18 hours ago, Gorth said:

🤣

 

(sorry)

Just you wait and see!  Boomers failed to change the world and turned into suits in adulthood.  Cowards.

2 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

Just you wait and see!  Boomers failed to change the world and turned into suits in adulthood.  Cowards.

Millenials will do the same, except they'll just be wearing turtlenecks and jeans. 😛

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

Technically, housing is an asset, which holds value and usually appreciates in value faster than regular goods, however it should still not outpace inflation more than other asset classes like value stocks or precious metals, otherwise it becomes an investment asset, which is wrong in principle. 

Also the components for building a house comprise many different cost classes (materials, labor, transport, land, etc.) 

 

What should be looked at, in terms of housing inflation is the rate of rent cost increases. 

 

3 hours ago, Raithe said:

So anyone have an idea how close to accurate this is? The 'wants' get cheaper, the 'needs' get more expensive...

From what I understand, college tuition is up in the US.  But a large part of that is state legislatures or private organizations decreasing their funding to them (either in real decreases, or effective decreases by not keeping up with inflations).  I know there have been several severe cuts to the college system here over the years.

Textbooks I don't have information on, but since there is, I believe an oligopoly within textbook production (while there are textbooks from multiple companies, I believe there are just three companies involved in the field and the multiple companies are just arms of one of these) they've always tended to be high.  That said a number of universities are working to open source course materials to decrease this cost on students.

The latest round of classes for my kid offered .pdf textbooks, which were very inexpensive to "rent".

Some of mine and my wife's are available as ebooks but most of the ones that aren't are ridiculously expensive. Thankfully this is her last semester

By The Numbers: Biden's $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan. 👍

https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POUV_169_0117--xi-jinping-s-china-marching-toward-a.htm

Yikes.  Looks like war is definitely on the horizon.  I give it 3-4 years before mass mobilization, cos Biden is not equipped to deal with this.

10 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

By The Numbers: Biden's $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan. 👍

And you think this is a good idea? 

If passed (big if, due to proposed tax hikes, and some Dems not liking that) this will most likely throw majority of money into trash, and will just increase debt and devalue dollar even more. 

Some investments might result in some net positive, but my hunch tells me, the vast majority will go into heavily indebted, failed municipalities like Chicago or SanFran, which will use that cash to cover their unsustainable programs and investments, using the cover of fulfilling the mandate of this project. 

 

At the same time, this will prop up the inflation of key areas, like housing/construction, transport, jack up prices as corporates will pass over the tax increase onto the economy to some extent, and this bill will also put more tax burden on the already almost extinct high-middle/ low-rich class - small/medium entrepreneurers and high class specialists. 

Edited April 2, 20214 yr by Darkpriest

Seems there is an ongoing build up of forces near Russian-Ukrainian border. 

Some think, that it's a result of this decree of Ukrainian president (I have no idea what exactly it's written there) 

https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/1172021-37533

And there are a couple birds chirping (might be Russian propaganda) , that this decree was created with a push from Biden's admin (tied to financing and arms) 

 

 

Edited April 2, 20214 yr by Darkpriest

4 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

And you think this is a good idea? 

Absolutely. Infrastructure investment is always a good idea. Its one of those things that isnt visible to the everyday user, but is vital to operation. Like replacing knob-and-tube wiring of an old house.

But you are right about one thing, as you yourself illustrated, everyone will qq and produce "heres 10 new problems for every solution" like they are wont to do.

11 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Absolutely. Infrastructure investment is always a good idea. Its one of those things that isnt visible to the everyday user, but is vital to operation. Like replacing knob-and-tube wiring of an old house.

But you are right about one thing, as you yourself illustrated, everyone will qq and produce "heres 10 new problems for every solution" like they are wont to do.

I'm not questioning, that actual investment in infrastructure can bring value, and is needed. I do however question the content of the bill, and how much of it will actually go into infrastructure like roads and rails, power grid, and communication lines like satelites or fiber. 

 

NOTE: Heck, you can even add education, health and safety facilities to the list of infrastructure with a positive net result. 

Edited April 2, 20214 yr by Darkpriest

32 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

I do however question the content of the bill, and how much of it will actually go into infrastructure like roads and rails, power grid, and communication lines like satelites or fiber.

If you mean how much money will be invested into each project, theres a "key provisions" chart in the article I linked.

If you mean how much money will be lost to mismanagement vs used for infrastructure projects, who knows.

Theres also a 142% chance that any new infrastructure project will infringe on "dem bones" and be sued into oblivion. But I guess the government could bust out imminent domain. 🤔

32 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

. But I guess the government could bust out imminent domain. 🤔

This new administration would probably enjoy that very much. And if you don't happily hand over your home and property in exchange to the pennies on the dollar of value they offer you are clearly a racist, anti-lgbt white supremacist who must be destroyed! 

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

If you mean how much money will be invested into each project, theres a "key provisions" chart in the article I linked.

If you mean how much money will be lost to mismanagement vs used for infrastructure projects, who knows.

Theres also a 142% chance that any new infrastructure project will infringe on "dem bones" and be sued into oblivion. But I guess the government could bust out imminent domain. 🤔

Yes, there is the key provisions, however, people can be creative what they will consider to fit into these key provisions. 

It can be a high-speed rail, or it can be patching holes in Chicago, or new tents for homeless in SanFran and an extra truck for a poop patrol (but it will be EV!) 

Edited April 2, 20214 yr by Darkpriest

47 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

And if you don't happily hand over your home and property in exchange to the pennies on the dollar of value they offer you...

Im aware of a few examples where 10's of people were affected by imminent domain (for example, I think a bunch of farmers lost most of their acreage when Route 66 was built), and that totally sucks for them, but Im not aware of any real abuses of the system itself. Do you have any examples? To me its kinda, the need of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

7 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Im aware of a few examples where 10's of people were affected by imminent domain (for example, I think a bunch of farmers lost most of their acreage when Route 66 was built), and that totally sucks for them, but Im not aware of any real abuses of the system itself. Do you have any examples? To me its kinda, the need of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Suzette Kelo vs New London CT ring a bell? The city of New London seized a bunch of homes not because they wanted to build a public benefit but because they wanted to sell it for a higher price to a chemical company

Edited April 2, 20214 yr by Guard Dog

I just thought of another one. Somewhere between 2012 and 2014 the city of Riviera Beach Florida wanted to allow a private developer to expand the Riviera Beach Marina to include retail and high in condominiums. The only thing standing in the way was an old neighborhood of mostly black working class families. So the city government decided those people needed to go. They declared the neighborhood blighted and tried to use eminent domain to seize the homes. Fortunately the state of Florida stepped in and shut that trash down. In that particular case they didn’t get away with it. New London did. And the Supreme Court decided that what yours is only yours assuming the government doesn’t want it. 

No, never heard of it but I just read the wiki about it. Also, I see Ive been spelling eminent incorrectly.

As far as that needs of the many versus the needs of the few thing I say nuts to that. First of all nobody is qualified to make that assessment. Second of all where do you draw the line. If it’s enough to take your home away from your why not your kidneys? Why not your lungs? Imagine getting that notice. The mayor needs a lung transplant we’ve decided the you’re  a donor please report to the hospital immediately. The mayor is an important man you see. Or woman. It’s better for everyone if they have one of your lungs than you. 

4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

And the Supreme Court decided that what yours is only yours assuming the government doesn’t want it.

I dont have a huge problem with that, but it should be fair. Something like, "heres a check for <todays> value of your land and the structure on them, you have 90 days to pack you sh*t and hit the road" seems fair to me but only in cases of major infrastructure projects. But I can commiserate with these few individuals.

Just a clarification for those who don’t know on eminent domain. When they see is your home or whatever they don’t leave you with nothing. They are required to pay you for anything they take. But you get paid what the government says it’s worth not what it actually is worth. Based on my own reading and observation if you’re dealing with the federal government you will probably come out of that sort of OK. You’re going to take a loss on your property in all likelihood. but you’ll do better than you would elsewhere. However the smaller governments you are lucky if you get pennies on the dollar.

Edited April 2, 20214 yr by Guard Dog

3 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

I dont have a huge problem with that, but it should be fair. Something like, "heres a check for <todays> value of your land and the structure on them, you have 90 days to pack you sh*t and hit the road" seems fair to me but only in cases of major infrastructure projects. But I can commiserate with these few individuals.

I have a very huge problem with that. The five justices that sided with New London should’ve been dragged from the courthouse and hanged in the street. The kilo decision is right up there with Dred Scott as the worst Supreme Court decision in United States history.

Its as if you didnt read beyond the first 8 words of my post.

Cant debate with lunatic fringe.

8 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Its as if you didnt read beyond the first 8 words of my post.

Cant debate with lunatic fringe.

Oh no you are correct if the takings clause of the fifth amendment were fairly exercised and people received an honest value for their lost assets that would be one thing. That has not been the case generally speaking . But the biggest problem with the Kelo decision is that it changed the fifth amendment takings clause clause from being for a real public benefit to being for anything at all. The way it left the fifth amendment is a government can take anything from anyone for any reason as long as they call it a public benefit.

Edited April 2, 20214 yr by Guard Dog