OT - Gas to hit 4.00

Von Fugal von at fugal.net
Fri Jun 20 23:02:22 MDT 2008

<quote name="Andy Bradford" date="Fri, 20 Jun 2008 at 22:45 -0600">
> Thus said Dave Smith on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:08:20 MDT:
> > Repeat after me: Developers build houses to make money.
> And people  buy them because  they value the home  (even if it  isn't as
> nicely made as they  once were) more than the money  they have, or might
> make in  the future (where debt  is involved). Did anyone  ever say that
> developers build houses  to lose money? And your  point about developers
> building houses to make money is?
> > They will cut cost in every possible way.
> If the people buying the homes  don't like this cost cutting, they don't
> have to  buy the  home. If they  don't like the  final product  that the
> developer has product, they dont' have to buy.

Indeed developers will make money, or else they will stop developing.
Indeed consumers will part with their money only if they value the
return. That is the game of economics, no one party is at fault (or to
be praised) for whatever comes about. One might argue that the buyer
*must* value the substandard home the developer offers because it's the
only home and they need some home. The demand argument... However, if
you value your money more than the McMansion, you may wait. It may be
difficult, but if it's worth it for you, then you will persist. Where
there's demand, where there's a market, someone will provide. If you
look hard enough you will find someone offering the house you are
willing to part with you money for. Why? Because you don't give up and
spend it away. It's money to be had no other way, and someone will have

Kinda like votes I think. If you cherish your vote, if you hold it
dear and covet it, only trading it for real value you insist on having,
someone will have that vote and give you value for it. Well, these votes
alone won't necessarily get your desires into office, but they will send
a message. They will also bring out of the woodworks those who you would
vote for, allowing you ever more choices in voting! Besides that you
know who you can campaign for, and who to support. You are awakened to a
vast world of reason and intellect. You have hope in America once again.
At least this was my experience, YMMV.

Wow, whoda thought these two subthreads were still so very connected!

> > Houses haven't gotten cheaper over the decades.
> According to which standard of measure?

The standard that ignores inflation. The cost the same and more, so they
must not be cheaper. Or were we talking about quality?

> > House prices have out-paced inflation at  least 5 to 1. Why isn't the 
> > quality going *up* if houses are getting more expensive?              
> I assume you have the answer. Care to share the wealth?

They haven't gotten cheaper, and they haven't gotten better. They must
be the very same houses of last century.

> > Houses are not Transformer toys. Toys have gotten cheaper. Houses have
> > gotten more expensive,  and yet both toys and houses  have gone *down*
> > in quality. Yes, comparing houses to toys is logical fallacy (proof by
> > false analogy, actually).
> Will you offer a proof by true analogy?

I hope the above analogy whets your appetite.

Von Fugal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20080620/027ad35f/attachment.bin 

More information about the PLUG mailing list