I still do not understand why the reduction is housing prices is necessarily a bad thing. The primary problem has been that people were able to buy homes that they could not afford, putting aside who is at fault for this. If the easy money had not been created in the first place, it is not likely that we would be in the mess that we are in. Those who could not afford homes would continue to rent as usual, homes would be cheaper, and/or people would live in more modest circumstances. Instead of letting the market do its thing by letting house prices fall to a new equilibrium, the approach seems to be to prop up house prices and/or allow people to have part of their debt forgiven so that they can afford homes they should not have bought in the first place.

If people lose their homes and then have to rent or purchase more modest homes,they will not be any worse off than they were in the first place. In fact, they would be better off because they would actually have some money left over at the end of the month to pay for other things besides their mortgage.

Part of the problem, of course, as Krugman pointed out years ago, is that the U.S.A. has a hollowed out economy that has become overly dependent upon the housing sector as its engine of growth. Since it cannot contemplate or establish an alternative to that sector, the presumption is that the sector needs to be propped up at all costs. Well, we have reached the point of "all costs" and no one knows when this spiral will end. We are well into the great panic of 2008. Does anyone think that we will extricate ourselves from this downward spiral anytime soon?

I certainly would not pretend to have a comprehensive solution to this problem but the proper direction, it seems to be, would be more reliance on direct investment in something that would have a long term value like the alternative energy sector. This way we address two problems simultaneously. At least, in this instance, we get something real and concrete for our investment. As it is, we will probably just be sinking $700 billion down the proverbial rat hole. I hope the rats are appreciative. Just buying up worthless toxic debt seems like a rather indirect and unsatisfactory approach to addressing our national and planetary problems.

As an aside, this country has long operated under the assumption that we should direct investment into housing by subsidizing homeowners through tax deductions. This in is part of the great misallocation of resources that Kunstler talks about. This bailout will just help perpetuate that misallocation.

We have become a nation whose economic system rewards sociopaths and clerks, with most people just pushing data around, or organizing it.
We need to become hunters and gathers again, not betting life on a pyramid scheme that all know, bit refuse to accept, will come tumbling down.

Yes and worse, what should it reward? We are paid according to the quality of or energy not the quantity , surgeon/laborer. If we had a calorie meter. . lets see i burned 5000 calories fixin your door Mrs. Johnson at .50 cents a calorie thats 3000 plus materials.
There is no justice we're all victims of circumstance for better or worse.
"become hunters and gathers again"
I dont think the transition will be a choice or smooth. It has been a long time since we lived that way and how many hunter gatherers can the planet support?we will be scavengers first,and the ones "rewarded" with survival may be those willing to eat there own kind.

'become hunters and gathers again...' How many hunter gatherers can the planet support?

ex-addict - Good question...let's look. Prior to the invasion of the Spanish in the early 1700's the Kumeyaay Indian Tribes existed sustainably as Hunter Gatherers in the Desert Sage Biome from Baja to the Laguna Mountains and extending east as far as Escondido for over 10,000 years. Recent excavations place these developments as far back as 20,000 years.

What were their populations? Estimates vary from a few thousand to as many as 19,000. What is the population of these same areas today? A: Ten Million or more. And don't forget that due to development all of those ecosystems would be unable to support even a few hundred. The only intact eco-systems in California are contained in 130,000 acres contained in the UC reserves (35 secluded intact reserves maintained by the University of California Natural Reserve System).

Kunstler coined the term "Wile E. Coyote Nation". What that means is there's no getting back to where we were before without a great crash.

Conclusion: We're going to either make this civilization thing work or we will go extinct as a species.

Joe

Conclusion: We're going to either make this civilization thing work or we will go extinct as a species.

If your parameters are economic collapse leading to social collapse, then I strenuously disagree. If you are including climate change of the +6 degrees C variety, then I agree. A new Ice Age less a snowball Earth scenario also would not lead to the demise of the species. What are your assumptions?

The 6C+, Snowball Earth and global nuclear war are the three scenarios I could see leading to the demise of the species. Other than that, we are too adaptable, too creative and too able to terraform the planet to go extinct otherwise.

In a complete collapse scenario you would still have groups, both large and small, banding together to survive. If the planet can support farming, people will farm. What will NOT be possible until after a massive die-off and some years of regrowth of the ecosystems will be large bands of hunter gatherers. It would be hard in most, but not all, areas for more than small populations to be hunter gatherers for at least some years.

However, fish populations indicate the rebound of animal populations can happen quite suddenly once you leave them alone. But the oceans are relatively intact ecosystems compared to land ecosystems. I suspect they would rebound faster for that reason and because of the sheer numbers of offspring many aquatic lifeforms have. On land, the population growth should be slower for the opposite reasons: the ecosystems are wrecked over a large area of the earth and most lifeforms - animalia, anyways - breed fairly slowly by comparison.

Of course, much depends on the speed (and type, but let's ignore that for a moment) of die-off. A sudden collapse of the human population would remove constraints on flora and fauna quickly and likely result in a relatively fast rebound of life. However, the ecosystems would need time to balance, so any stocks would not be reliable for some time. Still, say one to five years for a stable food supply excepting climate impacts. If die-off is slow, then one would expect the environment to be even more severely degraded by people taking desperate measures to simply survive. Billions of out of control people would spell a massive die-off of flora and fauna, too. With the additional environmental degradation, destruction of ecosystems and depletion of flora and fauna to minimal levels - and the extinction of many - it would take longer for ecosystems to balance and would help drive the human population to very low levels.

Or maybe not. I'm writing this with only my own thoughts to back it up, so...

Cheers

The 6C+, Snowball Earth and global nuclear war are the three scenarios I could see leading to the demise of the species.

Realistically, only the snowball earth scenario leads the the extinction of humans. The dieoff from +6C might be high, say 50% to 90%, but some groups would survive and eventually repopulate the earth. Similarly the global nuke war, would leave some areas survivable, especially isolated areas in the southern hemisphere (which would get much less radiation & short term global-winter type climate effects). Even in a high radiation scenario, humans would still be able to live and reproduce, even if cancer reduced the lifespan significantly. Chernoble, is a great boon to wildlife. Perhaps the life expectancy of a few of the animals is a bit shorter than it otherwise would be, but without lawyers suing other animals that has little impact on the survival of the species. Global nuclear war, is much less severe than even a small (say 2KM diam) asteroid impact.

ccpo, nice thoughts and no problem that they are just yours, others think like quite like that.
I'm working my hypothermia solution. I'm remote, and I fully expect an exodus to the cities. I think the general thought that people will head to the cities in hard times is accurate. Hypothermia draws resources from the extremities to keep the central core running as long as possible. Frostbite, fingers and toes go first. Got a few burns myself from the maine mountains.

My thought is that this is not a bad thing, I'm a toe planning to survive. Figure I've got a foot warmer hidden. While all the attention is targeted on the core, it actually frees up resources for those who are really remote. When these people head to the city , they aren't cutting wood, or shooting the wild turkeys.
Heck the wild turkeys take bird seed from my hand.

Government, military, will all be focused on the greater piles of people, the need to control runs strong. I'm very happy to see people leave. It frees up even more resources for me. It means the existing government, whatever that turns out to be, is very busy just getting food to them all. I'm small and insignificant, and they will never see me. They will be concentrated on the core and not the toes.

First fire tonite, cleaned the chimney today, stove black and new gasket. Don't really need it, it's just comforting to see the system work. About 38 degrees here now.

As I get older, I do get slower, next years wood is cut but it isn't all split yet. How many of you have 2 years of energy stored , for heating your house?

Do you even have any system in place that warms you without spending $$ and getting a delivery? And I also mean rely on the grid, paying your electric bill. How long can you rely on the job to give you $$ and how long can you rely on the grid? Your heat pump does not work without electricity. If you don't pay the bill you are SOL. Lots of BAU here and thinking that is cutting edge.

Peace to you all

Don in Maine

Don,due to a windstorm that dropped a couple 3 big fir trees next to my house.I have around 3-4 years split and stacked.And covered..

Lots of 5 and 6 gallon pails in the barn.

I am the senior Inspector type in my dept.25 below me,however ,[not the highest paid]The former ceo/owner told me once that I would be there when they shut the door,because the management knows who does the work[nice

I am 20 miles outside Portland,at the edge of the bedroom communities..between 2 old logging towns around 5000-10000 pop.I live at the end of a dead-end road,I know the neighbors,mostly old,retired,and self-sufficient.W/150 fruit trees,huge garden,spring,and such,I worry less than most.

I think we will make it until its not a issue to make your house payment.I have a feeling we will have some financial Armageddon in our not to distant future.

This sounds really weird.I have stopped obsessively focusing on this bailout/preps ect. and began to resume construction work on a small sailboat.I have been so absolutely outraged/spun up at the affairs of the last two weeks that I ,in the interest of my mental health,am doing something I enjoy,this allows me to shift my attention,and decompress a bit.

I still have a few things to finish up...some dental work,and new glasses,but I am better equipped than 99% of the people I know,and am simply living my life...

I refuse to let this bull#&$ screw up my head.

Yes, I, too, have had a bit of a shift over the last few days. Funny thing is, I anticipated financial meltdown during this time frame. Doesn't make it any easier. Until it happens, it's possible it won't, right? Until this happened, I had thought there was some small difference between Obama and McCain that made it worth voting for Obama. I was waiting for the election results to determine whether the US was a viable choice or not. That difference is now down to almost nothing, and the chance of us making our home in the US is getting quite small. Fortunately, we have options.

I find myself relatively disinterested in what happens next. I can't find much reason to think it will make much difference. My key event now is martial law. Will it come or not? Given how much in the pocket of the financiers Obama is, I no longer see his being elected as a possible trigger for ML, but see it as likely if either 1. the crisis deepens suddenly and/or 2. the people of the US miraculously begin to become more activist.

Cheers

Don,

Glad you are so well prepared. I, unfortunately, am not. There's land available, but I can't convince family a change is needed. We've a little money, but a very small amount when considering what we need to do. If worse comes to worst, we'll go to my brother's small orchard/farm, but the size isn't really sufficient.

It would be possible to buy a piece of land pretty much anywhere for a few thousand dollars and work the soil into good farmland ourselves over some years while putting in a straw bale or cob-type home, for example, but we'd be isolated from family, if so. No community to speak of. Not ideal, but a last resort.

My concerns for the remote hideaway approach are three: availability of what may become critical goods/services, such as medicine, medical care, tools, etc.; too small a group for self-defense; and the government going all Roman on us and confiscating land for food production. Forced/indentured/peasant food production. After hearing Martial Law being used as a threat to get the King Henry Paulson Bailout, Socialism and Welfare for Bankers and Financiers Act of 2008 passed, I have little doubt it will be invoked in the not distant future.

Best of luck,

Cheers

At least one of TOD staff members has expressed that concern. That those who know how to farm will end up as peasants. We aren't at "peak population control" yet; the US government is likely to have methods far superior to the Romans'.

We aren't at "peak population control" yet; the US government is likely to have methods far superior to the Romans'.

Not peak control, but peak technology. As we now know, the surge worked for at least two reasons, neither of which was the number of troops. One was the ethnic cleansing and the other was the new technologies they are using in Iraq. Wasn't the story about a melted bus in Baghdad posted here at TOD? We also know legislation for new-fangled Manzanar's is in play, that troops are now being prepared for use on US soil vs. US citizens.

Not a bad time to be an expat.

Cheers

I was thinking of more subtle technology. Like drugs and other mind control techniques.

Heck, look at how advertisers get us to enslave ourselves by spending money we don't have for things we don't need. All while using relatively benign methods. Methods may be less benign in the future.

we will be scavengers first,and the ones "rewarded" with survival may be those willing to eat there own kind.

If you would like to see how a post-apocalyptic world will look like you won't have long to wait. Cormac McCarthy's movie version of his post-apocalyptic thriller The Road will be released into theaters on November 28. Apparently apocalypse has hit the big time as it features A-list stars: Viggio Mortenson, Charlize Theron and Robert Duvall.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/movies/27road.html

What is Cormac McCarthys' rationale for the collapse? He never explains that in the Novel: Global Warming, Peak Oil, Nuclear Fallout...take your pick.

The director of “The Road” is an Australian, John Hillcoat, best known for “The Proposition,” and many crew members were Aussies as well. In conversation the “Mad Max” movies, the Australian post-apocalyptic thrillers starring Mel Gibson, came up a lot, and not favorably. The team saw those movies, set in a world of futuristic bikers, as a sort of antimodel: a fanciful, imaginary version of the end of the world, not the grim, all-too-convincing one that Mr. McCarthy had depicted.

“What’s moving and shocking about McCarthy’s book is that it’s so believable,” Mr. Hillcoat said. “So what we wanted is a kind of heightened realism, as opposed to the ‘Mad Max’ thing, which is all about high concept and spectacle. We’re trying to avoid the clichés of apocalypse and make this more like a natural disaster.” He imagined the characters less as “Mad Max”-ian freaks outfitted in outlandish biker wear, he added, than as homeless people. They wear scavenged, ill-fitting clothing and layers of plastic bags for insulation

The end of the world... Sounds like fun!

Joe

Gee...I read The Road some time ago. I can't recall a bimbo in the novel.

Though I must say Theron is nice to look at but?

This movie if true to the book will be a 'killer'. Scare the shit out of the audience.

The part about the gangs storing the others in cellars to feast off them at leisure was rather disturbing. But the real plotline was about the fathers very real attachment and concern for his son.

Overall it was overpowering and extremely dramatic. Not for the faint of heart.

Airdale

Charlize Theron only has a few scenes in flashback. In the novel the wife (Theron) had committed suicide before the events in the book take place.

The Road is wonderful and heart-wrenching. A heavy read. It knocks the mercury out through the top of the doomometer--fitting for the mood of our times. I hope and fear that the movie will stay true to the book.

In fact, they would be better off because they would actually have some money left over at the end of the month to pay for other things besides their mortgage.

Ultimately, that's true. But the transition is the hard part as millions of people go through the process of walking away from their homes and in many cases losing the only equity they've built up in their lives.

It's just like the steady-state economy. Anyone who seriously looks into our economic system soon sees that we need to reach a steady-state after we've shrunk it significantly (and our population). The problem is nobody knows how to get there from here without going through collapse first.

Yes. It's especially rough on retirees, or those close to it. Many of them were planning to fund their retirements off their homes. The house is often the only significant savings or investment they have.

Isn't the point of the "bailout" to keep home prices propped up long enough to let the biggest banks get out from under their own frothy investments by making the American Government either counterparty or outright owner of the toxic scum, and then, and only then, allow the prices to collapse catastrophically?

Banks are protected, life goes on with everyone still in their houses. Banks now own everything. Goldman Sachs calls the tunes, and Hank Paulson is Regent.

no. There is a provision in the bill that allows your tax payer money to buy bad assets in other countries with you seeing any benifet. The bill is not much of a bail out, but a engineered collapse because we will be taking on debt that no one will want to buy from us later.

If the government borrows too much to bail out those who borrowed too much, what will happen to the government?

Will it be credit tightening, or a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread?

Most of Congress was complaining about the lack of easy credit, the inflation may come later.

If people were willing to pay higher interest rates and had good credit; Warren Buffet might lend them money at 10% per annum plus shares of their company's stock. The public wants unlimited credit lines at low interest rates. It is not the government's job to give away free money out of the voters' treasury. I am not sure the taxpayer will be given good securities in exchange for the many billions Congress voted to pay out to failed financiers for their junk mortgage notes. The government might be representing special interests who cannot afford to sell at a lower price to the public at large.

If you raise depositers' interest rates on CD's, savings accounts, or money market funds, and raise the cost of borrowing money enough, the credit markets should balance between supply and demand.

If there is a liquidity crisis, where will the banks get the funds to offer these high interest rates. In addition, if we are in a recession and given the low to negative savings rates of American consumers, the interest rates required to bring about sufficient liquidity could be astronomical. Anyway, banks and companies need the ability to borrow to function in an efficient and productive manner. Right now, our credit markets are somewhere between frozen and virtually frozen. That is the whole conundrum. The U.S. government has chosen to address this issue by buying up toxic debt. However, I have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept that you solve a debt problem by creating more debt. Let's say we buy up all this toxic debt. What is to prevent this from happening again, especially if so much of our society's resources is devoted to paying off accumulating debt?

The bottom line is that we are in debt (death) spiral and no one really knows how to stop the descent.

If the bank will need funds they should offer better than 3% money market rates. If you give me 10% on my money, I will consider selling some stocks and putting money in your bank. As it is they offer rates that do not seem to compete with inflation rates and wonder why people do not want to save their money.

Isn't the point of the "bailout" to keep home prices propped up long enough to let the biggest banks get out from under their own frothy investments...

Probably. It's Enron Economics on a National scale. Andy Fastow is in jail for doing what everybody else in Investment Banking has been doing for the past 20 years: Moving bad investments to toxic portfolios and leaving the profitable ones on the books with the goal of inflating the stock values of these preferred investments. That's why we all invested in IRA's to prop up this game. Racketeers used to call it: keeping two sets of books. Now we, the lowly taxpayers, get to buy these overinflated (they won't even tell us what they might actually be worth) losers with the hope that somewhere down the road the economy will get better and this perrenial gravy train will roll into a bright yet green future.

In the long run the only way that home prices might stabilize is for wages and employment to rise-substantially. Chance of that happening: Zero

I have several wild-ass guesses where this might end up at but the one common denominator is most of us (self included) end up as serfs.

Joe

Don't you just love it--Treasury to Hire Asset Management Firms to Jumpstart Rescue.
Another "surge" of no-bid contracts.

Ed Forst, the former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive Paulson hired to head the transition team, started work last week and is charged with helping establish the new Office of Financial Stability.

``Paulson did not want to lose precious days waiting,'' said Howard Glaser, a former chief legal adviser of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Isn't it remarkable that all of the arsonists are now running around with fireman's hats on?

The house is often the only significant savings or investment they have.

Belatedly I realise there are a number of problems with that savings strategy ... one is that everybody has to have somewhere to live, so only a portion of any net wealth can ever be extracted ...

another is demographics, there aren't enough of the required younger people to buy the boomers houses ...

and another is that it is a very small proportion of the older people who have most of the non-property wealth that the boomers require to consume, so the younger people can't afford the price required to extract the wealth originally stored, the only way they will get to own it is by leaving it to them in a will as a gift.

In my experience houses consume wealth on a more or less continous basis, they certainly don't create wealth.

Apart from all that it is a good plan, I wish I had thought it through a bit more carefully 30 years or so ago! :-(

Equity from the house as a retirement plan was fundamentally a kind of pyramid scheme. The idea was that one would buy a big house to raise a family, and then downsize for retirement, cashing out the delta between the big family house and the retirement house. However, that only works so long as there are at least as many people in subsequent generations to buy your big house as there are big houses to sell.

The other big source of retirement income was supposed to be the 401K. Of course, boomers (to the extent they had any money in their 401Ks) are watching that money shrink. A friend of my wife's was complaining that the fund she'd said up for her daughter's college expenses was going down faster than she could put money into it, and that was before the last downdraft in the markets. Peak-to-trough, we will see at least a 60% decline in the markets. It could be more. The decline in the Great Depression was nearly 90%.

I look at my parents, who retired with pensions, good health insurance, and reliable social security, and wonder how I'm going to get by when I'm their age with none of that. I think the US is facing a humanitarian disaster as the boomers get old and feeble. Many people assume they'll be able to get jobs at McDonalds, but I don't think so. How many old farts is McDonalds going to need? The generations after mine are all up to their eyeballs in debt. I don't see how they're going to take care of their parents & grandparents.

Would-be retirees you mean.

Would-be retirees you mean.

Unfortunately many will be forced into retirement involuntarily, either by layoff, or because of ill health. The more fortunate (boomers like myself), may be able to work longer than intended, and perhaps will skate through with enough.

There's going to be a lot of competition for Greeter jobs at Wal-Mart.

Not just from their homes. Im a boomer, and have more in investments, than my home (now 99+% piad off), but both stores of apparent wealth have been suffering severe declines of late. Likewise for those for those with defined benefit retirement programs. A market decline like we've seen recently will put many of these plans so far underwater that they won't be able to meet their obligations. For those plans that can survive, benefit accrual rates have been cut so far, that essentially all of the current contributions go toward shoring up promises already made, and the younger workers are simply throwing their contributions into a black hole.

As an example of the hit to retires. I had a portion of my portfolio in individual bonds, a rather common thing for retirees, who do this to make their protfolio less volatile (i.e. this was standard practice to make investments low risk during retirement). Well the bonds I have are now worth on average 68 cents on the dollar. They have done even worse than the stock portion of the portfolio.

The problem is nobody knows how to get there from here without going through collapse first.

aangel - I think a lot of people (more every day) are coming to the conclusion that the present system is un-reformable. For that group what is up for debate is whether a fast collapse would be preferable to a slow grinding one and what should we doing in the meantime to prepare for that eventuality?

Joe

I guess the answer is this:

4% of the U.S. grows food, 96% percent sells (or makes) stuff. Maybe 10% of the stuff is important. The other 90% is not and this 90% is intimately tied to consuming vast amounts of energy and vast amounts of financial credit.

So... as we tumble into severe recession, what will the folks who sell Barbies, cholesterol drugs, iPods, frozen waffles, and database marketing applications do?

It's convenient to peg this to houses, but the problem is much more profound. Without credit, stuff can't exist. Without stuff, overshoot is obvious.

I think the answer to your question "what will the folks who sell Barbies, cholesterol drugs, iPods, frozen waffles, and database marketing applications do? is contained in Mike Davis' work, principally, Planet of Slums. People will adopt a very low-energy form of life, in general. The more ambitious and energetic individuals will cause local havoc. Everything will sink into a morass of excrement -- because there will be no energy (of any sort-- hydrocarbon, financial, moral) available to clean up the mess. Entropy triumphs.

Presumably, the rich will tolerate this then, as they do now, because they think they can go somewhere else.

I second the reading of Davis, one of the clear thinkers of our time.
And teaching at UC Irvine, ground zero for delusion and madness.

Cf. UCLA prof Edward Soja's urban studies book 'Postmetropolis,' he talks about Orange County as the center of the international 'scamscape'...that was a decade ago already ha.

http://www.amazon.com/Postmetropolis-Critical-Studies-Cities-Regions/dp/...

In support of your estimates, the Rand Corporation back in the 1960s did a study for the Feds in which it estimated that the unemployment rate could reach 90% before civilization began to fail.

Now WHY the Feds wanted that study is left to speculation.

You gotta wonder how they would figure that out.

And even if it's correct...is it still true today? That was 50 years ago. There are a lot more single people living alone now, and more single parents and small families living isolated from their extended families.

Hello Leanan,

IMO, it is inevitable for families to start going postPeak tribal; for extended families to come together on one property.

Please plan ahead: If the house is going to be too crowded--> plan ahead by having a small, used trailer or used cabover camper on the property. It is no big deal to run an extension cord to power this shelter, and the self-contained toilet can be emptied as required into the sewer cleanout, but more hopefully added to a compost pit.

These shelters are not inherently super-insulated from the factory, but the money you save buyng used should help you park it underneath a cheap suncover to save on A/C costs, or inside a garage or barn to save on winter heating costs.

If an emergency develops, such as the recent hurricanes in TX/LA: temporarily evacuating, then camping out in these rigs is much cheaper than staying in a hotel. The teens and adults can sleep in tents or the other family vehicles, but those babies, sick, or elderly, sensitive to temperature extremes can stay in the genset-powered, thermostat controlled A/C camper interior. If an RV-campground has the hookups for water, sewage, and electricity--even better.

I get the feeling that many TODers that post are wealthy enough to be well on their way to having Eco-Tech shelters. This is more aimed at those TODers, like Leanan and I, plus many TOD-lurkers that are much further down the wealth scale and have no property.

Recall TODer Fleam, who unfortunately got trapped as a vulnerable and exposed 'rabbit', instead of having the minimal resources of a decent and mobile camping 'turtle shell'.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

IMO, it is inevitable for families to start going postPeak tribal; for extended families to come together on one property.

Maybe eventually, but now, many live far from their families...and they may not be able to afford to move.

Families are also much smaller now than they used to be.

And no way am I buying a camper. Big waste of money from a peak oil perspective.

Hello Leanan,

Thxs for responding. I respect your decision as you know your personal situation far better than me [also none of my business, too].

But, please consider: let's say you are paying $500/month rent to a landlord = $6,000/year. Six grand can buy an excellent used camper or trailer, then if you can park it on a friend's lot close to your work for $100/month: you help your friend keep their property, plus you save $400/month to maybe later buy your own Eco-Tech property with other family members. In the meantime: it's a piece of cake if you wish to 'turtle' outside the city for an emergency or just to go vacationing cheaply. If the power goes out: fire up the genset for A/C, or propane heater so both you and your landlord friend can be comfortable, instead of being in a life-threatening too cold or too hot/humid extreme.

I know that most women are fearful of the skillset of jockeying a trailer, but driving a cabover camper is no big deal if you don't forget the rig's extra height. You earlier said that you don't drive much, which is good, because it is easy to pop-on or pop-off a cabover from a pickup so that you can get the best potential MPG. Then you can use the pickup to haul firewood, manures, insulation, other construction materials, etc, for your and your landlord's mutual benefit. I have made lots of extra, tax-free cash over the years renting my labor and pickup out when the opportunity presented itself.

I have yet to hear of a Chevy Corvette owner earning money hauling fresh manure in his interior seating and storage areas.

Six grand can buy an excellent used camper or trailer,

Not around here it can't. At least, not yet. I expect that may change.

then if you can park it on a friend's lot close to your work for $100/month:

I live closer to my work than any of my friends. I expect they will be begging me to let them crash at my place. One has already been hinting about it.

I know that most women are fearful of the skillset of jockeying a trailer,

You gotta be kidding. It's not 1980 any more.

Then you can use the pickup to haul firewood, manures, insulation, other construction materials, etc, for your and your landlord's mutual benefit.

If things get that bad, I won't be hauling anything, because I won't be buying gas.

Bob;
Speaking out of true concern for a fellow member of the TOD communinity, what happened to Fleam? I haven't seen him about here for a while now. I know he was planning on heading back to the Bay area on his motorcycle, but I must admit to being a bit afraid for him and his reduced circumstances. Did he make it back to California? With all that has been happening of late, I wonder how many of us will end up like our brother Fleam.

SubKommander Dred

Ha ! Fleam must be thinking of TOD - I was thinking of him just a few days ago. I hope all is well.

Sad to say, but I have no idea what happened to Fleam, but I echo the sentiments of others in hoping he is coping ok.

She said she was planning to return to SF for awhile, didn't she? She was going to ride her bike or something. Maybe she's en route, and without Internet access.

Fleam was a she?!?

This is game plan for brother and others..small mobile,for privacy"big house"for cooking&shower ect

I still do not understand why the reduction is housing prices is necessarily a bad thing.

Easy. Starting in the late 1960s, politicians began promising voters a shiny new Jetsons future where said voters would enjoy the apotheosis of faux-Marxist "sharing" and "fairness" in a new Earthly kindergarten paradise. Princely wages would accrue to all for pretending to work just ten or twenty hours a week at Total Zero Moron Jobs, such as sitting around spectating idly while robots plunk quarter panels onto cars, and setting fire to the production line once in a blue moon for entertainment to relieve the boredom. The new magical self-replenishing common pot would enable all, without discrimination on the basis of shiftlessness, sloth, or rank stupidity, to become overfed owners of vast pseudo-country palaces, shiny flying cars, and great gouts of stuff.

That was Plan A. In practice it never served more than a chosen privileged few in ultra-stodgy, highly unionized industries as in Detroit. Not that it mattered, an even easier Plan B emerged: voters would simply levitate themselves into prosperity without even the "unfair" bother of pretending to earn it. Liar loan, interest only, pay the mortgage and buy lots of stuff out of the magical perpetual increase in value. Oh, enablers would crawl out of the woodwork and become fantastically and enviably rich by flogging the worthless financial paper, but for as long as voters could live far, far beyond their means, said voters would cork up their envy and enjoy the ride.

Well, it turns out life isn't "fair" after all. Plan A failed almost from the start and Plan B went the way of all Ponzi schemes. And that $700 billion is only a down payment on what will vanish into that faux-Marxist rathole of pretense that voters can "share" in and consume what they do not produce. Sic transit gloria mundi.

Paul-
I like your analysis, but you need to lose the "faux-Marxist" view. Marx main emphasis in Capital was production, and the difference between user and exchange value, and how this comes about applying dialectical materialism.
You are closer to his view than you probably realize.
As a political system put in place by a Leninist world view, you are probably correct.

I started with just "Marxist"; that's why it became "faux-Marxist". But the results of the political system were nonetheless horrific (and Marx wasn't around to critique them.)

Bitter, bitter.

The party is over, most of the guests--those that are conscious-- have gone home, the beer is all drunk, and a lot of it is spilled all over the floor. Cigarette butts are crushed out and piled up everywhere, and a few are still smoldering in the funky bedsheets where a few drunken sots are still trying to get it on. The vomit stench is overwhelming.

Time to clean up the mess.

Life is not "fair" for individuals, but summed over a whole society there is a sort of rough justice.

Life being fair reminds me of this:

Bill Gates 11 Rules for Life

This was part of a speech given to students at Mt. Whitney High School in Visalia, California.

Rule 1. Life is not fair, get used to it.
Rule 2. The world won't care about self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yoourself.
Rule 3. You will not make $40,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.
Rule 4. If you think your teacher is tough; wait until you get a boss.
Rule 5. Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your grandparents had a different word for burger flipping - They called it opportunity.
Rule 6. If you mess up, it's not yuour parents fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.
Rule 7. Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes.
Rule 8. Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life has not. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades . . . This doesn't resemble ANYTHING in real life.
Rule 9. Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested in finding yourself. Do that on your own time.
Rule 10. Television is NOT real life. In real life, people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.
Rule 11. Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.

He must have said that a long time ago, if a car phone was supposed to be impressive.

Around here, higher food and energy costs are starting to bite. Home prices have held up pretty well, but several of my acquaintances are having trouble paying their mortgages. Some of them made the mistake of getting "exotic" mortgages, but at least one got a fixed-rate. She's generally pretty responsible with money, but just wasn't expecting fuel costs to rise so quickly. Her husband is a contractor, and drives a huge van loaded with tools a hundred miles a day or more.

She's cut back just about everywhere she can, and doesn't know what else to cut. I suggested she ditch the cell phones. (She has three children, each with their own cell phone. Costs about $40 each per month.) You'd think I suggested she save money by not feeding her kids. Apparently, it's absolutely out of the question for pre-teen kids to not have cell phones these days.

The cell phone cost is one thing, but objective researchers conclude that pre-teens should not be using cell phones much because of the brain cancer link (supposedly it is more dangerous as the physical size of the brain is still growing). IMO down the road the cell phone/brain cancer link is going to be a huge story (naturally the USA guv is working hard on behalf of money keeping the public unaware).

I'm surprised you didn't mention this nugget:

Rule 8. Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life has not. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades . . . This doesn't resemble ANYTHING in real life.

in the context of the bailout.

According to Gates' rules, Linux does not exist.

Bill Gates never said this. Check Snopes.

Gates has also seldom made any overt statements about his political views, but the little he has said shows him to be a centrist liberal.

And what, sir, do 90% of our capitalists produce? Crap, lies, fantasies, wars, and credit.

Don't blame the workers for noticing their bosses were idiots who started an entirely Republican depression, unless you want to argue that the pre-FDR distribution of wealth was fair because the rich performed the vital function of being brutal, often murderous bullies who sicced the National Guard on strikers about twice a year for 80 years, thus excusing the fact that they were still idiots. Seems to me that what we have now far more closely resembles 1929 than anything that can be blamed on "Sharing".

Seems to me that what we have now far more closely resembles 1929 than anything that can be blamed on "Sharing".
Bingo. That's precisely the problem with living in our kindergarten - the results don't turn out to be what the idle theorizers anticipate from their ivory towers. The free-ride car ran out of gas because nobody felt the need to produce gas or anything else any more. (Note, the resemblances between speculation-triggered panics will be somewhat superficial - one might also look at 1873 and others, not only 1929.)

I still do not understand why the reduction is housing prices is necessarily a bad thing.

You are quite right, there is nothing instrinsic in high home prices that make them a plus for the economy. Rapidly rising home prices, on the other hand, worked like a kind of Ponzi scheme, seemingly generating wealth out of thin air. That allowed many, to beieve they were richer than they really were, are therefore for a nation to live well beyond its means. While, it is true that Ponzi schemes generate -or detsroy no wealth, they do redostribute wealth. Usually from the unwary, to the unethical. And when they collapse, a whole lot of losers start trying to get their loses back, causing a lot of unproductive effort fighting over the redistributed wealth, and usually eroding trust in both the system, and in one's fellow humans.

Interstingly, the worst affected place seems to be Iceland. Their banks had been offering the highest interest rates for suposedly risk free savings. They were paying for this by making leveraged bets on the same sort of toxic securities as has sunk other banks. Supposedly Icelandic banks hold six times as much leveraged debt, as the countries GDP!

This bailout will just help perpetuate that misallocation.

I'm not so sure about that. I have a gnawing suspicion that this is the Bush Administrations' last f#ck-you before they walk out the door.

This time there won't be any trickle down so we can forget about suburbia.

If they walk out the door.