Some interesting predictions for 2008 (Denver, Colorado Springs: loans, military, budget)

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

We are proverbially driving 100 mph down a road where a house-sized rock has fallen directly in our path. That rock is depleting domestic and worldwide oil supplies. Now, if we accept Bagz's argument above, we should just keep driving at 100 mph (or even press the accelerator down harder) and hope/pray/assume that either marvelous new technology or divine providence will save us from hitting the rock at the last possible moment. Or, maybe we can be prudent, take our foot off of the accelerator, slow down some, and give ourselves some time to postulate a logical, least disruptive maneuver to avoid the rock and sure catastrophe. Now, am I the ONLY person who thinks that latter course is more logical?

This is a completely irrational fear-mongering false analogy, and I will logically show you why. First off, hitting a house sized rock at 100 mph would cause instant death. Running out of oil with the alternative energies in place would not cause death. Second, I pointed out that with market forces in place it is impossible to take your foot off the accelerator. And third alternative energies are a developing process that could save us long before the last possible moment and are our only hope. You still have not logically rebutted the argument that conservation slows the development of alternative energies causing more harm than good. If you are heading toward that rock at 100 miles an hour, you don't have time to postulate, you have to start the maneuver now and taking your foot off the accelerator might feel good, but the momentum remains.

[Bob from down south]

OK, a few people read it differently than intended. Maybe I should have phrased it "windBagz who have no children."

C'mon, I didn't say that being childless makes you a windbag...my point was that childless advocates for unbridled consumption...like Limbaugh...are content to consume to their heart's content without regard to the fact that there are future generations that do not deserve to be left a pillaged world. Most parents feel a natural obligation to their progeny. And yes, many childless people do too.

Until these pie-in-the-sky alternate energy sources are proven to exist and are actually developed, we are using up our known reserves at an increasing rate while being quite cavalier in assuming that somebody will come up with alternative sources in sufficient quantity to supply future needs. And there are people suggesting that there is no limit to our petroleum supply right here in this thread if you can read.

Bagz, I sure wish you'd learn how to use the friggin' quote feature. Sorting through your posts is hard enough without it being in bold print and inside a quote block. Caps and bold print is the online equivalent of raising your voice.

Conservation will discourage development of alternatives? YGTBSM. You argue for supply and demand...do you deny that $100/bbl oil and $4/gal fuel is powerful indicator of a limited supply, then?

When I listen to the arrogant "world is my oyster and I'll take and use as much as I can" point of view, I start to understand why socialism is gaining so much footing around the world today. It appears to be in the pigmen's nature to behave like locusts, without regard or self-awareness of the damage they do by devouring everything in their path.

Originally Posted by NewAgeRedneck

The doomsayers do absolutely nothing to reduce consumption. They are merely planting the seed of doom into the minds of those who take their prophecies seriously.

I think consumption is indeed decreasing as people take note of how overextended and at-risk they are today. The "seed of doom?" Isn't that something from one of those Damian movies?

I guess one could say that the doomsayers who are concerned about HIV and risky behavior in certain populations do nothing to reduce the spread of a deadly disease, either. Guess they should shut up and let those people kill themselves. I prefer to think that some people might be reasoned with to change their behavior to something that doesn't put them at risk.

[multitrak]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

do you deny that $100/bbl oil and $4/gal fuel is powerful indicator of a limited supply, then?

riding point on the peaker herd matt simmons seems to denies it, see here http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/012798.pdf and here for a discussion of the report Peak Oil Debunked 342. MATT SIMMONS: SPECULATORS SET OIL PRICES; summarizing from the site: "Simmons proves that oil prices are set by speculators, with little reference to the underlying fundamentals." i'm not saying that i agree with simmons contention that specs set oil prices and supply and demand fundamentals are irrelevant (i don't...specs can cause short term price fluctuations while fundamental shifts are longer term), i'm just throwing the thing out for discussion. caveat...the report is 10 years old.

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

OK, a few people read it differently than intended. Maybe I should have phrased it "windBagz who have no children."

Good, that excludes me.

Until these pie-in-the-sky alternate energy sources are proven to exist and are actually developed, we are using up our known reserves at an increasing rate while being quite cavalier in assuming that somebody will come up with alternative sources in sufficient quantity to supply future needs. And there are people suggesting that there is no limit to our petroleum supply right here in this thread if you can read.

I have only mentioned nuclear, wind and hydro. These are not pie in the sky. This is not the energy shortage of the 70's. Catch up with technology.

I read it carefully. What he said in essence is that theories out there suggest that it is possible and linked to a very interesting article. He was showing you a credible article since you said you hadn't seen one. His belief was 50 to 100 years.

Bagz, I sure wish you'd learn how to use the friggin' quote feature. Sorting through your posts is hard enough without it being in bold print and inside a quote block. Caps and bold print is the online equivalent of raising your voice.

I am painfully aware that some people are having a hard time keeping up with complex arguments. That is why I try to post them within the quote to keep the issues separate. You make a valid point about yelling, so I will use Italics to differentiate my writing. (this didn't work so I went back to bold)

Conservation will discourage development of alternatives? YGTBSM. You argue for supply and demand...do you deny that $100/bbl oil and $4/gal fuel is powerful indicator of a limited supply, then?

Yep, it is limited. Never said it wasn't. I'll even say it is scarce. What I am saying is that it had to be $100/BBL before we saw the propeller manufacturing plant in Colorado.

When I listen to the arrogant "world is my oyster and I'll take and use as much as I can" point of view, I start to understand why socialism is gaining so much footing around the world today. It appears to be in the pigmen's nature to behave like locusts, without regard or self-awareness of the damage they do by devouring everything in their path.

My argument is the exact opposite of "the world is my oyster." My argument is that I have no control on these economic issues because economic forces are greater than me or even a bunch of people like me. Furthermore, IF I did have control, I am not sure that lowering the price of oil by decreasing demand would be the best route because it would discourage what I hope we all agree is the ultimate solution of alternative energy sources. (now I am doubting that we even agree on that)

I thought we were trying to determine the best lifestyle for ourselves and our grandchildren in this thread. After witnessing the experiments of the last century I am bewildered that anyone would even consider socialism as a means to that end.

I think consumption is indeed decreasing as people take note of how overextended and at-risk they are today. The "seed of doom?" Isn't that something from one of those Damian movies?

Think what you will but the fact is that world consumption is increasing even though you and some of your friends are claiming to use less.

I guess one could say that the doomsayers who are concerned about HIV and risky behavior in certain populations do nothing to reduce the spread of a deadly disease, either. Guess they should shut up and let those people kill themselves. I prefer to think that some people might be reasoned with to change their behavior to something that doesn't put them at risk.

Another false analogy. I have never advocated lack of education on either issue. The only thing I am pointing out is emotionally based tactics and fear mongering false analogies like this one

We are on the verge of a great industrial revolution as we transform our energy use away from oil.

[multitrak]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

These two stories do not mention Colorado, but Coloradans should take note. The first is a New York Times story on the real estate bust in Florida. It's pretty sobering. Scratch out "ocean" and "beaches" and replace with "mountains" and change "Florida" to "Colorado" and you may get a pretty good picture of what lies ahead for Colorado. The rest of the "scenario" sounds ominously similar--Florida is just getting there first. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...=1&oref=slogin

this chart http://www.papereconomy.com/CSI.aspx...=all&showall=1 would argue otherwise...the denver market is much different than either the tampa or miami markets. how? denver did not have same degree or magnitude of price appreciation seen in post-2000 florida. denver is actually more similar to dallas than florida. while both florida markets show well defined bubbles, denver (and dallas) exhibit more of a undulating upslope plateau. the cme apr denver housing index futures http://chartsrdc.cme.com:443/cs/char...=DEN&_month=-1 has remained stable the past month at 123.60 (cash index at 128.98). although tampa and miami could decline another 10-15%, denver might decline only another 5% at most.

back to OP cited article...what's bad for developers is good for potential home buyers and renters:

People who were priced out of the earlier boom here could wind up the winners. “We had an affordable-housing crisis,” says Tammy Hall, a Lee County commissioner. “The people who were here for a fast buck are gone. You’re going to see normal people go back into that housing.”

When Andrea Drewyor, 24, moved to Cape Coral from Ohio this year to take a teaching job, she found a brand-new two-bedroom waterfront duplex in a gated community with a fitness center, a swimming pool and a Jacuzzi — all for $875 a month in rent.

At night, most of the units around her are dark. The developer can moan.

Not Ms. Drewyor.

“I like not having a lot of people living here,” she said. “This place is awesome.”

sounds like a win-win situation to me! sometimes we miss a bit of good news buried in all the gloom...

[Bob from down south]

I agree that Denver is neither Miami nor Tampa.

OTOH, Denver is not Dallas, either.

I agree there's good news coming for the prospective homebuyer. That is, the prospective homebuyer that has a down payment saved and a seasoned stable income that will qualify him or her for a loan using traditional debt-to-income ratios and other underwriting considerations. Prices are falling, and will fall a good deal further. For those who have not already overextended themselves, good things will be waiting.

The sad reality is that the majority of our neighbors, already heavily in debt, are not going to be able to avail themselves of the opportunity. And despite the MSM's limited attention-span, credit markets are still pretty much seized up. Home loans are not easy to come by for many prospective homebuyers that might have been in the market otherwise, and certainly they do not qualify for the kind of loan amounts that will allow yesteryear's McMansion to sell for yesteryear's ransom to an underresourced yuppie with big dreams and little real money or income.

[brightdoglover]

A real first. I have never been in the same designation as Rush Limbaugh, and now I am for being childfree? I didn't know he was/is. I hardly think he's an example of anything except the willingness of people to pay to listen to a bunch of noise from some fool's pie hole.
But I say again that we all have a responsibility to the planet because we live here, whether or not we have progeny or whether or not progeny procreates.

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

The sad reality is that the majority of our neighbors, already heavily in debt, are not going to be able to avail themselves of the opportunity. And despite the MSM's limited attention-span, credit markets are still pretty much seized up. Home loans are not easy to come by for many prospective homebuyers that might have been in the market otherwise, and certainly they do not qualify for the kind of loan amounts that will allow yesteryear's McMansion to sell for yesteryear's ransom to an underresourced yuppie with big dreams and little real money or income.

In a sense, this is also good news.... my turn for an analogy. It's like the teenage boy taken behind the woodshed for his reckless thoughtless behavior. Some people would look at it like a sad reality, while others look at it as tough love and beneficial for the future of the boy. It would be really sad if the kid was never punished.

"underresourced yuppie" ... isn't this an oxymoron?

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by brightdoglover

Rush Limbaugh, childfree?

It's better that some people do not reproduce...

[NewAgeRedneck]

Bideshi wrote:

It's better that some people do not reproduce...

If only Rush Limbaughs parents would have embraced that attitude!