If food and gas prices keep going up, the only direction for housing is down
jp89...@yahoo.com
max
<bdd72ca6-69f5-4155...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
jp89...@yahoo.com wrote:
> There's no other way around.
"depends"
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
webs...@cox.net
> There's no other way around.
If your dwelling is near employment centers, you might be well off.
If your dwelling is far out in the suburbs, and the commute to work is
long, you might be not so well off.
If you own a farm and don't need to buy seeds, you are in great shape.
Rod Speed
Jeff
> On May 28, 6:30 pm, jp89u...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> There's no other way around.
>
> If your dwelling is near employment centers, you might be well off.
The trend where I live is mixed commercial and residential. You could
live on top of the business you work at. Myself, I prefer to work in the
easy chair across from the bed...
> If your dwelling is far out in the suburbs, and the commute to work is
> long, you might be not so well off.
Oddly, the further out people live, the more likely they drive a gas
hog. It's the opposite of what makes sense now.
>
> If you own a farm and don't need to buy seeds, you are in great shape.
I think it's a real mixed bag for farmers. With livestock producers
probably being hard hit, if they have to buy feed. Anyone that runs farm
machinery is going to take a hit also.
Jeff
Coffee's For Closers
e3d4cd...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, webs...@cox.net
says...
> If your dwelling is near employment centers, you might be well off.
> If your dwelling is far out in the suburbs, and the commute to work is
> long, you might be not so well off.
OTOH, those distant dwellings may become less desirable due to
the commute petrol costs. Which could drive down the market
rates for that housing.
> If you own a farm and don't need to buy seeds, you are
> in great shape.
Farms have many, many other expenses besides seed. For one
thing, they tend to use a lot of diesel fuel for the equipment.
Also, fertiliser prices have apparently been increasing.
Add on the fact that, with genetically modified seed, the farmer
is required to buy more every year (some GM crops are programmed
to produce dud seeds.)
Also add on the fact that, plenty of farmers aren't producing
much food. Some do cotton. Although I suppose that, growing
corn for ethanol would take advantage of the rising petrol
prices.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
clams_casino
>
>>
>> If you own a farm and don't need to buy seeds, you are in great shape.
>
>
> I think it's a real mixed bag for farmers. With livestock producers
> probably being hard hit, if they have to buy feed. Anyone that runs
> farm machinery is going to take a hit also.
>
> Jeff
and with fertilizer prices expected to climb as much as 50% over the
next few years, expect another round of costs for most food.
George
> webs...@cox.net wrote:
>> On May 28, 6:30 pm, jp89u...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> There's no other way around.
>>
>> If your dwelling is near employment centers, you might be well off.
>
> The trend where I live is mixed commercial and residential. You could
> live on top of the business you work at. Myself, I prefer to work in the
> easy chair across from the bed...
>
>> If your dwelling is far out in the suburbs, and the commute to work is
>> long, you might be not so well off.
>
> Oddly, the further out people live, the more likely they drive a gas
> hog. It's the opposite of what makes sense now.
Can I suggest that waste such as hauling yourself and a large coffee
around in a five ton fashion statement truck never made sense?
Cindy Hamilton
> There's no other way around.
Food and gas prices have been increasing (not monotonically, but
increasing nevertheless) forever. As have housing prices.
Jeepers. Read a book, willya.
clams_casino
Actually, my total food costs were essentially the same from 1997 - 2005.
Gasoline was relative stable (inflation adjusted) from 1987 - 2004.
Essentially all the gas / oil increases over the past 20 years have been
since Bush set the Iraq invasion in place. (food is increasing due
primarily to the cost of energy)
Granted, most everything has gone up in price over the past 100 years,
but GW's invasion of Iraq has had more effect than any other event.
webs...@cox.net
IN.SIG> wrote:
> In article <f93dfe6a-4d3f-489a-9a0f-
> e3d4cdaae...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, websu...@cox.net
> says...
>
> > On May 28, 6:30 pm, jp89u...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > There's no other way around.
> > If your dwelling is near employment centers, you might be well off.
> > If your dwelling is far out in the suburbs, and the commute to work is
> > long, you might be not so well off.
>
> OTOH, those distant dwellings may become less desirable due to
> the commute petrol costs. Which could drive down the market
> rates for that housing.
For those who currently own the place in the distant suburbs, it is
likely already difficult to sell at an acceptable price, AND you still
have the long commute.
If you already live near work, you are sitting in tall corn indeed!
> > If you own a farm and don't need to buy seeds, you are
> > in great shape.
>
> Farms have many, many other expenses besides seed. For one
> thing, they tend to use a lot of diesel fuel for the equipment.
> Also, fertiliser prices have apparently been increasing.
>
> Add on the fact that, with genetically modified seed, the farmer
> is required to buy more every year (some GM crops are programmed
> to produce dud seeds.)
>
> Also add on the fact that, plenty of farmers aren't producing
> much food. Some do cotton. Although I suppose that, growing
> corn for ethanol would take advantage of the rising petrol
> prices.
What I wrote didn't come across well. Sorry, it was later than I
thunk.
Obviously, most farmers have to buy seeds. Some are not planting
hybrid seeds, which are usually sterile and require re-purchase every
year.
My obscure reference was to the idea that, if fossil fuels get really,
really, really difficult, the luckiest--or best prepared--folks will
be those farmers who have land, probably some horsepower of the hay-
eating variety, and a stock of seeds that are fertile. If so they
wouldn't need to buy seeds, but could plant a crop from last season's
harvest. They could at least attempt to feed themselves.
This would be an extreme situation, and not one likely envisioned by
those who are sitting in an SUV complaining about gas prices.
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>> webs...@cox.net wrote:
>>> On May 28, 6:30 pm, jp89u...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> There's no other way around.
>>>
>>> If your dwelling is near employment centers, you might be well off.
>>
>> The trend where I live is mixed commercial and residential. You could
>> live on top of the business you work at. Myself, I prefer to work in
>> the easy chair across from the bed...
>>
>>> If your dwelling is far out in the suburbs, and the commute to work is
>>> long, you might be not so well off.
>>
>> Oddly, the further out people live, the more likely they drive a gas
>> hog. It's the opposite of what makes sense now.
>
>
> Can I suggest that waste such as hauling yourself and a large coffee
> around in a five ton fashion statement truck never made sense?
Sure, you can suggest that. And you'd be right! Well put.
Isn't that 3 ton loophole still open? That you can write off 100% of
a $100,000 SUV as long as it weighs 3 tons?
Considering that gas prices were already spiking back in 2003, to
extend the road hog tax benefit at that time is indicative of the
culture of short sightedness and greed that characterizes the W White
House to this day.
Jeff
Cindy Hamilton
Since the OP didn't specify a time frame, I took the long view.
Cindy Hamilton
Seerialmom
> Can I suggest that waste such as hauling yourself and a large coffee
> around in a five ton fashion statement truck never made sense?
>
>
all cars on the road were Smart Fortwo's and Toyota Yaris's...chances
are we wouldn't be as worried...unless a huge diesel truck came
barrelling up with bad brakes.
webs...@cox.net
> George wrote:
> > Jeff wrote:
Spoken as if W conceived, wrote, debated, passed, and signed the
legislation all by himself, without congress, citizens, or lobbyists.
Sheesh.
The legislation in question was intended to support capital
expenditures by businesses. They were thinking trucks, farm stuff,
delivery vehicles, etc.
IIRC, ordinary citizens didn't get the tax break, unless they had a
business and were able to write the gas-hog off as some sort of
deduction to the business. Think real estate people who bought the
biggest thing because dollarwise it made sense.
It's not the first, only, or last time that legislation had unintended
consequences. It would have been nice, though, if congress had fixed
the problem as soon as it was recognized. Please note that the
President can't sign any legislation that congress has not passed.
Jeff
Whatever happened to leadership? It is the president that proposed
expanding the credit from $25K to 75K. Congress as is it's want upped it
again to 100K.
Here's the vote breakdown, with Dick Cheney casting the decisive ballot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_and_Growth_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2003
>
> The legislation in question was intended to support capital
> expenditures by businesses. They were thinking trucks, farm stuff,
> delivery vehicles, etc.
> IIRC, ordinary citizens didn't get the tax break, unless they had a
> business and were able to write the gas-hog off as some sort of
> deduction to the business. Think real estate people who bought the
> biggest thing because dollarwise it made sense.
Sure.
>
> It's not the first, only, or last time that legislation had unintended
> consequences. It would have been nice, though, if congress had fixed
> the problem as soon as it was recognized. Please note that the
> President can't sign any legislation that congress has not passed.
A president sets an agenda and priorities as he has the biggest
public mouth piece. What priorities has George W Bush pushed and what is
their result now?
Jeff
webs...@cox.net
>
>
>
> > The legislation in question was intended to support capital
> > expenditures by businesses. They were thinking trucks, farm stuff,
> > delivery vehicles, etc.
> > IIRC, ordinary citizens didn't get the tax break, unless they had a
> > business and were able to write the gas-hog off as some sort of
> > deduction to the business. Think real estate people who bought the
> > biggest thing because dollarwise it made sense.
>
> Sure.
>
>
>
> > It's not the first, only, or last time that legislation had unintended
> > consequences. It would have been nice, though, if congress had fixed
> > the problem as soon as it was recognized. Please note that the
> > President can't sign any legislation that congress has not passed.
>
> A president sets an agenda and priorities as he has the biggest
> public mouth piece. What priorities has George W Bush pushed and what is
> their result now?
>
> Jeff
What priorities has ANYbody in the federal government really pushed?
And I mean seriously pushed, at some political risk, not just talking.
Bush hasn't set many priorities that I like.
But congress doesn't have to wait. They have frequently taken the
lead--for good purposes and bad.
Lately, their best leadership is in stupid earmark spending.
Unfortunately, Bush and his predecessors have been loath to veto this
nonsense.
And frankly, I haven't seen many other leaders in Congress or
elsewhere pushing a good, solid, overall agenda that I can write to
support.