grade, Jr. high, and the high school. There isn't much in the way of Compton style crime either. The cheap houses are $15,000 over in the hood. The other stuff is just typical Oklahoma climate and flat topography.

It may all depend on how much more juice its battery has, whether it's worth it to buy a used Tesla. We'll know later I suppose.
Well, I would hope the batteries wouldn't fall apart.


Well, I love the California climate; it's beauty is indescribable.
Global warming might make it hot. When you're east of the coastal ranges it gets hot in a hurry.


So I guess it's worth it to be here, and be thirsty
OK. Stay thirsty my friend. - Dos Equis.

We pay through the nose for everything else here; why not water too?
Perhaps you should start a garden. That's how I manufacture almost free snus.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#5671 at 04-02-2016 11:17 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-02-2016, 11:17 PM #5671
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
The real estate speculators borrow money from the Fed via the banks. The Fed is to blame for rock bottom interest rates. In fact, they could hike interest rates to 5% and Rags would be most pleased, but lots of leveraged to the hilt speculators would experience a crash in their asset prices.
The speculators borrow money from banks, but that's what banks are for. Whether the Fed is there or not makes no difference, except to stabilize the banking industry between boom and bust times. It's a good thing, and Wilson deserves credit. But the reason prices went high is partly because speculators bought up so many and them sold them for sky high prices. Some even go "flipping" houses. There have been ads for years telling people to "pay me and I'll teach you to get rich through real estate." IOW buying and selling houses. And places like blue coastal states have sky high house prices because of diminishing supplies.

New: about $25,000. Used $3000.00 Cars are a shitty "asset".
True, but this article says it's $33,000.
http://mediaroom.kbb.com/new-car-tra...mp-august-2015

Well, I would hope the batteries wouldn't fall apart.
I don't know what the latest Tesla tech is for their new car, but in the recent past the battery only lasted for so long and then it's an expensive replacement.

Global warming might make it hot. When you're east of the coastal ranges it gets hot in a hurry.
Yes, over there is more like where you live, both culturally and physically.

Perhaps you should start a garden. That's how I manufacture almost free snus.
Very expensive too. Gardens are VERY thirsty.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-03-2016 at 12:03 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5672 at 04-03-2016 03:43 AM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
04-03-2016, 03:43 AM #5672
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The speculators borrow money from banks, but that's what banks are for.
Uh no. If interest rates are say 5% the implicit carry trade of speculation fails because you can get a sure return of 6% for example in boring treasuries. It also raises the price of speculation which makes it not profitable. If you don't believe me, let's all go for a 10% interest rate right now because Rags wants to really fuck all speculation right now!

Whether the Fed is there or not makes no difference, except to stabilize the banking industry between boom and bust times. It's a good thing, and Wilson deserves credit.
Really? The Fed was around when the Great Depression happened and also the great recession. Fed = major fail. The ppl running the joint are just plain idiots, sorry. The best way to stabilize the banking system is to impose a tobin tax on financial transactions. Let's of course still crank up those rates.
So, we just pull every lever there is to fuck speculators once and for all.

But the reason prices went high is partly because speculators bought up so many and them sold them for sky high prices. Some even go "flipping" houses.
See above. If Rags can crash their party real hard, they won't be doing it again in my lifetime.

There have been ads for years telling people to "pay me and I'll teach you to get rich through real estate." IOW buying and selling houses.
See above. Let's make sure folks get stuck with unsalable merchandise.

And places like blue coastal states have sky high house prices because of diminishing supplies.
Y'all need to fix your zoning problem. That's why that's going on.


[woyr]
True, but this article says it's $33,000.
http://mediaroom.kbb.com/new-car-tra...mp-august-2015


[/quote]

Did you use the search term "new car clearance" ? Nobody pays full retail for anything nowadays.

I don't know what the latest Tesla tech is for their new car, but in the recent past the battery only lasted for so long and then it's an expensive replacement.
Well, that means it's time just to stick with hybrids and let the first to try folks work out the bugs.


Yes, over there is more like where you live, both culturally and physically.



Very expensive too. Gardens are VERY thirsty.
Remember the piss as fertilizer stuff? You get a pitcher and piss in that. You then dilute it with water and pour in your garden. It takes more than 1 gallon to flush your pot. You water and fertilize your garden, while at the same time save water from not needing to flush the pot.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#5673 at 04-03-2016 04:18 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-03-2016, 04:18 AM #5673
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
Uh no. If interest rates are say 5% the implicit carry trade of speculation fails because you can get a sure return of 6% for example in boring treasuries. It also raises the price of speculation which makes it not profitable. If you don't believe me, let's all go for a 10% interest rate right now because Rags wants to really fuck all speculation right now!
I don't think that has to do with sky high housing prices.

Really? The Fed was around when the Great Depression happened and also the great recession. Fed = major fail. The ppl running the joint are just plain idiots, sorry. The best way to stabilize the banking system is to impose a tobin tax on financial transactions. Let's of course still crank up those rates.
So, we just pull every lever there is to fuck speculators once and for all.
Sure, let's do that.

See above. If Rags can crash their party real hard, they won't be doing it again in my lifetime.

See above. Let's make sure folks get stuck with unsalable merchandise.
The prices keep going up though. People don't get stuck too often.

Y'all need to fix your zoning problem. That's why that's going on.
We do try to create a livable city and environment. But we are starting to build more affordable housing.

My city councilman wrote us today about this issue, and he said that the state outlaws most rent control. I think we need it.

Did you use the search term "new car clearance" ? Nobody pays full retail for anything nowadays.
Well I guess that happens.

Well, that means it's time just to stick with hybrids and let the first to try folks work out the bugs.
Maybe. But Tesla has come down a lot in price, and it looks like a great car.


Remember the piss as fertilizer stuff? You get a pitcher and piss in that. You then dilute it with water and pour in your garden. It takes more than 1 gallon to flush your pot. You water and fertilize your garden, while at the same time save water from not needing to flush the pot.
Not my "cup of tea."
Last edited by Eric the Green; 04-03-2016 at 04:21 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#5674 at 04-03-2016 05:47 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
04-03-2016, 05:47 PM #5674
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
You got that right. Prez Wilson is one of the worst presidents we ever had for bringing in the Federal Reserve. Anytime something goes from $30,000 to over $1,000,000,000 then something is really fucked up.
Me things you've added three decimals. A house that sells for $1 billion must be truly extraordinary. Houses that sell for $1 million are fairly common in many neighborhoods in metro areas such as LA, San Francisco, DC, Boston, and NYC.

By the way, I've always been super-conservative in my refis. I bought my townhome in 2000 for $190K, which was reasonable, since my salary at the time was in the high 5 figures. Since then, my home value rose to about $460K (!!) in 2005, fell to about $425K in 2008, and is probably about $440K now. The highest loan value was about $225K when I refied in 2009, and it's now under $130K. My loan is under 3 percent and assuming that the world doesn't end, will be paid off around 2021 or so.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#5675 at 04-04-2016 03:58 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
04-04-2016, 03:58 AM #5675
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Good ideas! Vote for it.

OUR NEW MOON SHOT: RESTORE A HEALTHY CLIMATE BY 2070

We can restore the climate of the 1980s by 2070. It won’t require a miracle or big sacrifices, just the will and policies to do it. Top climate scientists confirm this is possible.

Restoring the climate requires that we switch to carbon-free energy by 2030-2050, as described by Stanford’s Prof. Mark Z. Jacobson, and let the ocean continue absorbing the carbon dioxide we’ve emitted.

In 1961, President Kennedy declared: “We will send a man to the moon and bring him back safely by the end of the decade.” At the time we had just sent a man into space for 15 minutes. We did not have the rockets, the navigation or the life support systems for a moon trip and most people, including my parents, thought it was complete folly. Seven years later we had developed and demonstrated the technology — ahead of schedule. We had a clear ambitious goal and a deadline, and we rose to the occasion.

We can do that again with the climate. Shifting the world’s energy from fossil fuels to renewables could be accomplished before 2045, with CO2 levels peaking about 430 parts per million. That is up from 280 ppm a hundred years ago, 400 ppm now, and our goal of 350 ppm, which is considered to be a safe level and last seen in 1988.

Scientists and skeptics agree that about half the CO2 emitted globally has been absorbed by the oceans already, and expect that half of future emissions will be absorbed over the next 25-35 years. The oceans will continue to acidify, and the only way to slow that is to reduce emissions. We might even decide to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere to hasten a restored climate. If so, there are dozens of companies working on it and we have dozens of years to perfect some creative methods.

The shift to renewables would be accomplished mainly by using wind and solar power. Only wind and solar are ready for utility scale now at the low costs we need. The market will decide which alternative sources, such as biofuels or nuclear, may become cheaper and better over time.

Wind generation has been growing at over 25% per year for the last six years. It provides 3% of our country’s electricity now. If we maintain that growth rate, it will provide 50% in 2025. This would be something like 2,000 modern 5-megawatt turbines per state. Solar provides 1% of our electricity now, and is growing at over 50% per year. If we keep up that pace, it will produce the other 50% of our electricity by 2025.

China is already building panels at ten times the US rate, so catching up to and even surpassing their production is plausible. Efficiency improvements will provide at least a 30% reduction in our requirements. For example cars are slated to double their mileage by 2025 and LED lights are now ten times more efficient than old incandescent bulbs.

Twenty years is plenty of time to develop the missing links such as batteries, smart grids and domestic manufacturing capability. Compare that to the 5 years we spent building the 300,000 aircraft that helped us win WW II, using 1940’s technology, or the 7 years developing the technology for the moon program with 1960’s technology. We now have Google, computers, 3D printers, and millions of highly educated engineers connected by the internet.

The looming issue is the rapidly growing CO2 emissions in China and India. China is working hard to slash its fossil fuel consumption and severe air pollution–since 2012 China has been building more new wind capacity than new coal and the New York Times reports that China is expected to reduce its net coal imports to zero by 2015.

India’s neighbor, Bangladesh, has set an example by installing solar roofs at a rapid pace, without subsidies, thereby skipping the development of expensive and unreliable utility and fossil fuel infrastructure. They already have 2.5 million solar roofs powering LED lights, phones, refrigerators, and TVs. This is fifteen times as many as California has now.

As solar panel production soars, its cost plummets — it is below the cost of fueling kerosene lamps in most developing countries, and will soon fall below the cost of utility electricity in the cities. For that reason, India is now starting work on the world’s largest solar plant—4 gigawatts.

Switching to renewables will create many local jobs in the US, while costing some fossil fuel jobs. It will stabilize energy prices because the sun and wind are free and the technology costs are steadily decreasing. It is shown to improve network reliability because with thousands of solar panels and wind turbines, the loss of a few has little effect.

Two policies are critical to achieving our rapid transition to renewables: First is instituting a gradually increasing carbon disposal fee, aka a carbon tax, as recommended by almost all economists. Political expediency requires that the fee be revenue-neutral, returned 100% to households and corporations. This fee will send a convincing message to corporations and investors that society is placing a value on its future, and that smart investments from now on will be in clean energy.

The second policy is promoting investment in clean energy. Fossil fuels still receive six times more subsidies than renewables and they attract more than twice the investment. If you ask companies that are installing renewables, you’ll find that their limiting factor is acquiring capital, despite good returns. That will change when investors see that we’re committed to and headed to a future of a healthy climate.

Tell your children, the President and your representatives the legacy you want to leave: A healthy climate by 2070. That is our moonshot. There is room for small government fans and everyone else to contribute in this game.

Peter Fiekowsky is a physicist, business owner, and volunteer for Citizens Climate Lobby.
https://brainscienceandclimatechange...imate-by-2070/
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------