# 2012 Predictions



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Obama or McCain will be with us for four years minimum, barring the usual unusal. Who do people see running in 2012, again depending on who is POTUS? I'm not so interested in the Hilarys, but people I not on my radar worth watching.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I don't expect anyone new, period.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

But no one even knew who Obama was four years ago. I don't know who they will be, but there will be new faces.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> But no one even knew who Obama was four years ago. I don't know who they will be, but there will be new faces.


That is not quite right FB. Obama got coronated almost four years ago at the '04 Dem convention. Hillary should have read the writing on the wall then.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Isn't the world supposed to end in 2012?

-spence


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I would look out for Bobby Jindal as a future presidential candidate in 2012 but more likely in 2016, assuming Obama wins 2 terms. He is certainly a rising star in the republican party after 2 terms in Congress and now governor of Louisiana. I don't buy the talk of him being McCain's veep, 37 is just too young and his inexperience wouldn't mesh well with the party's claim that Obama isn't experienced enough to be president. In 8 years he will be 45 and a 2 term governor. He is also very centrist and well spoken. Assuming Obama wins I would look out for John Thune in 2012. A good looking, young, white, conservative, evangelical senator from South Dakota, he could be the conservative base's answer to 4 years of a liberal black president. It should be very interesting.

And yes the Mayans believed the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012. If you look at the things they predicted with their advanced knowledge of astronomy, it is actually quite spooky.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Spence said:


> Isn't the world supposed to end in 2012?
> 
> -spence


Yes, in December.

But before that happens the Republicans will be running John McCain against President Obama, convinced they'll get it right the second time. However, Americans have stopped coming to the polls.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I agree that there's no way the GOP would run Jindal as VP this term; he's only a little more experienced than Obama.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think Barry will be run out of office in 2012 with the economy in shambles. The only thing that will prevent this is if he gets some good economic advisers and breaks most of his campaign promises. Which of course, will get him crucified by the people that elected him looking for the second coming of Robin Hood.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

While Jindal is great, he won't be the vp selection - it would be a waste. He has an amazing story though.


----------



## CPVS (Jul 17, 2005)

What about Christopher Cox? If he isn't McCain's VP, surely he stands a chance of getting back into the fray on some higher level. He was (for a Californian) a very conservative Republican in the House for many years, was very strong on foreign policy, defense, and intelligence issues (the Cox Report on Chinese intelligence is named for his investigative committee) and he's smart enough to run the Securities and Exchange Commission. Higher things, perhaps?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

O.K. I'm hijacking my own thread. As an archaeologist, I can give you dozens of 'end of the world' calenders and end time precursors. I had this one prof who was big on Carlos Castaneda,the Mayan calender and freshmen. He also had a calender from his one trip to Tahiti on sabbatical, with topless polynesian girls who's great-great-grandmothers probably posed for Gaugain. He loved that calender so much he refused to change it in his office. This made for some interesting conflicts in his life, including my successfull handing in a late term paper on an utterly junk science proposition he loved after three coeds showing up at his bungalow the previous night. One, a bit psychotic stabbed him in a delicate anatomical member with a knife stolen from the dormitory food service. That evening I was watching Koyyanisquatsi with my summer excavations partner, two deep dish pizzas and some rum and cokes and the dismembered notes and references of this useless exercise getting nowhere. I went to class feeling doomed and saw the note announcing his absence for a week. I threw it together over the next seven days and received an A.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Er - Uh - Er - 

(I didn't watch the convention, so I guess at least I had not heard of him four years ago.)

I stand corrected. (Cuts hole in carpet and slides self underneath it.)

Sorry about that, Chief!


----------



## CPVS (Jul 17, 2005)

Kav said:


> O.K. I'm hijacking my own thread. As an archaeologist, I can give you dozens of 'end of the world' calenders and end time precursors. I had this one prof who was big on Carlos Castaneda,the Mayan calender and freshmen. He also had a calender from his one trip to Tahiti on sabbatical, with topless polynesian girls who's great-great-grandmothers probably posed for Gaugain. He loved that calender so much he refused to change it in his office. This made for some interesting conflicts in his life, including my successfull handing in a late term paper on an utterly junk science proposition he loved after three coeds showing up at his bungalow the previous night. One, a bit psychotic stabbed him in a delicate anatomical member with a knife stolen from the dormitory food service. That evening I was watching Koyyanisquatsi with my summer excavations partner, two deep dish pizzas and some rum and cokes and the dismembered notes and references of this useless exercise getting nowhere. I went to class feeling doomed and saw the note announcing his absence for a week. I threw it together over the next seven days and received an A.


First of all, that's hilarious.

Second, congratulations on 4,000 posts.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

Jeb Bush could run in 2012. He's much better than his stupid brother.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Bishop of Briggs said:


> Jeb Bush could run in 2012. He's much better than his stupid brother.


I think Dubya has assured that his family is finished in national politics for a generation or two.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I think Barry will be run out of office in 2012 with the economy in shambles. The only thing that will prevent this is if he gets some good economic advisers and breaks most of his campaign promises. Which of course, will get him crucified by the people that elected him looking for the second coming of Robin Hood.


I think Obama will be able to get away with anything because the media will give him a total pass and not say anything. The past eight years, if Bush sneezed the media would say it was a precursor to some violation of our civil rights or that Bush was causing global warming by his CO2 exhalation. Contrast this to the near silence that existed during most of Clinton's administration.

For example, when he was first running, I heard Clinton come out with a speech making fun of Bush the Elder's "no new taxes" pledge, and then he (Clinton) promised he (Clinton) wouldn't raise taxes like Bush did. (That's when I decided Clinton was a total BS'er.) Of course, that was literally the first thing he did when he took office. Did the media ever call him on it? Did they ever play that video clip? Can anyone even find that video clip today? No, total silence.

Basically, anything Obama will do with be either ignored or defended by the mainstream media.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Beresford:

What you say certainly has merit. I mean, people have been telling me for the last seven years how rotten our economy is due to Dubya. Proving, once again, that if you say something long enough, it will probably happen, and you can ascribe the blame to where you want it to go.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

In 2012, I plan to be surviving on insects, seeds and the last of the beef jerky that I manage to dig out from the rubble.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Any chance you forum members in London can help me get some Olympic tickets? If those games will be the last ones, I might as well try to see them in person.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> In 2012, I plan to be surviving on insects, seeds and the last of the beef jerky that I manage to dig out from the rubble.


Are you always so optimistic?


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

I wouldn't be surprised if Evan Bayh and J.C. Watts try to run


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Bishop of Briggs said:


> Jeb Bush could run in 2012. He's much better than his stupid brother.


Actually, that's not true. Jeb is not as well-liked as W is by people that have to deal with him and certainly not regarded as being the "smart one." Jeb is a royal PITA to deal with, less diplomatic than W, and he has a penchant pissing off people on both sides of a negotiation. Jeb is going no where. He'd burn a bridge at three ends if it was possible.

I think the Bushes are hoping McCain will pick Romney and win, run one term, and then Romney & Jeb will run in 2012. I'm so sick of Jeb. I'm telling you W is the better one.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Beresford:
> 
> What you say certainly has merit. I mean, people have been telling me for the last seven years how rotten our economy is due to Dubya. Proving, once again, that if you say something long enough, it will probably happen, and you can ascribe the blame to where you want it to go.


Yep and trying telling them the economy was good until the last year and half when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over.

My neighbor is one of these cases. He gripes about how his house was worth $400K in 2006 and now it is worth $250K. Then he blames the last eight years of Bush.

Of course, he bought the house in 2003 for $215K.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think the Bushes are hoping McCain will pick Romney and win, run one term, and then Romney & Jeb will run in 2012. I'm so sick of Jeb. I'm telling you W is the better one.


Interesting about Romney. I believe that the republicans rallied around McCain in mid February when it was thought Hillary would easily win the dem. nomination. McCain would have taken a lot of moderate dems away from Hillary, but now that he is facing Obama it is a whole new game. In my opinion, Romney would have been a much better candidate against Obama. Romney is a little wishy washy, but he has the resume to give the economy a kick in the rear.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> Interesting about Romney. I believe that the republicans rallied around McCain in mid February when it was thought Hillary would easily win the dem. nomination. McCain would have taken a lot of moderate dems away from Hillary, but now that he is facing Obama it is a whole new game. In my opinion, Romney would have been a much better candidate against Obama. Romney is a little wishy washy, but he has the resume to give the economy a kick in the rear.


Agreed. And for me; the wishy-washy stuff is of no consequence (social issues).


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Are you always so optimistic?


A world where we are free to scavenge for food _*is *_the optimistic version.

Do you want to hear the pessimistic version?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Phinn said:


> A world where we are free to scavenge for food _*is *_the optimistic version.
> 
> Do you want to hear the pessimistic version?


Fantastico! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I think Barry will be run out of office in 2012 with the economy in shambles.


I think this will be the most likely scenario...the soft minded will only be able to chant "four legs good, two legs bad"---oops, er...um "change" for so long before they realize that the possibility of standing in a bread-line was not the change they were hoping for...expect a huge backlash against obama about halfway through his first term...

I still kinda believe that 4 years from now Romney is gonna look like this country's saving grace...but we'll see...who knows, maybe McCain can pull off a real stunner...


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> I think this will be the most likely scenario...the soft minded will only be able to chant "four legs good, two legs bad"---oops, er...um "change" for so long before they realize that the possibility of standing in a bread-line was not the change they were hoping for...expect a huge backlash against obama about halfway through his first term...
> 
> I still kinda believe that 4 years from now Romney is gonna look like this country's saving grace...but we'll see...who knows, maybe McCain can pull off a real stunner...


As an independent who doesn't think Obama is perfect or McCain is that horrible, I still don't buy the view that Obama will run the country into the ground because he is young and a democrat. His fiscal policies may be way to the left, but I imagine he will appoint very intelligent cabinet members who will advise hime to "alter" many of his positions. The idea of people waiting in a bread line in 2 years belongs on Fat Boy Limbaugh's show and not an intelligent (so far) thread like this.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> As an independent who doesn't think Obama is perfect or McCain is that horrible, I still don't buy the view that Obama will run the country into the ground because he is young and a democrat. His fiscal policies may be way to the left, but I imagine he will appoint very intelligent cabinet members who will advise hime to "alter" many of his positions. The idea of people waiting in a bread line in 2 years belongs on Fat Boy Limbaugh's show and not an intelligent (so far) thread like this.


The bread line was metaphorical for the full on financial ruin that I (and many others) feel obama will steer this country towards, I would think such an _intelligent_ poster such as yourself would have been able to understand that...and this country being in the clutches of a full blown recession within the next two years is in no way an impractical fear...especially not if we have a borderline-socalist at the helm...

And as far as obama choosing a competent cabinet...let's look at some of the other carachters that he's chosen to surround himself with, his track record isnt that good in that sense...it's gonna be an interesting four years no matter who gets elected...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

You haven't seen any breadlines, because the PO-lice make sure all the recently divorced women sleeping in their cars, homeless veterans, mentaly ill and countless others move along until they roll like a marble into all the lovely pockets half hidden on this equal playing field.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I am definitely one of the ones who feel we could be headed for a small scale depression in the coming years. But the damage that will be done and has been done deals with the housing market and not any candidate from either party. Everyone should look at housing prices in the U.S. from 1900 to 2008 and take a look at the average prices historically and especially the jump that begins in 1997 or so. If you believe in efficient markets, then you know that what goes up must come down. This chart below illustrates what Im getting at, and it is quite scary.








[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> I am definitely one of the ones who feel we could be headed for a small scale depression in the coming years. But the damage that will be done and has been done deals with the housing market and not any candidate from either party. Everyone should look at housing prices in the U.S. from 1900 to 2008 and take a look at the average prices historically and especially the jump that begins in 1997 or so. If you believe in efficient markets, then you know that what goes up must come down. This chart below illustrates what Im getting at, and it is quite scary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh aggreed...I actually think that the banks should take the biggest share of the blame for the slumping economy...I just fear that a candidate like obama will be in over his head, I honestly dont think he'd be able to deal with such a mess and I really dont think he's equipped to make it better, and in that sense I believe he'd be leading us down the wrong path...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> I am definitely one of the ones who feel we could be headed for a small scale depression in the coming years. But the damage that will be done and has been done deals with the housing market and not any candidate from either party. Everyone should look at housing prices in the U.S. from 1900 to *2008* and take a look at the average prices historically and especially the jump that begins in 1997 or so. If you believe in efficient markets, then you know that what goes up must come down. This chart below illustrates what Im getting at, and it is quite scary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


FWIW, that only goes to 2005.They have already come way down.

I'm not sure what index that is (OFHEO?), but the Case-Shiller was around 215 and is now around 172.

Here's the OFHEO appreciation by quarter recently


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Prices are now about where they were in 2003 on that chart. Still a long way to go before this thing bottoms out.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> As an independent who doesn't think Obama is perfect or McCain is that horrible, I still don't buy the view that Obama will run the country into the ground because he is young and a democrat.


I agree, but if he is president, he will be a young Democrat with old Democrats in control of both houses of Congress. I am not a rabid partisan, but I absolutely believe it to be moronic to hand control of both the legislative and executive branches to one party. Regardless of which group of clowns is in control, you can be assured that assinine legislation will be passed to appease the fringes.

2012 is too far out for a prediction, but I do believe that if Obama wins in the fall, it is the best chance for the Republicans to take back the legislature in 2010. Think Clinton and 1994, with less friendliness.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> Prices are now about where they were in 2003 on that chart. Still a long way to go before this thing bottoms out.


I'll take that bet for $1.

As you said, we are back within the 2003 prices. I hear a lot of people talking about buying multiple homes now (we are too). There's a lot of psychological bargains out there. There's a block of three houses we would love to buy. They listed for $499-$510 and are now asking $225.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

This is certainly a market where the rich can get richer...much, much richer actually. Being 24, I don't quite have the cash to take advantage. Perhaps I will get my chance one day.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> If you believe in efficient markets, then you know that what goes up must come down.


That is a false statement. All efficient market theory states is that the price of an asset already has factored in all known information needed for accurate pricing. Basically, that arbitrage opportunities will be limited. It says nothing about prices of any asset necessarily falling merely because there has been a price run up. Either the supply or demand line (or both) could be permanently shifted.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

While the generic delivery of that statement may make it false, it is certainly not a false statement in regards to this situation. No factors have caused a legitimate rising of price as we have seen in the last 10 years. Building costs and population have remained historically steady. Perhaps you can strike that statement and replace it with "efficient markets don't offer many opportunites for arbitrage, and when they do they will eventually be corrected." I would venture to say that is a fairly accurate view of the future.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> While the generic delivery of that statement may make it false, it is certainly not a false statement in regards to this situation. No factors have caused a legitimate rising of price as we have seen in the last 10 years. Building costs and population have remained historically steady. Perhaps you can strike that statement and replace it with "efficient markets don't offer many opportunites for arbitrage, and when they do they will eventually be corrected." I would venture to say that is a fairly accurate view of the future.


I'm going to say that the overall population and the size of the market (number of consumers) are two different things. The number of consumers has greatly increased in the last 10, 5, and 1 year(s) as it will continue to do going forward because of development and extension of India and China. The increase in prices overlaps this growth. Look at concrete for example. There also seems to be a broad misconception that efficient markets exist without interference. The corn prices are an example of that. Are the corn prices the result of inefficiency in the market? Using your own "test" are we seeing arbitrage opportunities in corn?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

agnash said:


> I agree, but if he is president, he will be a young Democrat with old Democrats in control of both houses of Congress. I am not a rabid partisan, but I absolutely believe it to be moronic to hand control of both the legislative and executive branches to one party. Regardless of which group of clowns is in control, you can be assured that assinine legislation will be passed to appease the fringes.
> 
> 2012 is too far out for a prediction, but I do believe that if Obama wins in the fall, it is the best chance for the Republicans to take back the legislature in 2010. Think Clinton and 1994, with less friendliness.


If Obama wins 2008 and the Republicans come back and win majorities in 2010, do you think Obama will win re-election in 2012 since we would have a split government?

I see this just going back and forth. I would actually prefer a conservative southern Democrat governor to be President (I don't have one in mind) and a Republican congress - aka Bill Clinton. With Obama I think we are cooked. McCain too for that matter. I think the whole lot will be replaced for two or three cycles.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

agnash said:


> I agree, but if he is president, he will be a young Democrat with old Democrats in control of both houses of Congress. I am not a rabid partisan, but I absolutely believe it to be moronic to hand control of both the legislative and executive branches to one party. Regardless of which group of clowns is in control, you can be assured that assinine legislation will be passed to appease the fringes.
> 
> 2012 is too far out for a prediction, but I do believe that if Obama wins in the fall, it is the best chance for the Republicans to take back the legislature in 2010. Think Clinton and 1994, with less friendliness.


.

That's what happened to the Republicans when President Bush took office - they became large government.



nolan50410 said:


> As an independent who doesn't think Obama is perfect or McCain is that horrible, I still don't buy the view that Obama will run the country into the ground because he is young and a democrat. His fiscal policies may be way to the left, but I imagine he will appoint very intelligent cabinet members who will advise hime to "alter" many of his positions. The idea of people waiting in a bread line in 2 years belongs on Fat Boy Limbaugh's show and not an intelligent (so far) thread like this.


They won't? He has proposed $3 trillion in new programs, and wants to raise taxes by $1 trillion to compensate. Also, raising the capital gains tax actually decreases the revenue from that tax.

And if you believe he will pick intelligent, and non-partisan people for his cabinet, just look at who he has as policy advisers for his campaign.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> A world where we are free to scavenge for food _*is *_the optimistic version.
> 
> Do you want to hear the pessimistic version?


What a bummer. The lefties and greens say global warming will destroy the planet, and the libertarians and anarchists say we will soon be scavenging for food. Tomorrow I will ride my bicycle to the store to stock up on food and ammunition just to be safe...in recyclable packaging of course.

After that, I may put on my tin foil helmet and run around my neighborhood yelling "the sky is falling!".


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Global warming will destroy the planet AS WE KNOW IT, but not destroy it completely. We will have a system grossly denuded of biodiversity with altered weather patterns, the already started collapse of some ocean currents and accelerated desertification. This will translate back to our self centered interests as a much meaner existence for 'wise man' with loss of our social, artistic and scientific advances. It may indeed mean our extinction or genetic evolution into something far different. But earth will go on, and in geologic time scrape us away like so many others and create new lifeforms. The cockroaches ( the other ones) will still be here.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> What a bummer. The lefties and greens say global warming will destroy the planet, and the libertarians and anarchists say we will soon be scavenging for food. Tomorrow I will ride my bicycle to the store to stock up on food and ammunition just to be safe...in recyclable packaging of course.


Meanwhile, I will be stocking up on good Scotch, Pinot Noirs, cigars, Pringles, Wheat Thins, Tolberlone, Humbolt Fog cheese and a wide variety of meats. You only go around once, I figure I might as well go out with a big smile on my face whilst we all tap dance on the proverbial timebomb.

Seriously, I don't get too worked up anymore with dire predictions of our future. The human race, if anything, has proven itself to be resilient as hell. Call me a Pollyanna, but I learned long ago to abide by two main tenets for my life:

*Few things are rarely as bad as they seem
*Most things have a way of working themselves out


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

*TMMKC*

Worthy things to stock up on. I was visiting Churchill Canada. I got into this big old vehicle that made monster trucks look wimpy. The guide warned everyone to keep "hands and head inside the vehicle at all times." First time I heard that was the Jungleride at Disneyland and later in Manila because motorbike thieves ( by urban lore) would cut off your finger or hand for a ring or watch. And after a short, very teeth shaking ride you saw them. And they came up to the bus, rose up and peered into the windows that seemed so second story tall before. Later I was on my Icebreaker heading south and listened in on a radio conversation off Mexico. Several charterboats fell on a huge school of tuna and began taking them by the dozens. Finally one skipper suggested they stop and save a few. the other skippers mocked him, one even saying " I missed out on the buffalo, these are MINE." This website is devoted to the finer details of dressing well. I argue Polar Bears, Redwood trees and Tuna are just as worthy, double sided cufflinks in a vulgar valued society that would have us in flip flops.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I may put on my tin foil helmet and run around my neighborhood yelling "the sky is falling!"





> *Few things are rarely as bad as they seem
> *Most things have a way of working themselves out


You might be right. When the Roman Empire's money economy collapsed due to several generations of currency manipulation and devaluation (combined with escalating military, welfare and bureaucracy expenses and pensions), finished off with a sizable dose of cronyism and price controls, it only took 1000 years or so for Europe to become literate again.

And its not like the inflation and price controls under Chiang Kai-Shek led to any major devastation, like a revolution or mass starvation. And even if it did, millions died, but millions more lived, right?

Civilizations never collapse and governments never fail. It may have happened to the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, about a hundred European dynasties during the aforementioned 1000 years, the Holy Roman Empire, the Dutch, Spanish and French Empires, the Ottoman Empire, the USSR, the ....

But it can't happen here. We're different. We're immune from the laws of economics.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Phinn said:


> You might be right. When the Roman Empire's money economy collapsed due to several generations of currency manipulation and devaluation (combined with escalating military, welfare and bureaucracy expenses and pensions), finished off with a sizable dose of cronyism and price controls, it only took 1000 years or so for Europe to become literate again.
> 
> And its not like the inflation and price controls under Chiang Kai-Shek led to any major devastation, like a revolution or mass starvation. And even if it did, millions died, but millions more lived, right?
> 
> ...


As much as I don't want to think about it, I have to agree that it is simply illogical to assume the U.S. will remain superpower of the world that much longer. With the rise of China and India, we do have a lot to worry about. Lets just hope its 100 or so years down the road.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Spence said:


> Isn't the world supposed to end in 2012?
> 
> -spence


From your lips to God's ears. Personally I don't think we are fit to exist. If there is an asteroid with our name on it, I hope it hits soon, hard and fast.

Btw, my theory that aliens have not made contact with us is one of two possible reasons:

1. They are scared of _us_ and watching us in total disbelief and horror... like a cosmic train wreck.

2. They are doubled over laughing their asses off (assuming they have asses) at our silliness.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Here's an interesting article from today's online Telegraph:



> The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks.


I should note that, as awful as credit collapses are, I do not worry about the economic crisis nearly as much as our national government's predictable _reaction_ to that crisis, particularly when we can look forward to the fact that Barack Obama or John McCain will be running that organization. Neither of them seem to have any qualms whatsoever about interfering in people's economic lives or centralizing power.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> While the generic delivery of that statement may make it false, it is certainly not a false statement in regards to this situation.


No, I am afraid the statement formulation in regards to efficient market theory is incorrect and also, most likely, the situation you are outlining is also wrong. There has been a shift in the world wide demand for crude.



nolan50410 said:


> * No factors have caused a legitimate rising of price as we have seen in the last 10 years. *Building costs and population have remained historically steady. Perhaps you can strike that statement and replace it with "efficient markets don't offer many opportunites for arbitrage, and when they do they will eventually be corrected." I would venture to say that is a fairly accurate view of the future.


The bolded is an interesting statement coming from you, as you speak of the "rise" of China and India in another post. What does this "rise" mean in terms of demand side for the crude market? I think we both know the answer. Ksinc is also bang on for mentioning concrete. My wife, an engineer, has had to reprice many jobs in the last few years due to increase in demand for cement from not only China, but Mexico!

I find people stumble on words sometimes. The "efficient" in "efficient market theory," for some reason, makes many people think this means prices will be low for an item or commodity. It merely refers to the concept that the market reacts swiftly to knowledge and imputes this knowledge in the price rapidly.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

What does any of your constant disproving of my posts have to do with the housing market crashing. I still don't see the relation between crude oil and housing prices. You are either hopelessly optimistic about the housing crisis, a god amongst men about economics, or just wake up wanting to pick a fight.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> What does any of your constant disproving of my posts have to do with the housing market crashing. I still don't see the relation between crude oil and housing prices. You are either hopelessly optimistic about the housing crisis, a god amongst men about economics, or just wake up wanting to pick a fight.


Um, constant? I only remember posting to you twice now. Once to point out your formulation of efficient markets in regards to crude as completely wrong and then once to point out you see that China and India are greatly expanding their economies, so you should see that a world wide shift in demand is obviously occurring.

I never drew any relationship between housing prices and crude. Not sure how you wandered onto the crude topic. There is, of course, a relationship in regards to the component materials' cost has a transportation cost, upward demand on wages due to fuel inflation, etc. As I think any reasonable person would see at this point though, housing prices became fueled by a too lax credit market. The pain is far from finished there.

And trust me, if I was just looking to fight, there would be no mistaking that. I am not currently looking for one.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> From your lips to God's ears. Personally I don't think we are fit to exist. If there is an asteroid with our name on it, I hope it hits soon, hard and fast.
> 
> Btw, my theory that aliens have not made contact with us is one of two possible reasons:
> 
> ...


_If aliens from outer space ever come and we show them our civilization and they make fun of it, we should say we were just kidding, that this isn't really our civilization, but a gag we hoped they would like. Then we tell them to come back in twenty years to see our REAL civilization. After that, we start a crash program of coming up with an impressive new civilization. Either that, or just shoot down the aliens as they're waving good-bye. ~Jack Handy :icon_smile_big:_


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

My luck the little green men would just hang out on the corner with the mexicans taking more work.


----------

