MTSkiBum

Also, there will be a huge bubble burst later this year in stock market. There is circular finance going around in the AI space. Nvidia is investing in it's customers, which then use that money to purchase computing power from data centers, the money the data centers receive from AI companies, then goes right back to Nvidia. CoreWeave is going to go under first though i think and that will start the toppling. Coreweave sells its computing power at a loss, and is building more data centers to sell at a loss. Eventually it's funding will run dry, and that will be the start. When coreweave and other data centers no longer buy from Nvidia, then nvidia's stock will tank. At about this point people will quit investing in venture capital's that invest in AI, this will cause companies like Open AI and Anthropic to declare bankruptcy. Then the banks that loaned them tons of cash like JP Morgan chase and Deutsche Bank will then realize they invested billions to tens of billions that they are never getting back. My guess is around July-September timeframe, but depending on if people keep throwing money at venture capital, maybe this bubble lasts another year. I don't think people realize the negative margins that both the data center companies and AI companies have. They are all just burning cash.

It screws businesses and poorer people though, since the average credit card processing fee is around 2-3%. When margins are tight that sucks. It also then affects poorer people since they are more likely to use cash over card. Businesses have to raise their prices by that 2-3% to cover the transaction, which means that the poorer people paying cash are subsidizing the people with more money who then get cash back through their credit card. I use card for almost everything. I am guilty of this, but it still sucks. No way am I carrying cash around, and stopping at an ATM machine every week.

But the reason a market is hot is because more people are moving there and the reason a market is cold is because there is less demand. By how the market works there will always be less people moving from hot market to to cold market than the other way around. This would only benefit a minority of home owners.

About 5% of families own a 2nd home, and I do hope to be one of them in about ~5 years or so. But home building policies shouldn't be based around families that can afford 2 homes. Going back to my first post, there were 6.8 million homes built in last decade when population was ~320 million people and in 1960's there were 9.3 million homes built when population was 200 million people. That is 1 house per every 47 people in last decade, but 1 house for every 21 people in 1960's. If we don't build enough houses, then the cost of housing will be much higher. This is why housing costs have greatly outstripped inflation. Maybe subsidies aren't the perfect answer, maybe there is a better solution. I do like trump's plan to limit corporate home ownership, but we also need to figure out a way to get more houses being built if young people are going to be able to afford housing in the future. https://www.builderonline.com/data-analysis/nahb-second-home-areas-gain-market-share_c

I understand where the confusion lies now. When subsidizing something, you can subsidize either the producers or the consumers. For example our steel, aluminum, and concrete industries all receive subsidies somewhere of about 1-3% of their revenue. This is an example of a producer subsidy. Subsidizing homeowners or college tuition is an example of a consumer subsidy. When you subsidize the consumer, it creates artificial demand and that artificial demand can drive the price back up to the original cost. However, when you subsidize the producer, it does not have that effect. This is why i stated that homebuilders should be subsidized, not homebuyers. I also explicitly layed out this risk in my previous post. If you go back and re-read it, the home building industry is both producer and a consumer. The largest products it consumes would be lumber and concrete. Specific care would have to be taken so that your concern would not happen. We would not want the cost of lumber to skyrocket because homebuilders were subsidized.

Typically when an industry is subsidized it causes an increase in production and a decrease in cost for the end consumer. This is because when an industry is subsidized it encourages more companies to enter the market and for existing companies to increase production. Subsidies are typically tax breaks, but can also include grants and low cost loans. Grants would be more for research, like the government subsidizing new computer chip development or new battery technology. But for existing industries it would probably be tax breaks. Subsidies can cause an increase in pricing of raw materials for competing industries if that is not taken into account. For example if home builders were subsidized heavily then the demand for lumber would increase. If the supply of lumber is also not increased, either through subsidies or naturally then the price of the raw material will rise which negatively effects competing industries, ie furniture builders. But all of this can be taken into account by the people who are working on putting the bill together to actually subsidize an industry.

We want to limit home appreciation. It sounds good on paper, your home goes up in price. However, once you sell your home you need another home, and that home also appreciated in price. So it is a wash. The below stat is even worse than it initially looks. In 1960's there was roughly half the population then there is today and yet even though we had half the population we still built 50% more houses. Corporate ownership and lack of houses being built are making home ownership way too expensive. Hopefully Trump addresses the former, but we still need the latter addressed.

There should be a limit on how many homes you can own. Maybe set the limit somewhere around ~50 single family homes or ~10-25 apartment complexes? We also probably need to subsidize home builders. We have built the least amount of houses per capita in last decade in a long time. We need to build more homes.

Why not, this sounds like something that the government should do. Maybe go back to the ratio we had back in mid 80's between exec pay and lower level pay. This won't happen, but the idea is not bad.

I dont listen to much sports media, but if sirius xm or espn are overrating it then that is their fault. It is still an impressive feat even though the team sucked. When a good player gets stuck on the jets, browns, raiders, or other bad team i generally don't hold it against the player. There is nothing they can do to turn the team around.

The browns this year faced the same number of pass attempts as giants in 2001. That is even though passing rate is up quite a bit over last 24 years and the fact that he got an extra game. The sack rate was better for Garrett than Strahan.

The browns are a dysfunctional franchise and having 1 elite player does not solve the problem. It is a team game and while usually the QB gets blamed, it looks like the DE is getting blamed here. Dillon Gabriel had 4.5 yards per attempt and 2 interceptions. It is amazing they had 13 points.

Garrett breaking the sack record is impressive because the Browns played from behind quite a bit and opposing teams didnt need to pass. Through week 17 they faced the 3rd lowest number of pass attempts in the league at 448 attempts. The jaguars and seahawks each had over 600 pass attempts against their defense. Imagine if he got another 150 chances to sack the QB.

It is concerning that he is given cognitive tests frequently. This is his 3rd test since he has taken office, which puts him on the every 6 month time table and not the once a year timetable. The major medical establishments, AAN, CDC, etc recommend yearly tests for healthy adults over 65, but more frequent testing when dementia is already suspected/diagnosed. This lets them monitor the dementia progression. What if we as a country elected 2 presidents in a row with dementia. I wonder why we arent doing better. My quotes got all messed up, maybe i need screened! For healthy adults: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190919093916.htm

Doing anything fun?