cicerone imposter wrote:If you don't know the answer to your own question, you're too stupid to understand concept and reality.
Imposter, are you having a bad day? Take it out on okie. I am thick skinned.
By the way, do you know the meaning of "urban?"
okie: By the way, do you know the meaning of "urban?"
My mistake; I was thinking "rural." My apologies.
See, EVEN YOU make a mistake now and then.
I never claimed that I walked on water - yet.
Cyc's right about what I meant with the hybrids.
If you just mandate an increase in the fleet average, the companies will do whatever they can to game that average; that's exactly what was behind the death of the hatchback sedan and the rise of the SUV. The SUV's considered a form of "light truck" and doesn't count against the fleet mileage standard for cars, so naturally car companies have an incentive to make their cars small and fuel-efficient and put anyone who needs a big car in a big SUV.
But if you get hybrid engines down to the point where they add less to the total cost of the vehicle, well, the car companies will stick those bastards in -everything-, because who doesn't want better fuel efficiency? (Okay, some sports cars won't get 'em. We're not gonna see a hybrid Hemi tomorrow. So what? Mom's new Camry has more horsepower than Dad's '72 Mustang...)
Frankly, if we want to talk about an area where a big crash science program would pay off, why not in batteries? If we could improve energy density of battery systems by an order of magnitude or so, it'd yield all sorts of benefits, civilian and military both.
Once again to the refineries. Cyc, it's not just up to the oil companies as far as opening a new refinery goes. Other people can make refineries too. We could go open Kent Oil tomorrow and get some venture capital for a new refinery if we could talk the money together. But, and this is my point, nobody can do that; not because there's not some money to be made, but because whoever actually would have to put up the money realizes that refinery construction in the modern legal climate is inherently risky. It doesn't do any good to build a refinery that you can't afford to operate because you've got to pay a ton for the emissions that are associated with a refinery. (Yes, yes, modern emissions-reducing technology helps. But only so much, and you don't have a guarantee that the point at which the government starts charging you is way less than that.)
So, ironically, it's entirely possible that what you're asking for (gasoline refining to be done in a free market, but have to pay for its emissions output somehow) may simply not happen, or at least not without gasoline prices going way up. At the minimum, certainly nobody's stepping in to fill the void, which is unusual in our ever-so-fun capitalist society unless there's a good reason...
Anyone that thinks the oil companies are making easy profit, they are free to go produce their own oil, build the refineries, and "scam" the people with exorbitant fuel prices. Don't everyone rush to do it all at once now!
From your article.....
"....while prices FELL a RECORD 11%....."
Great news for those who have existing homes.
While April was the sharpest incline in 14 years @ 16%, it is 10% off of last April's pace. March was 23% off of March 06's pace, and February was 18% below Feb 06.
It should probably go without saying, but "one month does not a trend make".
okie is an expert in misinterpretation on most topics. Since he has a "thick skin," that means more than over-sensitivity to emotion and elemental common knowledge.
Here is some of that damn liberal bias over on MSNBC...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18842917/
From the AP article by maporsche:
The drop in median prices in April compared to March was a record one-month decline. If the April sales price was compared to the sales price a year ago, the decline was 10.9 percent, the biggest year-over-year drop since 1970.
cicerone imposter wrote:From the AP article by maporsche:
The drop in median prices in April compared to March was a record one-month decline. If the April sales price was compared to the sales price a year ago, the decline was 10.9 percent, the biggest year-over-year drop since 1970.
Someone once said...."The facts have a liberal bias".
Someone once said, "to me, the proof is always in the details."
Lower prices for homes spurred sales, so it is a success of the free market again, and you can spin it negatively, sure, but I like the positive side, which is homes are moving again, and they are also more affordable for people that want to buy. Its the American dream, and under Bush, home ownership hit a new high at around 69%, which is higher than when Clinton left office by the way. I'm sure you will find a way to make that into bad news, imposter.
Well, to be fair, the home ownership figures include a number of mortgages that will become problematic in a down market - not just people who can't pay their bill, but people making actual rational decisions to walk away from their mortgage rather than pay for a house that's lost a significant chunk of its value.
At the same time, it's not like having home prices so high in several markets is really healthy either. It's kind of an open question between whether a pricing crash would be good or bad overall. (Sure, it'd reduce economic output as new home sales slack off. But a lot of that labor is illegal immigrants and off the books anyway! Silver linings abound...)
Avatar ADV wrote:Well, to be fair, the home ownership figures include a number of mortgages that will become problematic in a down market - not just people who can't pay their bill, but people making actual rational decisions to walk away from their mortgage rather than pay for a house that's lost a significant chunk of its value.
At the same time, it's not like having home prices so high in several markets is really healthy either. It's kind of an open question between whether a pricing crash would be good or bad overall. (Sure, it'd reduce economic output as new home sales slack off. But a lot of that labor is illegal immigrants and off the books anyway! Silver linings abound...)
We have only begun to see the problems in the mortgage market. It will get worse, and prices will drop far further before they get higher.
There isn't much doubt that the housing market slowdown will have a negative overall impact on our economy, and a negative impact on millions of Americans in particular, if, for no other reason, the fact that their equity will be topsy-turvy for a long time.
Cycloptichorn
Some people just don't understand macro-economics. More than 66 percent of our econmy is based on consumer spending. The spending the past several years were funded by taking out equity from their homes that used to have a higher value; now they're paying on loans with nothing to back it up. As someone already mentioned, many will not only lose their homes, but more people will lose their homes based on subprime loans they couldn't afford from the very beginning; when they purchased their home, the so-called market value was $250,000; after they lose 9.8% (or $24,500) of the value of their homes, they're still paying their mortgage on the $250,000. More bankruptcies and/or mortgage defaults are in the future for many.
Keep looking at the positives; it just won't pay your mortgage or the loans you took out from your "equity."
CNNmoney.com: Home foreclosures in April rose 65% from last year.
okie wrote:Lower prices for homes spurred sales, so it is a success of the free market again, and you can spin it negatively, sure
Okie, just for future reference: what movements in the prices or sales of homes would you to consider bad news?
One thing we have seen since 2000 is a greater disparity between rich and poor. Both are increasing.
Quote:Second Annual Issue of Ultimate Homes Magazine Ranks America's 1,000 Most-Expensive Properties for Sale
Quote:On newsstands today is the second annual issue of Ultimate Homes magazine, which features the 1,000 most-expensive properties currently for sale in the U.S. -- totaling over a staggering $13 billion. This year's top spot belongs to none other than Donald Trump's $125 million Palm Beach "Billionaire's Row" mansion, and breaks last year's record of $75 million for the most-expensive home to hit the U.S. market.
Quote:Other highlights from second annual issue of Ultimate Homes:
-- There are now one million homes valued at over $1 million dollars in
the U.S.
-- The number of luxury real estate agents associated with the 1,000
properties: almost 700 agents
-- Smallest state (geographically) with the most Ultimate Homes:
Connecticut (38)
-- City with the most Ultimate Homes: New York City
Quote:"We not only wanted to make the second annual issue bigger and better than last year's, but also to reflect the recent growth at the highest end of the luxury real estate market. So this issue boasts more homes and bigger price tags," said Rick Goodwin, Publisher of Ultimate Homes and its luxury real estate sister publication, Unique Homes. "Demand for these homes will be there," Goodwin explains. "The nine figure price-tag for the Trump property is indicative of a new scale of consumption -- one where billionaires are concerned with differentiating themselves from mere millionaires."
Quote:COMPLETE LIST OF TOP TWELVE MOST EXPENSIVE HOMES ON THE MARKET IN U.S.
No. 1 -- Maison de l'Amitie (Palm Beach, FL) -- $125 Million
No. 2 -- Three Ponds Farm Estate (Bridgehampton, NY) -- $75 Million
No. 3 -- The Penthouse at the Pierre (New York, NY) -- $70 Million
No. 4 -- Belvedere, CA -- $68 Million
No. 5 -- Beverly Hills, CA -- $65 Million
No. 6 -- Malibu, CA -- $65 Million
No. 7 -- Robert Taylor Ranch (Brentwood, CA) -- $60 Million
No. 8 -- Sierra Star (Lake Tahoe/Incline Village, NV) -- $60 Million
No. 9 -- Trump World Tower Penthouse - (New York, NY) -- $58 Million
No. 10 -- Upper East Side (New York, NY) -- $55 Million
No. 11 -- Medina, WA -- $53 Million
No. 12 -- Bel Air, CA -- $53 Million
So just who is buying these mega mansions? A recent survey of upper-tier residential brokers by Unique Homes reveals the majority of million-dollar-plus buyers are entrepreneurs (76%), who pay in all-cash (54%), and collect art (74%), cars or antiques (both, 63%) and wine (54%).
http://www.thecreativeinvestor.com/residential/News818-Second_Annual_Issue_of_Ultimate_Homes_Magazine_Ranks_Americas_1000_MostExpensive_Properties_for_Sale.html
Quote:Rapid Increase In Severe Poverty In The US Has Serious Implications For Public Health
Main Category: Public Health News
Article Date: 31 Aug 2006 - 20:00 PDT
Since 2000, Americans have been getting poorer, and national rates of severe poverty have climbed sharply, according to a study published in the October issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. The researchers reported that the growth in the poverty rate is due largely to a rise in severe poverty and that "moderate" poverty has grown little.
The percentage of Americans living in severe poverty--earning less than half of the poverty threshold--grew by 20% between 2000 and 2004, and the proportion in higher income tiers fell. The researchers reported that the number of Americans living in severe poverty increased by 3.6 million between 2000 and 2004.
"These trends have disturbing implications for society and public health," said Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH, Professor of Family Medicine, Epidemiology and Community Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, and lead author of the study. The researchers found that the only category of Americans to increase in size were those whose earnings were at least $8,000 below the poverty threshold, who grew by approximately 50% between 2000 and 2004. All other income tiers decreased during these years. The poverty threshold in 2004 for a family of four was $19,307.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=50785
Has history taught us anything about what happens to countries that allow a severe gap to widen between rich and poor?
