Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 04:09 PM) Of course you can't translate a 22% rise in oil prices to a 22% rise in oil consumption, that's just silly. No one would say that oil consumption dropped 50% between June and December 2008. That's the inelasticity in the oil markets hitting you. I edited the post long before reply. It may not be 22% to 22%, but it's relation matters, but my point was, it's not the ONLY factor involved. There are many factors that affect the price of oil, these being discussed are just a few of them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 03:51 PM) Then please point one out for me where oil prices are dropping. Because if oil prices are going up in all of them, then it can't be the "Weak dollar" that's doing it. It's a contributing factor, which you cannot dismiss. Oil prices rising 22% over the last few months is not because people are suddenly using X% more oil in relation to that exact rise in price...if you really believe that's the ONLY cause, I have some beachfront property in Canada to sell you. There are MANY factors that drive commodity prices upward in addition to demand, and the value of the dollar happens to be of them.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 12:36 PM) Wanted to have an ongoing thread for this. So, Emmanuel is officially on the ballot. Davis, Mosley-Braun and a handful of others as well. And I just want to point out, racism is alive and well in Chicago politics. Danny Davis pulls out the race card and threatens Bill Clinton with it. Why is racism like this considered acceptable to ANYONE? The race is a foregone conclusion...Rahm won.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 12:25 PM) Its also more polluting. But, in general, people going over to more fuel efficient cars can be a big part of the short range solution. Less fuel consumption, and more drive for innovation from American car companies. I think this has already taken place, especially in light of the recent cash for clunkers where you trade up to a more fuel efficient model and receive a tax refund...the fact that people went through every cent of that shows that a LOT of people did update their cars. Even if they're only getting a few more miles per gallon, that adds up with everyone that took advantage of the program.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 12:08 PM) new jersey is a state. To me, it's a city...and a s***ty one at that. Nitpick elsewhere.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 12:04 PM) It can be instant and it's already here. Two Words Clean Diesel (TDI) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharged_Direct_Injection My wife and I each have a TDI car. (She's got the Audi A3 and I've got the VW Jetta) Both have averaged between 37-40mpg since we got them. That includes driving in the winter here in Chicago (horrible mpg) and highway driving (where we get 40-42mpg consistently) Does it end fossil fuel usage? Of course not. Can it significantly slow down its usage and need. Absolutely. That's not alternative energy. It's petrol based therefore it's still fossil fuel/oil. It's more efficient yes...but it's not alternative.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 11:44 AM) Honestly, til yesterday, I was stranded in airports so I don't know. Probably not... because NY and Philly media generally ignores NJ media. And New Jersey media leans heavily Republican. Ever since the advent of Jersey Shore, the second I hear the word Jersey, my mind blanks, ignoring anyone and anything about the conversation even if it's completely unrelated. You're city brought this upon itself with that show.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 11:42 AM) I bike to work every day from May through September. See, the great thing about the alt energy stuff to is, its got the added benefit of not only adding a lot of good paying jobs (oil would to an extent too, though less of the high paying kind)... but creating industry to EXPORT our technology globally, which is what the US needs to propel real, serious growth. I feel like a broken record, but I really think we are missing a great opportunity here. We're spending stimulus money on road construction, tax cuts mostly benefiting the people who are already rich, and a crappy attempt at health care overhaul. Putting the US as a leader in alt energy is, IMO, far more valuable for the long range health of the country than any of those things. I agree with this in part...but obviously involving so many huge industries makes it a very complex argument.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 11:46 AM) We're not spending money on the health care overhaul. We're spending money on a crappy and expensive health care system. That's because the health care overhaul failed to overhaul anything in the actual health care system -- instead, it overhauled the insurance system that pays for said health care system -- because people erroneously considered them one and the same. What was done is akin to attacking gas stations for charging you 5$ a gallon for gas, when the oil they're paying for costs them 4.90$. I said this from the start. In order for that reform to have meant anything, it needed to reform all of it, from doctors/hospitals, drug companies, to the insurance systems covering it... It was and is a dismal failure.

I agree with both your assessments, I was just pointing out that it will be a hard task and a long road...but I'm sure we will move in that direction, that's a foregone conclusion. As you've both pointed out, we are at what appears to be at an apex when it comes to fossil fuel usage, and critical mass is being met. With many 3rd world countries emerging and beginning to use this same resource in mass quantity, the availability will drop while the demand rises...what will occur then is economics 101. I think we are moving toward alternatives, I just think it's a lonnnnnnng lonnnnnng road. In modern American society where we expect things to be instant...I think people are going to have to learn to wait again... Or ride a bike.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 10:25 AM) I'd say its the other way around - $5 gas is a reality period, which is why we need to do something. Since drilling more AND increasing use of non-fossil fuels will both have a positive effect, but one is clearly the better long term alternative (because it actually creates high paying jobs, pollutes less, and costs us a TON less in the future), the choice should be crystal clear. I'm positive if it were as easy as that, it'd already be done on a massive scale. That said, a lot of money IS being spent on alternative energy research and development right now, and in the years to come you will begin to see the fruits of that labor, albeit small fruits. It's not something that will happen overnight, and most of these newly researched technologies will fail to produce any actual worth, as most will prove to be less efficient than their predecessors. Until something can be more efficient and available on a massive scale (easy to get/refuel, etc), it's all talk and while interesting topics of discussion, it's nothing more. Electric cars will continue to suck until they require less batteries which are also made out of rare earth materials, the batteries stop losing the ability to recharge and store the same amounts of energy, are able to recharge in minutes (not hours), have the same power or more than internal combustion engines, and the infrastructure to recharge them exists all over the place, such as gas stations.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 09:36 PM) I'm still a fan of not trading one of the best young lefty starters in baseball for an unproven package when we're contending for the Central, but hey, that's just me. This.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 29, 2010 -> 07:17 AM) The longest paper I wrote in undergrad, for a senior/grad level Poli Sci class called Federalism and Federation, was a study of Indian Reservations, the Dawes Act and how the existing legal structure is basically keeping things bad for the native populations. Its been my opinion for a long time that at this point, the best thing we could do (if anyone really cared enough about this issue, which most people don't) is to get rid of the reservation system entirely. This will be painful, and at first costly, but will end up being beneficial and a huge savings in government spending in the long run. This will never happen, at least not in our lifetimes.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 11:53 AM) Yeah I was thinking about the Vanguard 500 index fund, but it seems like EVERYONE recommends that. I dunno if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I added some edits to my previous post with a few links where you can read about the S&P. People recommend it for the reasons I stated, it's cheap to hold (very low cost basis), and will perform directly in line with the overall market, which is good when talking about a very long term strategy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 11:01 AM) Long term, 30-35 years or more (barring something unforeseen), with added contribution on a monthly or quarterly basis. I'm thinking about 10k in the next year to start and maybe 1500 a quarter thereafter. Ok, next comes the account type. Some will say IRA, Roth IRA, etc...I disagree with this for a number of reasons, however, such accounts are good for people with no financial discipline, as it forces you to keep your money there with the threat of penalty for early withdrawal. The only time I think these types of accounts are a good idea is for the reason mentioned previously, or because it's a company sponsored 401k with some sort of % match. Why IRA's are bad (and most people don't realize): 1) Cannot wash 2) Cannot get to your money in an emergency without a huge penalty 3) When you do retire and start using this money, it's taxed as ordinary income, not long term capital gains, which is essentially double the tax at current rates...odds are these will only increase in the future, not decease. All that said...if what you want to do is invest in a mutual fund with a large portion of the money on a quarterly basis, and dabble with some individual stocks, and again, I'm sure people will disagree with me... The only fund you should buy is the S&P500 Index. Aggressive mutual funds, and mutual funds in general tend to have a higher cost basis (meaning the person running the fund gets their cut, usually 1% or more, per year), while the S&P500 Index funds cost basis usually hovers around 0.15%, and over a span of years that alone is a huge cost savings. Add to that, given the period of time you are looking to invest, no fund has EVER consistently outperformed the S&P500. There can be a span of years in which they do, even as much as a decade (for instance look at the lost decade 2000-2010, outperforming the S&P500 was easy), but the further and further you go back, the harder and harder it becomes to do it. Also, due to how low the S&P500 has been, the indexes were cheaper...and that's what you want out of whatever index or fund you do decide to invest in...to buy low, not while they're at the height of their popularity. S&P 500 Index information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500 S&P Index Calculator and a good short writeup on how to understand Annualized Return: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm As you can see by the charts, over the lifetime of the S&P, it will usually equal out to a median annual return of 10% (which seems low, but 10% is NOT low), where it has moments of huge gains or losses, the median is ~10%. Example: Going back 5 years, 50% of mutual funds can show they've outperformed the S&P500 index. Going back 10 years, 25% can show this. Go back 20 years, 2% can show this (the number exponentially falls off a cliff). Go back 30...and 0.01% can show this. Over the long haul, nothing outperforms the S&P500, AND it's the cheapest fund to hold. It's what I recommend. In addition to this, just to cover your bases, you can pick a random International Index or Mutual fund so you have some of your money in foreign companies, but I'd recommend you do this with a smaller portion. Edit: I shouldn't say nothing outperforms the S&P500 Index, obviously things have and can...the odds of you picking that exact fund are very VERY low, since there are millions of funds to choose from. Also, going back far enough where a specific fund does beat the market (when people say beat the market they mean beat the S&P500 index), it will be by an almost negligible % amount...so the risk of holding that fund over the S&P vs the reward isn't enough to justify the added and much higher cost basis. Any questions?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 10:48 AM) I'm 28, so I figured I have a few years to be more risky to start. Any good suggestions on more aggressive funds? I plan to invest a few thousand every couple of months. Maybe aggressive isn't the right word - i'm looking for growth, even if a little risky at this point. What kind of term are we talking here for these investments? Do you want to start buying up funds and just letting them grow over a span of 20 years, or are you talking more short term, like 5 years?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) Can be merged with the Financial thread I'm sure, and maybe it should be in a different forum altogether, but I'll throw it here for now (mods feel free to move as you please) I wanted to get people's opinions on the various online trading sites out there. Does anyone have any horror stories? Any good recommendations? I'm looking at the big guns, Schwab, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, etc. Fidelity is nice because it's the cheapest of the big firms for equity trades (7.95), but they charge 75 bucks (versus 40 or under) as fees for mutual funds (at least those not in their special group of funds). I'm guessing that without hours and hours of research, I'm going to get hit with these hidden fees no matter what company I choose, but hopefully someone out there has already figured that out. Basically my plan is to invest aggressive, though not crazy aggressive. I'm planning on doing the vast majority in mutual funds/bonds, but I also want to dabble (i.e., gamble) on some stocks for fun. Thoughts/opinions appreciated! I've used quite a few of those mentioned above, but have ended up sticking with E*Trade for quite a while now. They were usually ahead of the game in terms of online technology, iPhone app, Android app, etc...where the others lagged behind (some still do). But what it comes down too is 1) the minimum required amounts in each account and 2) how much do they charge per trade. Go with whoever is the cheapest if they're a known company. And what do you mean by invest aggressive? How old are you? I ask because aggressive investing is something a person under 30 years old should look into. After 30, balance and diversification are key. Keep in mind the same error 99.999999% of the people who begin investing make is that they tend to buy mutual funds and index funds high, panic at the first sign of trouble (think 2008) and sell low. The market is pretty high right now, so most of these aggressive funds will be at the top end of their 5 year values, which would mean you're buying high. The idea is to find the funds nobody wants and figure out why. Example: Nobody wanted blue chips in the late 90's because the Internet boom was all the rage. Other than the fact that the Internet boom was all the rage, there was no real reason to not want the blue chips, they were profitable (unlike most of the techs were back then), paying dividends (again, unlike most of the techs were back then), etc...but were at bargain basement prices merely because they weren't "the future". It's a different story if nobody wants to invest in a specific company because the company is in debt, losing money, has bad products, etc. Being able to find the bargains is the key to investing, in any market.

I don't believe it either way. There is no way to change team allegiance on a whim, even if you want too because of how much you grow to hate loving them...they're still your team. You didn't choose your team, your team chose you. While they'll never admit it, deep down, they're secretly hoping success for their former team and the day they make it to the world series, the truth will come out.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 28, 2010 -> 08:08 AM) Not our problem. Our problem.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 05:13 PM) Virgil, who the f*** is Virgil? Wasn't he the guy that hung out with the Million Dollar Man and the nWo?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2010 -> 10:58 AM) Obviously true So should we be tanking Jim Parque, then?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 24, 2010 -> 12:58 AM) I missed that whole debate, that was good (Y2HH spent a prolonged amount of time making a lot of sense and making me agree with him, I knew he could do it!). SS *is* an insurance system even though it's not really called that every day or thought of it that way. When people save for retirement they might do the best they can while they work, but they have no idea how long they're going to live, and people would outlive their savings like they used to do before SS. It has nothing to do with being stupid or making bad investments, it's just something you can't really predict. The only way to make it work is to have everyone participate or else you start having self-selection problems, only the people that need it would use it, and it'd fall apart. The same as any insurance system, really. If you only have people buying auto insurance who are prone to getting into accidents, and know they are, while everybody else chooses to not have insurance, the company is either not going to be able to make its payouts, or it's going to be prohibitively expensive. Somewhere in our galaxy, a star collapsed, forming a black hole which will inevitably swallow our entire galaxy -- all because you agreed with me. Good job.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 12:31 PM) OK, who's smarter...one thousand Y2HHs or a comatose Ditka? Bad.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 03:58 PM) Call me crazy, but I dont care if mobile is "neutral" yet. I'm more worried about wired, where MOST Americans get the internet. And the new FCC reules do, in many ways, create net neutrality for wired networks. This is exactly what the wireless carriers were hoping people would say and how they would feel, including those who passed it for them. In 5 years, the mention of wired networks will have people scratching their heads...because they're becoming less and less necessary, and in 10 years time, they almost won't exist...but it doesn't matter so long as they have these rules backing them. And in the mean time, there are a lot of people who's only means of accessing the internet via broadband is via wireless technologies...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 01:10 PM) Rex did chime in a few pages ago, in case you missed it. I didn't know he was gay. And I missed this post.