Patricius Maximus

Precisely. But the failure has to happen before the turnaround happens. If not, there is nothing to turn around from.quote> Fewer people get rich off the turn around than off of economic prosperity. This is a self-illustrated point. Just look at the opinion of the big businessmen about the state of the economy. How many of them went jumping up and down for joy? None. Why? Because they know what everyone else knows - the economy is crap, you're going to be hurting. And cinching win the belt is never fun. It hurts more people than it helps. Are there people who made money on the upswings in business? Yes, but the world has a lot more cases of people like Jesse Livermore - made a fortune, lost it all when the economy crapped out, and never made it back.quote> True. But the turnaround has to happen before prosperity kicks in. When did the last period of prosperity happen? After the turnaround of the 1982 recession. In people, the vast majority of those who have the flu get over it on their own, with minimal or no outside aid. In the same way, most economies and businesses get through a recession.quote> As has been previously pointed out, this recession is more like pneumonia than the flu. With pneumonia, the vast majority of people who get it have to be hospitalized and will likely die if not given proper medical treatment. The point being is that this is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression - even beating out Black Monday in 1987.quote> Alright, call it pneumonia. However, the question is what kind is it? If it is bacterial, and the bacterium is job loss, then the infrastructure projects will be a perfect treatment. So, again to summarize, when it looks like failure is imminent, it might as well be because people will act like it is. I guarantee you that the first thing that crossed the minds of people who banked with Washington Mutual wasn't "Oh, my money is insured. No sweat."quote> Again, that falls in the "duh" category. But the sheer terror is less than it was before the FDIC was established. That gives people some security, and makes the run more organized. No one feels like going through a depression. But do you not agree that going through a 5 year depression is better than going through a 15 year recession? That is what the bailouts will do -- stunt economic growth in the future because inefficient and failing companies are preserved by government life support.quote> I hate to be blunt, but lets get the terms right. If you want to argue a point, having the terms right makes your argument seem more credible. A recession is a normal economic downturn characterized by negative economic growth for at least two quarters, but doesn't lead to costly economic failures.quote> I have gotten my terms right -- I was talking about either a short and deep downturn which capitulates in 3-5 years (i.e. a depression), or a long and shallow 15-year period where we never capitulate and muddle through the mess for a generation (i.e. a long recession). The common definition of a recession is two or more quarters of negative GDP growth. One of many definitions of a depression is a 10% decline in GDP. There is no set definition for a depression, but common characteristics include (currently applicable traits are bolded): abnormal increases in unemployment restriction of credit shrinking output and investment numerous bankruptcies reduced amounts of trade and commerce highly volatile relative currency fluctuations Notice that the only one we're really missing is the last one. Five out of six kind of paints a different picture of where we stand. Unemployment is up and still expected to go higher - a friend of mine who lives in California says that unemployment is currently looking at 8% or higher. Credit is obviously restricted. Try getting a sub-prime loan right now. Shrinking output and investment - the Dow has it's worst year since the Great Depression. Numerous bankruptcies - just look at the banking industry. Reduced amounts of trade and commerce is definitely the case.quote> Alright, call it a depression if you want. It is certainly a deep downturn in the economy. But let's get it over with now and capitulate. Then the economy will recover. On top of that, the bailouts are not going to stunt economic growth by keeping inefficient countries on life support. Right now, we need all the companies running that we can keep running. A part of the capitalistic system or not, you can't afford to have all the inefficient companies dying off at once. That just hurts too much. If you keep them floating long enough to get out of the economic funk, they can die off slowly, the way that economies prefer that companies leave. It's exponential decay - the faster they start to leave, the more it hurts.quote> It is best to weed out the inefficient companies now, when they would naturally. If the inefficient companies go bankrupt during the recovery, the market will go down the drain again. Thus it stifles the recovery and future growth. It is best for the inefficient companies to go bankrupt when they are supposed to, so the economy and market can capitulate and get back on its feet again. And in direct answer to your question - no, I do not agree because the scenario is not realistic. And on top of that, even if it was realistic, I still wouldn't agree because for the overall good of the economy, depressions should be avoided almost any legal cost.quote> I did not intend for the scenario to be all realistic. It is a hypothetical question. Also, you seem to be scared out of your wits at the prospect of a depression. Let me phrase my question another way -- would you prefer your recession to be short and deep or long and shallow? The point though is that if we let pure capitalism settle this, the only people going to be left standing are people without debt at the end who have enough money to ride this thing out for a few years and the number of jobs that will be in existence are going to be few and far between. Honestly, a part of me really would like to see that happen. The market really, truly needs to finally settle all the outstanding credit accounts and reset the books. The problem is that you can't do that. You'll have so many people economically destroyed by it that riots will start everywhere.quote> Most people will be able to pay their debts as they come due, so they will not go bankrupt, so there will not be widespread riots. A part of you wants to see that happen? It is the same thing the members of the US Congress have -- they are capitalists at their core, but they are too scared to let it work on the downside. First off, American's aren't particularly feeling like buying cars right now.quote> I'm talking about 10-20 years from now. Second off, entrepreneurs will not be wanting to build cars to sell people. Sure, there will be a few people try it, but the rest of the venture capitalists in the world will take a look at people like Hyundai and Subaru and steer completely clear of the industry. As hym pointed out, it costs too much money to join the industry. Economists have known this for years.quote> You could be wrong. Who knows what venture capitalists may come out of the shadows? Or what upstart car maker may become the next world leader? Third off, Toyota and Honda may not be able to satisfy the demands of the whole nation, but they'll do a really good job of snagging most of the market.quote> Yes, they will. Because they have a head start over the upstart car makers, and they are more entrenched. Your prediction is correct in the short term. Now, guess what - Toyota had the exact same problem that GM (and everyone else) did. How did Toyota look at it? They tried to find a way to get the time to retool an assembly line down to smallest amount of time possible. The final product was that GM was spending 7-8 hours doing what Toyota got down to as little as two minutes. Toyota solved a costly problem with an immediate, direct, cost-effective solution. They were saving money hand over fist while GM was bleeding even more money. Toyota and Honda have been doing this to the Big Three ever since they entered the American car market. It would be naive to think that they couldn't snatch up the vast majority of the available market of the Big Three went down.quote> Capitalism at its work. The most efficient companies dominate the market. Which will take a really freaking long time because if all the companies that are being bailed out were allowed to close, the unemployment rate would go up several percentage points, and everyone will be hanging on to their money rather than spending it, making a very unattractive market for all these efficient companies you say are going to magically appear out of thin air.quote> It takes time. Just as efficient companies do not appear out of thin air, economic prosperity does not come out of thin air. Nothing in an economy pops out of thin air. Sell-offs are a necessary part of the stock market. Panic is not. Corrections are necessary. Crashes are not.quote> Panic is a natural part of the stock market when there is a particularly vicious sell-off. The panic stops when the investors realize their panic was wrong. After years of waiting. It is now largely believed that if the Federal Reserve had not cut the banks off, providing them with the money that they needed to withstand the initial bank rush, they would have stayed open and the Great Depression wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad is it was.quote> This is not the same as the Great Depression. Still, the economy capitulated, and turned around, did it not? Ten years was plenty long enough. I only know one person who lived through that and didn't think that it was that bad. That particular person lived in a family that always managed to put food on the table and make ends meet. Everyone else I know who lived through the Great Depression thought it sucked and wouldn't wish it on their enemies.quote> Any time for a recession is long enough, from an emotional standpoint. I could be wrong about this, but I believe you are under the impression that the US government has a habit of bailing out failing companies. This is not true. In the US, up to this point, if you ever started a business, if it didn't make it, you were out of luck. No one even dreamed of crawling to the government and asking for money. This is an extraordinary case though, which is why it is the first time it's ever been proposed - at least to my knowledge.quote> The US government has started a habit of bailouts. Secondly, change does not equal economic prosperity. Change equals doing something differently. The banks responded to the change in economic trends and started offering sub-prime mortgages. I think we all know where that got them.quote> Change can produce economic prosperity. It does not necessarily equal it, but it sometimes does. Actually Patricius Maximus again you are wrong...Both the New Deal and the RFC (later became the FDIC) BOTH were meant for "Bailouts". Get your facts straight. The RFC alone distributed 125 Billion Dollars (Adjusted for Inflation) to banks, railroads, ect.quote> No, I am not wrong in my knowledge of the New Deal. The New Deal did not bail out every single failing, bloated corporation begging for money. It was not "meant for bailouts". It was meant to speed up economic recovery. Also, even you have to admit that 125 billion dollars is far less than the more than 2 trillion dollars spent solely on bailouts. Bailouts were a very secondary component of the New Deal. In contrast, the actions taken by Congress in 2009 were 100 percent bailouts. - Patricius Maximus

This recession is not just any recession. This is possibly the most serious since the Great Depression. It is not part of normal functioning capitalism.quote> Do you not agree that recessions are a part of capitalism? If you want no recessions, go with a Soviet-style economy. There was no economic change there, but there was no bull economy -- ever. You can't just have a capitalist system when it works on the upside -- it has to work on the downside. Unregulated capitalism failed. Period.quote> Obviosuly. That's why we have something called regulation . That analogy doesn't apply to our current situation. This recession is closer to a pneumonia, not a mere flu.quote> Alright, pneumonia. Give the economy antibiotics (such as infrastructure). Then when the recovery comes those people will find jobs with more security and with a better company.quote> It's not that simple. You have to get the economy to recover first. That's the trick.quote> The economy begins to recover when it capitulates. It capitulates when the inefficient producers are wiped out. That is "the trick". Also, if you want jobs in a recession/depression, why not have the government build infrastructure projects and put people to work? It worked in the Great Depression.quote> Once again, it's not that simple. If the Big Three went down, it would eliminate between 6 and 12 million jobs overnight. Can the government afford to employ that many people?quote> No, it cannot. However, the estimates I've heard for job losses are more in the realm of 2-3 million. Also, public works provide only temporary jobs, so they alleviate the problem without solving anything.quote> Precisely. The public works employment provides people with jobs until the recovery comes and they can get jobs in the private sector. Not true. If two sink, the third will undoubtedly sink. Why? Because the three use the same network of suppliers, so if two of the three go, the suppliers do to, and with them the third.quote> It is a plausible scenario -- it is also plausible if one survives. If one survives, it is unlikely that every supplier will be wiped out. New, efficient companies will not just appear out thin air.quote> No, they do not. It takes some time. They would not go looking in Detroit for jobs. Those workers are the reason why the Big Three are doing so badly. The average auto worker in the Midwest makes around $60,000 a year, while the average auto worker in the South makes around $40,000. That is why foreign auto makers are able to make cars that are just as good with lower costs. Detroit is the last place where anyone would want to start a new auto business. So Detroit would never recover from a blow like that, at least not in 25 years.quote> You neglect the fact that when those people in Detroit are unemployed, they will gladly take those jobs for 40000 a year. They may want to sell cars, but wants don't always translate to abilities. If you haven't noticed, nearly all cars sold in the US are made by a handful of companies, and there are no new upstart companies. This is because it takes tens of billions to start a new automaker. When Robert Lutz cobbled the Chrysler PT Cruiser out of Dodge Neon parts, it cost him $600 million, and the industry hailed that as being extraodinarily cheap. Automakers are used to having to shell out over $1 billion just to make a new car. That's pocket change compared to the billions needed to actually start a new company.quote> Ah, but what about those upstarts in Silicon Valley aspiring to make cars? They may be able to do it for less. And if they succeed in selling their cars, they will grow, and possibly grow into big companies. Duack: Very well put. I couldn't have said it better. The bottom line: The upstart car makers that will come in the near future can be more efficient than the Big Three, and probably can make a car for less than $600 million. - Patricius Maximus

So, you are saying in essence that in the normal functioning of capitalism (i.e. recessions), capitalism has to be abandoned? That makes no sense. No one ever got rich off of economic failure. They only got rich when things started to turn around.quote> Precisely. But the failure has to happen before the turnaround happens. If not, there is nothing to turn around from. In a normally working economy, they should close down. This isn't normal. Yes, it's a normal part of an economy, but in the same manner that disease is a normal part of human existence. The analogy works out like this. Recession is to an economy what the flu is to humanity. When you get the flu, you take steps to get better. You don't work as hard during it's duration and if things are bad enough, you look for outside help in the form of doctors and medicine. Is it a normal part of life - yes it is. However, you don't just sit around and act like it's not happening and go on with your life like normal.quote> In people, the vast majority of those who have the flu get over it on their own, with minimal or no outside aid. In the same way, most economies and businesses get through a recession. The same concept applies to the economy when it's in a recession. Now if it's not bad, then you don't worry about it. This was a significant case though because banks were failing. When the banks start failing, you have to look at what is going wrong and see if you need to intervene. The bailout was a response to a lesson learned from the Great Depression. If you have a bad recession and you do nothing to help stave it off, when people start making a run on the banks, you're screwed. The banks have to stay open and functional. If they don't, then you're really headed for a fun ride.quote> The main cause of the run on the banks during the Depression was the fear of failure. Back then, if a bank failed, you lost everything. Now the FDIC insures your account up to 100000 USD (temporarily 250000), so the fear of failure is not as great, as your money is safe up to that amount. Also, people do not run on the banks when they are doing fine -- they run on the banks when failure is imminent. So, that line of reasoning is flawed. It's a very fine line to walk, but unless we feel like going through a semi-Great Depression again, it's going to be necessary.quote> No one feels like going through a depression. But do you not agree that going through a 5 year depression is better than going through a 15 year recession? That is what the bailouts will do -- stunt economic growth in the future because inefficient and failing companies are preserved by government life support. Capitalism - even through the current laws allowed, would dictate that everyone who has a sub-prime mortgage on their house would have their mortgage called back in. The repo man would be so busy he wouldn't know what to do with himself. Millions of Americans would lose their homes in the blink of an eye.quote> The vast majority of the people in subprime mortgages knew what they were getting into. They read the contracts, and they consented to sign them. Now, because their loan terms they agreed to are preventing them from paying their mortgage, they are asking the government to bail them out of their consented mess. Subprime mortgages carry risk -- they knew that. Now, for those who did not read the contracts, or the mortgage company lied to them, they should not have their home repossessed because (to the best of my knowledge) that is not legal. What about the people who don't owe money on the house but have credit card debt? Guess what - if you can't pay when MasterCard comes knocking, you can kiss your car goodbye because in some states (don't know how many) they can legally take any asset you own until your debt is paid off.quote> Well, guess what -- if you cannot pay your debts as they come due, you'd better declare bankruptcy. That is a part of capitalism as well. But the key to recovering from a recession is people with jobs feeling confident enought to buy luxury items. And if companies were just allowed to close by the masses now, we wouldn't be helping the economy by cutting away the inefficiency. We'd be killing it further by guaranteeing that the public had even less opportunities to have jobs.quote> Yes, it would help the economy if inefficiency were removed. Then when the recovery comes those people will find jobs with more security and with a better company. Also, if you want jobs in a recession/depression, why not have the government build infrastructure projects and put people to work? It worked in the Great Depression. If General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler were all allowed to just sink because they couldn't cut it right now, then guess what would happen. Unemployment would go up even more, increasing the competition for a job and the amount of money that would be going out to people on unemployment funding would skyrocket. The Detroit economy would go bust and wouldn't make a recovery anywhere in the forseeable future.quote> First of all, it is unlikely that all three of them will sink. Most likely two will sink. However, your predictions for the short term are correct. Jobs would be lost, and Detroit would sink into a hole. But, people in America will still want to buy cars. Entrepreneurs in America will want to build cars to sell those people, because Toyota and Honda cannot satisfy every need of the Americans. When those new companies congeal and grow, the first place they will be looking for growth is Detroit. Why? A vast pool of potential new jobs, of people who want to work. They will set up their plants there, and Detroit will recover within 25 years. And the economy would be even further down the crapper than it already is. So, same question back at you - do you want that?quote> Well, no one wants the economy to go down, but it happens. If a company cannot stay afloat, it has to go bankrupt. Most often the companies who cannot stay afloat are inefficient producers that are not making what the consumer wants. The consumers go to other companies, and their income dries up. For once, think about the long-term vitality of the economy, instead of worrying about short-term effects, because the long-term effects are the ones you will feel most. That's not the point. Corporations provide jobs. Jobs provide forms of income. Income provides a means on which to live. Let the corporations die and the jobs will go away, the income will stop flowing to millions of Americans, and a good percentage of them will be pushed over the edge and unable to recover.quote> Think about this -- they will recover when they get new jobs, and obtain a new source of income. Congress: "We are not approving the so-called bailout plan!"Dow drops 700 points in less than 24 hours. Congress: "Oh crap! We screwed up!" Congress passes the bailout plan.quote> A necessary functioning of the stock market during a recession or depression. Keep in mind that there was a rally beforehand caused by the prospect of a bailout. When the bailout was not passed, the traders did what they would have done the week before, only at a much faster rate. That's what they thought about the banks back in the start of the Great Depression. We all know what happened there.quote> Yes, the economy capitulated, and started to turn around. That is not a bad thing. Second, the economy came back mostly because of WWII, so it's not like it magically got better.quote> Yes, that is true. The economy would not have come back as fast as it did without WWII. Without WWII, the economy would have still recovered, it just would have taken longer. during the great depression, people with money clung on to it thinking that merely "waiting it out" would work - it didn't only when the government started employing people (through projects like the hoover dam) that money started moving and production starting to climb.quote> I do agree with you that government infrastructure projects are a great way of jump-starting the economy. I'm not opposed to that kind of action -- I'm opposed to the bailout kind of action.

Ah, editing your post. I'll respond to it here. Ever heard of the New Deal? It worked in the Great Depression.quote> Yes, I have heard of the New Deal. Yes, it did work. But it did not perpetuate failing companies by giving them blank checks from the government. It worked by assisting the people and inspiring confidence (e.g. Social Security, FDIC, CCC, infrastructure projects), not by perpetuating the existence of failed companies using the people's money.

Inefficient producers should not be saved - in a normally working economy. Consumers should determine which businesses survive and which ones don't - in a normally working economy. When the economy is in a funk like this one, you don't want businesses closing down.quote> How do you determine if an economy is working normally or not? How do you determine what is normal and what is not? Businesses shouldn't close down? That is rediculous. In a functioning economy, businesses that cannot make it have to close down so that the economy does not become a collection of bloated, oversized corporations on life support from the government, and the inefficient producers will be perpetuated. That fits in with my earlier comment on destroying capitalism to preserve it. Destroying it does not preserve the capitalist system. It puts in a hybrid fascist-socialist system. Do you want that? On top of that, wealthy business owners are actually a good thing. Everyone hates them, but stop and think for a moment. These people that everyone hates so much make it possible for you to afford to eat. The following is a pretty well known fact among the business world. When the poor suffer, the poor suffer. When the middle class suffer, the poor suffer and so does the economy. When the rich suffer, everyone suffers. These people make our jobs. Kill their ability to provide for themselves and their business, and I guarantee everyone reading this that it'll hurt you worse than it'll hurt them. quote> Alright, so you are saying that because the corporations provide compensation to people for services, then the government using those people's money has to perpetuate it if it is failing to compete? There are ways to afford to eat other than providing services to corporations. A lot of those wealthy people you speak of filled the void of a bankrupt company, drove their competition into Chapter 11, or went bankrupt themselves, and learned from that failure. If all that opportunity is eliminated, there will be far less rich people in the future to "make it possible for you to afford to eat." I am sorry to all you Adam Smith "Invisible Hand" economists out there, but the current structure of the world market is not a simple supply and demand system. It has become incredibly artificial, that without intervention it will collapse. Its unfortunate but the truth.quote> I do not consider myself one of those economists. A free market does not work on a pure supply and demand system. Government has to provide regulation that benefits the people and the market. Perpetuating quasi-bankrupt corporations will only prolong the recession/depression and stunt future growth, it will not allieviate it. - Patricius Maximus

Happy New Year! I know it is a few hours late, but I had to get 5.5 hours of sleep tonight.

I aggre with Patricius on this. But for the sake of the economy i think the Bailout was a good idea. If the Banks went down most of the economy would go down with it, and the nation could easily be put on the economy stand still. Atleast that is what i think would happen. But i would have liked it also if the Goverment took more time with the bailout, made rules, and really thought about it, and they could have looked at other opitions also.quote> The economy went to hell during the Great Depression in that way, but it came back strongly afterwards without bailouts. Every single recession North America has ever had we've come out of it, and without such action. Yes, a lot of banks would fail. Yes, turmoil would ripple through the economy. Yes, a lot of jobs would be lost. Yes, we would come out of it, stronger than before, and with better companies. Recessions and depressions are as much part of capitalism as the boom time is. If you don't want the risk, go with a Soviet-style economy, but don't expect the boom times to return. Much in the same way, innefficient producers should not be saved. If the money was given to the consumers, then they would determine which businesses survive and which go bankrupt, which is usually better. Plus, you'll be helping the low and middle class instead of wealthy business owners.quote> I do agree that, if they money had to be used, that it should have been given to the citizens. However, I don't think that a stimulus package of that nature is the right thing to do in this current state to stimulate the economy. Economic stimulus packages don't stimulate the economy, but they sure do stimulate people's bank accounts. If the government wishes to do this, then that would be the best way to do it.

Alright, now time to add in my views to this discussion. My views generally fall on the left wing of the economic spectrum. Nevertheless, I am a capitalist. I believe in the economic system of capitalism, simply because it works, it is sustainable, and produces the most economic prosperity of any system yet envisioned. I also believe in government regulation of the economy -- but only those regulations which benefit the people the government serves. An example of this is anti-monopoly regulation, country of origin labelling, and the FDA in the United States. I am against the TARP because it solely benefits the corporations in a desperate bid that they will use their blank checks to lend to consumers to attempt to perpetuate the insolvency bubble. I am also against every single similar government program to date because of the same reason. Capitalism works best by a process akin to natural selection. If a company cannot survive, they go bankrupt. If there is still a need for that product, new companies come in to fill the void. When the weak companies are propped up by the government, the result is stagnation and a gradual degeneration of the economy and the standard of living. I'm no economist, but these are my views on the economy, and they have historically worked. Preserving capitalism by destroying it does not preserve it. - Patricius Maximus

It would be bad for the banks, not the economy. If FBN finds out where the Treasury has donated that money, there would be a public uproar about how and where they spent it. I may not agree with most of the views of the Fox news anchors, but there is one thing they are -- capitalists. Economic regulation and intervention is good when it benefits the people and all involved. When it helps the corporations, it is bad, and the government should stay out of it. I'm going to create a bailout thread. So, any discussion about the bailouts should go there.

Yes, there is a leap second. Your atomic clock will read before rolling over, ...56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 00... A rare event, worth sitting up for just for that.

THE DECEMBER GDP REPORT REPLIES: Goldfish4209: It's so depressing it may turn into a depression . art128: Thanks. rjkrox: Agreed. jacqulina: The caps do add false emphasis, but thanks anyway. Ntq$310: Many in FC are calling for an investigation as well, but the man cannot be located. I'm glad IHG is trying to avert foreclosures with those houses. It will prevent deep losses. ComputerGuy: Thanks. deathtopumpkins: Please remove all those duplicate posts. A non-economic update will come in a few days. suplado!: It sure is. The December GDP Report has now been released, and shows a decline of 0.9% in GDP. Here's the per capita chart: Overall, 2008 has been a good year for Franklin County GDP -- most think too good. 2009 will probably moderate the rapid 2008 gains. Here's a chart of growth for 2008, completed by the latest report: The report was more or less in line with expectations, and stocks have closed out the year on a flat day. Please post comments, suggestions, and questions.

WAITING FOR RHW 3.0 REPLIES: deathtopumpkins: Thanks. It is a Maxis building. ComputerGuy: Thank you. First, an announcement. The day of the week for the regular update is changed to Monday. Tarkus has stated "RHW Day is imminent." Whatever this means, the next RHW may be released this week. In anticipation of this big release, here is a montage of different highways in Patian County which probably will be the first to recieve upgrades. A diagonal stretch: A section of RHW which can be turned to elevated: A large section which can be converted into one wide highway: A tangled web of avenues, one way roads, and highways which, in 3.0, will recieve a complete makeover: And lastly, a toll road which could get diagonal ramps: That's all for now. We can only hope that 3.0 will be released by the time of the next update. If so, expect perhaps tens of updates detailing upgrades. Please post comments, suggestions, and questions.

'TIS THE SEASON FOR FORECLOSURES REPLIES: deathtopumpkins: 1) Ah, that. I'm looking forward to that coming out. 2) No, it is not planned to be implemented yet. Details have to be worked out. un1: Thanks. Archean: Ah, yes. Rapid progress can now be made with the Agonite mining system. It may even avert the current recession. ComputerGuy: Thank you. astronelson: Wrong hands? Such as for destruction? I hope not. Ebenezer Scrooge once said, "You could say that December... is the foreclosure season." This statement, sadly, has proven to be true this December in Franklin County. Foreclosures are increasing, especially in areas now owned by IHG. In Forest Bluff, all the houses circled here are in foreclosure or have missed a mortgage payment: A similar situation has occured here, although most of the Vlakhaas houses are unaffected: The GDP report will be released in the next few days, and may affect the stock market. Please post comments, suggestions, and questions.

As a rule of thumb, I consider someone a Christian if they: - Believe in a God - Believe that Jesus was the son of God - Believe the New Testament to be true in some form A full definition would be more complicated than this, but it is what I generally go by when determining a person's religious beliefs.

Great, I've moved up to Number 4. Before FC is finished, it'll probably be number 1 for a time .

Well, Haljackey is working on parks and open spaces in the newer areas. However, a GTR regular (such as myself ) can tell that there are districts. Each area in the Terran Settlement and Downtown has a character and a feel of it's own. But I suppose you can't tell if you're a one-time visitor .

Most of my ancestors were Catholic. My mother was a freethinker and my father was an atheist, but neither of them tried to impress their beliefs on me, so I was not raised religiously. I'm currently an atheist because I reasoned my way to that conclusion based on the current evidence.

A PROPOSAL FOR AGONITE MINING REPLIES: naftixe: Thanks. suplado: Glad you like my trees. dfnva: Realistic? Thanks for your comment. Aranho: Just commented? Wish you had done it sooner, but now is better than never. Thank you. Petrovar Ambassador: You'll see, certainly. art128: Thanks. rjkrox: Thank you. deathtopumpkins: I'll certainly use them. Also, I hereby appoint you Smooth Rail Curve Reccomender . un1: STR? Still, I'm glad you like the rail line. Ntq$310: It sure will. Mike the Mayor: Thanks. Some space specialists have thought of a preliminary plan for a mining system for Agonus. It entails first deploying a space station with multiple docking ports, in high orbit of Agonus. Then, mining probes will be dispatched. Once on the ground, a shade will be deployed to block out beta particles. Then the miners will scoop up Agonite, and go up to the station and dock. When all miners are full, a collector probe will arrive, extract the Agonite, and return to launch point. Then the cycle starts over again from the point of the miners being dispatched. Here's a diagram of the plan: Please post comments, suggestions, and questions.

A CHRISTMAS TEASER REPLIES: deathtopumpkins: Think it's wierd? Still, thanks for stating your opinion. suplado!: Thanks. Petrovar Ambassador: I'm glad you like my transit system. First of all, have a Merry Christmas, and have a good Hannukah. Both holidays are ongoing at the moment. For a Christmas present, here's a teaser of an undisclosed location: Please post comments and/or suggestions.

Oh I just take special issue with liberals, because unlike the other aforementioned groups, they make it a point to pretend they care.quote> For reference, I assume that the "liberals" you refer to are the American pseudoliberals commonly referred to as such, which have more in common with democratic socialism than liberalism. Liberalism is a fundamentally individualist ideology - pseudoliberals are fundamentally collectivist. They think that Barrack Obama is the solution to racism; and vote for an increase of police in Black communities and other communities of color and the expansion of the prison system.quote> It is mostly the Obamamaniacs that think he is the total solution to racism. I think his presence will help the current racial bias. Since November 4, there has been a surge in African Americans in commericals. The expansion of the prison system is due mainly to the "War on Drugs", which most ideologies support. As for the child labor laws statement; it really depends on which child labor laws you're referring to.quote> I am referring to the child labor laws that almost eliminate their right to work, and force them into schools. This of course continued to be the trend for women, as women became more socially/politically empowered (several major labor victories, as well as the right to vote) but children never got the same recognition and eventually as the radicalized European/American schooling model that were beginning to dominate the late 1800s/early 1900s began to phase out, laws were enacted to essentially force children into schooling for their "protection". Of course this had much more to do with maintaining the traditional parent/child power dynamics, and creating more educated (read: productive, profitable) population than actually protecting children from exploitations.quote> I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think the sweet spot for the cost of gas will be around $2.75-$3.00, where the majority of people were changing their ways while keeping the numbers of people extremely hurt by this down.quote> Well, that may work as a "sweet spot". Only one problem -- psychological support levels, in this case $3.00. People percieve $3 to cost more than $2.90 than it really does, since the first digit changes. Keeping gas above this psychological threshold will help a lot where alternative energy is concerned. Gas price increases hit the poor the hardest, dramatically reducing amount of money available for other goods and needs.quote> Short term, perhaps. Especially if the poor have SUVs that get 10-25 mpg -- then again, most poor people cannot afford gas-guzzling vehicles. However, long term it will benefit the poor, and everyone by spurring the development of cheap clean energy. The government spends billions building a transportation network for everyone else to usequote> And pervasive mass transit is a bad thing? I don't think so.

A long time has passed since anyone posted into this thread ...quote> We're all in hibernation preparing for RHW 3.0 . McDuell, that looks wonderful. A little impractical, but great nonetheless.

Yes, I fully support this idea. However, I think the government should keep it up around 3.20-3.80 a gallon. This may seem oppressive, but it was around this level where people started to conserve gasoline and alternative energy projects got a lot of momentum and attention. Drive down the gas price, and that momentum stops. It will be for the long-term benefit of the people to keep gas prices high, but not excessive, so that alternative energy projects can continue, and reach commercial viability. Then we will see the benefit.

Polygamy is a different animal since there are logistical problems with granting some of the rights granted to married couples to a group larger than two people. For instance, the whole power of attorney thing. Someone gets incapacitated and is incapable of speaking for themselves, so someone needs to speak for them to make medical decisions. If they're married, that responsibility automatically falls on their spouse - which works great when their spouse is only one person. But if they're married to two people, this can become a problem since they cannot both have power of attorney. What if those two people disagree? Spouse number one says pull the feeding tube, spouse number two says keep it in. Who do you listen to?quote> That problem could be rectified if the person incapacitated previously named the spouse they would have to listen to. From a strictly moral and ethical standpoint, there is really no reason to not allow polygamy other than tradition and religious beliefs. But from a practical standpoint, there are problems with it. Legally speaking, it would be a nightmare. Hence why I think it best to allow any two people to be civilly joined if they so choose, but to draw the line and limit it to two people. It's not really all that unfair. Okay, granted, you are going to get some bisexuals who will want one partner of each gender simultaneously for various reasons. And while there's nothing morally wrong with that, the rub is that it really wouldn't work very well from a legal standpoint. Not unless we took those rights granted to married couples which can only really be granted to a couple and not a three(or more)some away, which would be decidedly more oppressive than not permitting polygamy, albeit arguably more "fair". The problem is it makes things fair by taking away rights from far more people than it gives them to. Taking away rights is never a good thing.quote> If we were to keep the same marriage rights for couples, polygamous marriages would have to be handled differently. The other problem is that it opens itself up to abuse. When you marry someone, you get a tax exemption since now you're a house of two instead of a house of one, and get to file one set of taxes instead of two (so, as an aside, the government sort of has an economic interest to be against gay marriage since allowing it means more tax exemptions which means they collect less income tax revenue...). Works fine and is fair for married couples. But now if we allow polygamy and all of a sudden rather than being limited to one the sky's the limit on how many legal partners you can have - then you'd start seeing shenanigans like hedge fund babies in suburbia "marrying" the Mexicans that mow their lawn to get half a dozen tax exemptions and cheat the government out of some money. Oh, and it would be perfectly legal. Yeah, that's a can of worms we really want to open up.quote> Solutions: Limiting tax exemption to two-person marriages, limiting the exemption for only one spouse of a polygamous marriage, or abolishing the tax exemption. Also, I would like to point out that it is possible to abuse the current system -- 4 people working in a hedge fund that have 4 Mexicans working on their lawn can marry each other in groups of two each. Nothing would change except the scale of possibility. In short, plural marriage can be done, but it would require some creative thinking about how to manage it.

Have a good Hannukah! (and even for those who don't observe it, it is still Hannukah, and it is the equivalent of saying Good day) Hannukah this year happens to coincide with the Winter Solstice, which is a day of significance.