Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
I seriously doubt it, since the first part isn't what people assume about war in the first place. But the second; I'd suggest the US is in this war for the benefit of several corporations, and that they still can and will benefit. There was never any possibility these wars would benefit the country, anyway; it always has been about providing opportunity for Halliburton, et al. Such wars also will continue as long as government thinks they need to help corporations instead of citizens (as long as they think the two are synonymous). Mitch [from mePad] On Nov 4, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: We profited from lots of wars. Your point may be countries can't prosper from wars repeatedly which is a lesson the USA is about to learn. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
But the second; I'd suggest the US is in this war for the benefit of several corporations, and that they still can and will benefit. There was never any possibility these wars would benefit the country, anyway; it always has been about providing opportunity for Halliburton, et al. Such wars also will continue as long as government thinks they need to help corporations instead of citizens (as long as they think the two are synonymous). OK, what about the first Gulf War, what about the war in the Balkins? With all due respect, there were folks who were strongly against the war who wrote about the decision making process. The mistakes made were obvious, and we don't have to come up with unfalsifiable conspiracy theories to explain them. The two biggest mistakes made were the idea that shock and awe would change the ground rules so much that we wouldn't have to worry about what happened after the war was won. It took about 1 year of incompetence so bad that Bin Laden couldn't have done better ruining the US's chances of rebuilding Iraq than Cheney and company. For example, having the former manager of a day care center running the Iraq economy? Second, they took the 3 sigma value of the likely risk Hussein presented and took it as the likely value. Any intelligence data that contradicted them was tossed. Still, the intelligence data had big error bars. Few, even in the command structure in Iraq, knew what was there. Interviews with Hussein stated that he lied to hide the fact that he didn't have WMD, because he thought the idea that he had WMD was the only thing stopping an Iranian invasion. No-one from any country's intelligence service thought that. I read extensively before the war, and that wasn't offered as an option. But still, anyone with experience in IR knew of the inherent problems in Afghanistan, and that COIN takes over a decade to succeed. After trying every other possibility, Bush fired Rumsfeld, put in Gates and let the man who wrote the book on COIN (literally) run the war. And, given what _the US military though was possible, Petreus (sp) performed near miracles to get Iraq to where it is today. They probably won't take advantage of the opportunity, but if he had control in '03, we'd have been spared a lot of grief. So, to mix adages, never postulate secret conspiracies to explain something when mere incompetence will do...and the arrogance of incompetence at that. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
On 04/11/2010, at 8:32 AM, Dan Minette wrote: It is quite possible that we falter over the next two years, sliding back into depression. One of the most depressing figures is that the average GDP growth rate for the last 30 years will result in unemployment increasing, since we need 3%/year growth to tread water. Not what I meant, sorry, but I was sticking with your definition of black swan as a solution to economic malaise. War, global conflict, would be the most drastic solution. Well, the US did prosper from wars it has been in, but that's fairly unique. ARGH!! it's unusual it's very rare OR it's unique. Unique can't take a qualifier except maybe possibly or almost and even then you need care. Sorry, bugbear. Germany didn't, France didn't. The USSR didn't; the Cold War broke them. The UK lost its fortune in WWI and WWII. We profited from lots of wars. Your point may be countries can't prosper from wars repeatedly which is a lesson the USA is about to learn. And, 'Nam hurt the US economy after a while. We couldn't afford guns and butter as the saying went at the time. Even those who argued it was a mangled but essential part of containment, it cost. And the USA is in a far worse position now - a similar war that's unwinnable, and a far worse economic situation. Interesting, in a bad way. And now with the mid-term results you're even worse off... Spiralling is the word, i think. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
On 04/11/2010, at 2:15 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Sure, if they invaded Europe in '79 and Carter wasn't willing to start Armageddon. But, the military was a drain on their GDP, rising to 45% of it at the end. ...and judging by GDP figures, the USA is still fighting the Cold War. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
I'm trying to imagine us as being in shape for any large enterprises in 1979, and I was there and 40 years old at the time. Everything we'd started either in the lush postwar years or in the wake of the Fourth Great Awakening had fizzled out, the young people were moving into middle age, the giants of yesteryear were beginning to die, the memory of the Vietnam fiasco colored our decisions as well as our budget, and we were way overdue for a course change. Naah -- never happen. Not on our part, anyway. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 22:32:52 -0700 Subject: Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy From: brig...@zo.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Dan wrote: Me: First, let me assure anyone reading this that I in no way advocate war as a solution for anything, I'm just discussing the possible consequences of the State's current situation. Sure, if they invaded Europe in '79 and Carter wasn't willing to start Armageddon. But, the military was a drain on their GDP, rising to 45% of it at the end. Look at the war surrogate, the race to the moon. They weren't close. I think they grew faster than the US for about 5 years. Planned economies are OK for a while, but tend to get caught up in artificial goals. China has been the exception, but that's because we are in an era of no real disruptive innovationsand China doesn't have to adapt. Why Japan is in a funk now is interestingsocially they couldn't make the obvious decisions. The point is that after the war they had a large empire and access to abundant resources. Their subsequent mismanagement of those resources does not negate the fact that they had the potential to prosper as a result of the war. We'd probably repudiate it. But, there's a much easier way to handle it. Get the deficit (not national debt) down, and put inflation up at 15%/year. After a decade, we'd owe them zilch. That's one very unique thing about the US debt. We owe dollars. We can, by one statement of the Fed, get rid of the debt. It wouldn't matter if interest rates went up, fixed debt in inflationary times is good for the borrower, not the lender. Do you really think that China would just let that happen? But, if it got to the point of not paying the debt due to conflict, it would probably get to WWIII. China's nukes aren't that good, so we'd probably only lose LA, NY, Chicago, Houston, Washington, areas. I'd guess we'd get by with less than 50 million killed. I can imagine a scenario in which the likelihood that any of China's nukes hit us is very low, but it would involve a preemptive strike of some sort, defensive nukes, and a way of keeping other powers such as Russia out of it. Considering our power and ability to deliver it to their doorstep, China has much more to fear from a nuclear conflict than we do, but considering the rate at which they are catching up to us, this could change. There are other scenarios that lead to war as well. The people running the PRK are lunatics and they have nukes, though I wouldn't be surprised if they blow themselves up before they blow anyone else up. Then there is the Middle Eastern bag of worms especially when Iran joins the N club. But, I'd also guess that would set back the economy a good bit. At some point, it's set back so far already that it doesn't matter In general war is profitable to the victor if: 1) The homeland isn't hit. 2) They can make money off the conquered. Well, trillions of dollars of debt disappearing overnight might be one source of gain. The fact that we'd have to ramp up our manufacturing capability again would be another. Another thing is that the current atmosphere of internal divisiveness would be ameliorated. Again I make these arguments as devil's advocate; please don't infer that I favor war as any kind of solution for our problems. I do imagine that there _are_ people that would make these kinds of arguments seriously. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Charlie wrote: ...and judging by GDP figures, the USA is still fighting the Cold War. Hmmm, I looked it up, and military outlays under GWB as a % of GDP were less than they were under Carter, around 4% or a bit less. vs. Carter's 5%+. And he said that the US was going to have to increase defense spending. Under Kennedy, they were about 10% of GDP, Reagan close to 6%. They've risen under Obama, but that's due to the slowdown in the GDP more than anything. So, only if you take the bottom of the Cold War spending, when anti-war Democrats were in the forefront, and this year under Obama, which is a special circumstance (defense spending rates are projected to fall to 3.6% in the budget), is that close to true. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
On 05/11/2010, at 5:32 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Charlie wrote: ...and judging by GDP figures, the USA is still fighting the Cold War. Hmmm, I looked it up, and military outlays under GWB as a % of GDP were less than they were under Carter, around 4% or a bit less. vs. Carter's 5%+. And he said that the US was going to have to increase defense spending. Under Kennedy, they were about 10% of GDP, Reagan close to 6%. They've risen under Obama, but that's due to the slowdown in the GDP more than anything. So, only if you take the bottom of the Cold War spending, when anti-war Democrats were in the forefront, and this year under Obama, which is a special circumstance (defense spending rates are projected to fall to 3.6% in the budget), is that close to true. Now compare it to everyone else in the world... Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Energy projects was Underwater mortgages and the economy
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:00 AM, brin-l-requ...@mccmedia.com wrote: snip I looked at the articles you provided, and I noted, without surprise, that they omitted a very key detail: laser efficiency. In typical everyday usage, lasers are not very efficient. Even in high tech uses, such as inertia fusion, particle beams are much more efficient: about 12% vs. about 1%, back when inertia fusion was big back in the '80s. Solid state diodes of the kind in the Wikipedia picture are hitting 50% now with research projects that expect to raise it to 65% and eventually to 85%. That's not coherent so there is a further loss of perhaps ten percent pumping a coherent laser medium. Even today you can get 20-35% out of a green laser pointer. Green DPSS lasers are usually around 20% efficient, although some lasers have been reported to be 35% efficient. In other words, a green DPSS laser using a 2.5 W pump diode would be expected to output around 500 mW of 532 nm light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode-pumped_solid-state_laser Try this in google solid state laser diodes efficiency 105 kW These are the kind of omissions that are tell-tale to me. It's an absolutely critical piece of information, which isn't mentioned. I've seen it probably literally thousands of times in the writings of true believers. I use it as a measure of a serious engineering or science project. Real practical engineers are very excited when they talk about key technical challenges. True believers don't talk about them. Want a copy of Beamed Energy and the Economics of Space Based Solar Power ? Paper I gave last year at a conference. It's a bit out of date since I now think CW lasers and hydrogen heaters are a better near term prospect than laser ablation. So, tell me, how are the lasers going to get the power to energize the fuel, and what is the efficiency and weight of the lasers involved? Since the lasers stay on the ground the weight isn't very important. Figured at 50% efficient and $10 per watt, 6 GW output will draw 12 GW from the power grid and cost $60 B. That's a lot but there are places it could be done, South Texas was one I looked at, and more recently California near the southern end of the Pacific Intertie. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
It is quite possible that we falter over the next two years, sliding back into depression. One of the most depressing figures is that the average GDP growth rate for the last 30 years will result in unemployment increasing, since we need 3%/year growth to tread water. Not what I meant, sorry, but I was sticking with your definition of black swan as a solution to economic malaise. War, global conflict, would be the most drastic solution. Well, the US did prosper from wars it has been in, but that's fairly unique. Germany didn't, France didn't. The USSR didn't; the Cold War broke them. The UK lost its fortune in WWI and WWII. And, 'Nam hurt the US economy after a while. We couldn't afford guns and butter as the saying went at the time. Even those who argued it was a mangled but essential part of containment, it cost. Finally, as more countries get nuclear weapons, the odds on any real conflict going nuclear increases. For example, what would happen if Chinese territorial zones kept expanding and were enforced by China's navy? Would the US honor treaties, and what would happen then?' Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Dan wrote: Well, the US did prosper from wars it has been in, but that's fairly unique. Germany didn't, France didn't. The USSR didn't; the Cold War broke them. Eventually, but they were our supposed equals for the better part of forty years and one can easily imagine scenarios in which they continued to prosper in at least some sense of the word. And, 'Nam hurt the US economy after a while. We couldn't afford guns and butter as the saying went at the time. Even those who argued it was a mangled but essential part of containment, it cost. Global conflict, to reiterate. Finally, as more countries get nuclear weapons, the odds on any real conflict going nuclear increases. For example, what would happen if Chinese territorial zones kept expanding and were enforced by China's navy? Would the US honor treaties, and what would happen then?' What would happen to our debt to China in the event of such a conflict? Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 9:49 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy Dan wrote: Well, the US did prosper from wars it has been in, but that's fairly unique. Germany didn't, France didn't. The USSR didn't; the Cold War broke them. Eventually, but they were our supposed equals for the better part of forty years and one can easily imagine scenarios in which they continued to prosper in at least some sense of the word. Sure, if they invaded Europe in '79 and Carter wasn't willing to start Armageddon. But, the military was a drain on their GDP, rising to 45% of it at the end. Look at the war surrogate, the race to the moon. They weren't close. I think they grew faster than the US for about 5 years. Planned economies are OK for a while, but tend to get caught up in artificial goals. China has been the exception, but that's because we are in an era of no real disruptive innovationsand China doesn't have to adapt. Why Japan is in a funk now is interestingsocially they couldn't make the obvious decisions. Finally, as more countries get nuclear weapons, the odds on any real conflict going nuclear increases. For example, what would happen if Chinese territorial zones kept expanding and were enforced by China's navy? Would the US honor treaties, and what would happen then?' What would happen to our debt to China in the event of such a conflict? We'd probably repudiate it. But, there's a much easier way to handle it. Get the deficit (not national debt) down, and put inflation up at 15%/year. After a decade, we'd owe them zilch. That's one very unique thing about the US debt. We owe dollars. We can, by one statement of the Fed, get rid of the debt. It wouldn't matter if interest rates went up, fixed debt in inflationary times is good for the borrower, not the lender. But, if it got to the point of not paying the debt due to conflict, it would probably get to WWIII. China's nukes aren't that good, so we'd probably only lose LA, NY, Chicago, Houston, Washington, areas. I'd guess we'd get by with less than 50 million killed. But, I'd also guess that would set back the economy a good bit. In general war is profitable to the victor if: 1) The homeland isn't hit. 2) They can make money off the conquered. Traditionally, that's been empire and/or pillaging. The US was different in that it gave money to Europe and then used it as a market for US goods. That's why business taxes were 40% of the Federal budget in the '50s and only a few percent now. In essence, we had foreign consumers pay for our government. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Dan wrote: Me: First, let me assure anyone reading this that I in no way advocate war as a solution for anything, I'm just discussing the possible consequences of the State's current situation. Sure, if they invaded Europe in '79 and Carter wasn't willing to start Armageddon. But, the military was a drain on their GDP, rising to 45% of it at the end. Look at the war surrogate, the race to the moon. They weren't close. I think they grew faster than the US for about 5 years. Planned economies are OK for a while, but tend to get caught up in artificial goals. China has been the exception, but that's because we are in an era of no real disruptive innovationsand China doesn't have to adapt. Why Japan is in a funk now is interestingsocially they couldn't make the obvious decisions. The point is that after the war they had a large empire and access to abundant resources. Their subsequent mismanagement of those resources does not negate the fact that they had the potential to prosper as a result of the war. We'd probably repudiate it. But, there's a much easier way to handle it. Get the deficit (not national debt) down, and put inflation up at 15%/year. After a decade, we'd owe them zilch. That's one very unique thing about the US debt. We owe dollars. We can, by one statement of the Fed, get rid of the debt. It wouldn't matter if interest rates went up, fixed debt in inflationary times is good for the borrower, not the lender. Do you really think that China would just let that happen? But, if it got to the point of not paying the debt due to conflict, it would probably get to WWIII. China's nukes aren't that good, so we'd probably only lose LA, NY, Chicago, Houston, Washington, areas. I'd guess we'd get by with less than 50 million killed. I can imagine a scenario in which the likelihood that any of China's nukes hit us is very low, but it would involve a preemptive strike of some sort, defensive nukes, and a way of keeping other powers such as Russia out of it. Considering our power and ability to deliver it to their doorstep, China has much more to fear from a nuclear conflict than we do, but considering the rate at which they are catching up to us, this could change. There are other scenarios that lead to war as well. The people running the PRK are lunatics and they have nukes, though I wouldn't be surprised if they blow themselves up before they blow anyone else up. Then there is the Middle Eastern bag of worms especially when Iran joins the N club. But, I'd also guess that would set back the economy a good bit. At some point, it's set back so far already that it doesn't matter In general war is profitable to the victor if: 1) The homeland isn't hit. 2) They can make money off the conquered. Well, trillions of dollars of debt disappearing overnight might be one source of gain. The fact that we'd have to ramp up our manufacturing capability again would be another. Another thing is that the current atmosphere of internal divisiveness would be ameliorated. Again I make these arguments as devil's advocate; please don't infer that I favor war as any kind of solution for our problems. I do imagine that there _are_ people that would make these kinds of arguments seriously. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy (Dan Minette)
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 12:25 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy (Dan Minette) Keith wrote: Unfortunately I have no ideas about how to get this going, at least not in the US. I think a rule change favoring longer term investments in physical plant will be needed before anyone will consider any such ideas. It needs to be recognized as a matter of national security. I hate to say it, but I would put this type of spending in with the vast amount of money put into 5th generation computers by the Japanese, which helped trigger their lost two decades. This is not a black swan type of new technology that comes out of nowhere, where costs come down a factor of two every year or two, etc. Its old technology, long promised as just around the corner. It will be very good at providing electricity in small amounts at high prices. IMHO, the long history of these two ventures put this as a cross between the cost effectiveness of solar power and the space shuttle. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Doug wrote: Or a negative black swan, pardon me for pointing out what might happen. The blackest of black swans. It is quite possible that we falter over the next two years, sliding back into depression. One of the most depressing figures is that the average GDP growth rate for the last 30 years will result in unemployment increasing, since we need 3%/year growth to tread water. China will continue to rise, because planned economies work well with no surprises. We will have exhausted the wonders of invention and new possibilities that have fueled this nation since its start, and we will fall behind a ruthless dictatorship, who will bring a new world order. For example, our green cars are economical because China has an environment be damned technique for processing rare earthsand sells very cheaply because of that. We'll spend all of our money on things like bypass surgery for 90 years old Alzheimer patients. Palin will be President with a cowed Democratic minority rolling over and playing dead. The Hispanics and blacks will say a plague on both your houses, and not vote, and the poor whites (who I live amongst) will focus on the elitist tendencies of the Democrats and would rather have an economic than an intellectual elite rule. It's possible, but not probable, thankfully. This was predicted in the '80s remember. China has lotsa problems that it hides because it controls all media. I predict it will be the new Japan. And, the US still has abundant natural resources. What leftists can do to help is pick two piles: regulations and lawsuits that help and regulations and lawsuits that simply make practical plans politically impossible. The sad thing is that I think the author of Wingnuts is correct, more people will believe wild falsifiable ideas after they are falsified than deal with real possibilities. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Energy projects was Underwater mortgages and the economy
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: snip This is not a black swan type of new technology that comes out of nowhere, where costs come down a factor of two every year or two, etc. Its old technology, long promised as just around the corner. It will be very good at providing electricity in small amounts at high prices. IMHO, the long history of these two ventures put this as a cross between the cost effectiveness of solar power and the space shuttle. Dan, I don't mind criticisms based on understanding the engineering and/or economics, but this kind of blanket dismissal I don't think is justified. The power satellite variation I have been talking about is based on a 200 to one reduction in the cost of lifting parts to GEO and *that* is based on high power solid state lasers which have only been on the market for a few years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_diodes#Applications_of_laser_diodes Do you have an idea of what raising the exhaust velocity to 9-10 km/sec will do for payload? The StratoSolar idea is just over a year old and has only been out from under NDA for a month. There are *many* engineering problems still to be solved. Still, it looks like for fundamental reasons the method will cut the cost of materials by close to a factor of 25 over current concentrated solar power systems. Since the capital cost of materials is the main cost driver for renewable sources of energy, a 25 to one reduction in materials cost should cause a substantial reduction in energy cost. If these methods cannot be projected to supply huge amounts of energy at very low prices, they are not worth doing at all. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Energy projects was Underwater mortgages and the economy
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:28 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Energy projects was Underwater mortgages and the economy On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: snip This is not a black swan type of new technology that comes out of nowhere, where costs come down a factor of two every year or two, etc. Its old technology, long promised as just around the corner. It will be very good at providing electricity in small amounts at high prices. IMHO, the long history of these two ventures put this as a cross between the cost effectiveness of solar power and the space shuttle. Dan, I don't mind criticisms based on understanding the engineering and/or economics, but this kind of blanket dismissal I don't think is justified. The power satellite variation I have been talking about is based on a 200 to one reduction in the cost of lifting parts to GEO and *that* is based on high power solid state lasers which have only been on the market for a few years. I looked at the articles you provided, and I noted, without surprise, that they omitted a very key detail: laser efficiency. In typical everyday usage, lasers are not very efficient. Even in high tech uses, such as inertia fusion, particle beams are much more efficient: about 12% vs. about 1%, back when inertia fusion was big back in the '80s. These are the kind of omissions that are tell-tale to me. It's an absolutely critical piece of information, which isn't mentioned. I've seen it probably literally thousands of times in the writings of true believers. I use it as a measure of a serious engineering or science project. Real practical engineers are very excited when they talk about key technical challenges. True believers don't talk about them. So, tell me, how are the lasers going to get the power to energize the fuel, and what is the efficiency and weight of the lasers involved? Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Energy projects was Underwater mortgages and the economy
Dan said: In typical everyday usage, lasers are not very efficient. Even in high tech uses, such as inertia fusion, particle beams are much more efficient: about 12% vs. about 1%, back when inertia fusion was big back in the '80s. High pulse energy, high repetition rate diode-pumped solid state lasers now have an efficiency of around 10%. Rich ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Energy projects was Underwater mortgages and the economy
High pulse energy, high repetition rate diode-pumped solid state lasers now have an efficiency of around 10%. OK, that's a lot better than when I was kicking around inertia fusion. Factors of 5-10 (it might have been as much as 2% efficient back in 1980) every 30 years is nothing to sneeze at, but is still not near Moore's law...while synthetic biology is presently beating Moore's law (how long they can keep this up, I don't know, but we haven't gotten to the steep part of the cost curve that happens before the wall yet). But, what I've read on laser powered rockets, its burning stuff off rockets by hitting them with a laser just right. The article that argues for it: http://htyp.org/Hundred_dollars_a_kg sure seems like Piccard engineering to me. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Dan wrote: It is quite possible that we falter over the next two years, sliding back into depression. One of the most depressing figures is that the average GDP growth rate for the last 30 years will result in unemployment increasing, since we need 3%/year growth to tread water. Not what I meant, sorry, but I was sticking with your definition of black swan as a solution to economic malaise. War, global conflict, would be the most drastic solution. Doug history repeats ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Underwater mortgages and the economy
Interesting perspective in the LA Times. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-economy-mortgages-20101101,0,7338975.story By Don Lee, Los Angeles Times November 1, 2010 Reporting from Washington — For almost two years, home foreclosures have swept the nation, spreading misery among once-buoyant families, spattering lenders with red ink and undermining efforts to restart the economy. But a bigger problem may turn out to be the millions of Americans who are still faithfully paying their mortgages, but on houses worth far less than before the bubble burst. It's not that these homeowners will stop making their payments. It's just the opposite — that they will keep doing it. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Interesting perspective in the LA Times. But a bigger problem may turn out to be the millions of Americans who are still faithfully paying their mortgages, but on houses worth far less than before the bubble burst. It's not that these homeowners will stop making their payments. It's just the opposite that they will keep doing it. I thought about this, and I think the article misses the real problemthat the rise in home values fueled the '00-'08 economy. There is ample reason to argue that folks didn't save, because they saw their net worth going up every year, as their home appreciated. Folks who sold their homes for bubble prices spent the money; it's gone. Some people took out second mortgages on their houses and spent the money...with their house value rising, they spent the value. I understand it might be better for the national economy if we took the big hit now, and lots of folks would start over with no credit rating, and banks took big hits on their books now, and the government spent what it had to now instead of later so we didn't have the slow drip drip drip of expected foreclosures putting deflationary pressures on the economy. In an unrelated note on the economy, we're now in an age where the economy has to grow 5%/year to put a dent in unemployment. If we forget the last decade, when GDP grew sub-par and jobs barely grew, and focused on the '80s and '90s, we'd find that the average GDP growth in that period would be enough to lower the jobless rate to 7.5% in about 20 years or so. The numbers are rough because real 3%/year GDP growth is what's required to keep employment growth matching worker growth, and I'm calculating a 0.1% variation above this, so your numbers might be a bit different. But, that's a scary thought. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: Interesting perspective in the LA Times. But a bigger problem may turn out to be the millions of Americans who are still faithfully paying their mortgages, but on houses worth far less than before the bubble burst. It's not that these homeowners will stop making their payments. It's just the opposite — that they will keep doing it. I thought about this, and I think the article misses the real problemthat the rise in home values fueled the '00-'08 economy. There is ample reason to argue that folks didn't save, because they saw their net worth going up every year, as their home appreciated. Folks who sold their homes for bubble prices spent the money; it's gone. Some people took out second mortgages on their houses and spent the money...with their house value rising, they spent the value. No question, either extreme is bad. But how to manage the volatility is the billion - or is that trillion? - dollar question. Nick ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy
No question, either extreme is bad. But how to manage the volatility is the billion - or is that trillion? - dollar question. There are several things to consider here. First is the obvious. We require real truth in selling, and for the sellers to know what they are selling. Along with this we have hard reserve requirements, like we had for decades (with a kinda exception in Houston in the mid-80s that fueled the SL crisis. All financial institutions can be leveraged no more than 10-13 to 1. Then, we need to recall that this is the first gigantic, nation wide housing bubble we've seen in 150 years. There are several causes for it. First, the balance of trade deficit, kept by foreign governments and other investors as cash meant there was cash looking for a place to roost. The inherent trust in the US dollar helped fuel this. So did the lack of the US actually producing much of anything. The US is, by far, the most flexible economy, so it handles disruptive innovations better than any other economy in the world. The last significant one was the mass use of the PC, which Japan missed out on when they spent tens, maybe hundreds of billions on worthless fifth generation computers in the '80s. This lead to their lost decades. But, the internet bubble of the late '90s showed that the 'net didn't have earth shattering profitable changes inherent in it. It allowed consultants like me to get drawings and email results, had some nice multi-billion dollar companies, but didn't change the economy the way fast cheap computers did. For example, the trillion dollars of wealth created by geosteering would have existed without the internet, but not without cheap computing. So, we had a US economy that was really doing nothing, but lots of money looking for a US home...thus real estate, which the Risk Assessment Model said couldn't go down more than a couple %. Third, to get out of this, the US needs a positive black swan to change all the rules again. This will soak up investment capitol, with a real return on investment, because wealth will be created. Until it comes, we're treading water. Dan M. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Underwater mortgages and the economy (Dan Minette)
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Dan Minette danmine...@att.net wrote: snip Third, to get out of this, the US needs a positive black swan to change all the rules again. This will soak up investment capitol, with a real return on investment, because wealth will be created. Until it comes, we're treading water. I know about two positive black swans. However the first one (power satellites through cheap lift to GEO) is only being discussed in China, and the second one (StartoSolar) will probably go that way as well. It looks like StratoSolar could sell electric power at 1-2 cents per kWh and (under the current price for renewable solar power) pay back the expense of building one in as little as two years. Unfortunately I have no ideas about how to get this going, at least not in the US. I think a rule change favoring longer term investments in physical plant will be needed before anyone will consider any such ideas. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy
Dan wrote: So, we had a US economy that was really doing nothing, but lots of money looking for a US home...thus real estate, which the Risk Assessment Model said couldn't go down more than a couple %. Add to that the (hundreds of?) billions of dollars of tax cuts Bush gave to the wealthiest people in the nation who already had more money than they knew what to do with. Third, to get out of this, the US needs a positive black swan to change all the rules again. This will soak up investment capitol, with a real return on investment, because wealth will be created. Until it comes, we're treading water. Or a negative black swan, pardon me for pointing out what might happen. The blackest of black swans. Doug ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Underwater mortgages and the economy (Dan Minette)
Keith wrote: Unfortunately I have no ideas about how to get this going, at least not in the US. I think a rule change favoring longer term investments in physical plant will be needed before anyone will consider any such ideas. It needs to be recognized as a matter of national security. Unfortunately, it seems like the right wing would rather see the country go down in flames than give Obama any kind of victory. Doug Sanity and/or Fear ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
