"Taking the Pain" has started in the US & UK

[drbubb]

Some regular readers may recall, that I identified two main themes for 2008:

 

+ Stagflation, (a weak economy in the midst of inflation), and

+ Declining wealth in the US and the UK

 

Listen to the 2008 Forecasts (Jim Roger, Marc Faber, Zapata George, Dr.B, ... etc.):

http://commoditywatch.podbean.com/2007/12/ (3rd, after Rogers)

 

Both of the above predictions are hitting hard, and will continue to do so for some months to come.

Ultimately, the US (and maybe the UK too) will need to change their "living arrangements".

This need-to-change is not yet widely recognised, but we are slowly moving towards that recognition.

== == ==

 

... it is interesting to see some home truths about falling living standards is being recognised by a director of the BofE:

 

"In my view a correction of approximately one third in house prices does not seem implausible in the UK over a period of two or three years if house price-to-earnings ratios are to be restored to more sustainable levels," he said.

 

Although many forecasters suspect house prices will drop in the coming years, few have issued forecasts quite as dramatic as Prof Blanchflower.

 

The speech came as families faced increasingly gloomy prospects in the credit crunch.The price of the average new or renewed mortgage has increased sharply since the onset of the financial crisis last autumn. Households are also paying more for their utility bills and food shops as inflation increases the cost of living. At the same time, employers have cut wage increases in an attempt to retain profits.

 

The end result was that last year, families' disposable income increased at the slowest rate in 25 years.

(note: adjust for inflation, and they are behind 2007.)

 

/see thread: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...t=0&start=0

[drbubb]

In January, Jim Puplava forecast "$125 by Year-end", we hit that this week.

And Jim P. is now revising his forecast to:

 

$140 -150 by winter

$200 Oil by the end of 2009

$??? - if disaster hits: pipelime blows up, etc.

 

"At $200 oil, we will be rationing gasoline."

"What are they going to do

"We are competing now with 3.5 billion people on the other side of the planet."

"Opec is consuming more of the product they produce...there is less to export."

 

/Listen: (near the end): http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2008-0510-3a.asx

 

== == ==

 

LIVING ARRANGEMENTS need changing:

 

They still DONT GET IT.

They are mostly looking at temporary things like: driving more slowly, making a few less journeys, and maybe changing

away from the SIV. When they talk about GETTING RID OF CARS ALTOGETHER, and structuring their living arrangements

so they can live a quality life while doing that - then, and only then, will they be on the road to a lasting solution.

 

Until that happens, I expect America's wealth to ebb away.

 

Bob Rivers Show - Can't Afford to Drive My Car

 

== == ==

 

Some are already discussing these important issues. From a GEI thread :

 

This is true. It is seemingly incomprehensible to most folks to imagine that they won't be able to run a car, or that oil will become so expensive that it will 'effect' their entire lives beyond just the price at the pump.

 

It seems that most folks just don't get it, the world runs on oil.

 

Even if they find shedloads of the stuff, you know 100 Billion barrels here, another 300 Billion barrels there, it's only a temporary stopgap, literally like re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

 

But until that day...

 

Exactly.

Now here's the interesting part. The anti-suburbs investment strategy IS WORKING.

 

Those who can walk, or cycle to work, are little hurt by the rise in petrol prices.

And I believe it is a fact that HOMES NEAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT are holding value far better than those

far out in the "stranded suburbs". People are talking about it yet, but if you check the data, I think you

will find this is true.

[drbubb]

A CLONE THREAD - on hPC has had several good postings.

I thought this one was worth carrying over here also:

=======================================

 

Aha, demand! Demand dictates price right? But haven't we just seen a lot of demand for houses in the UK followed by the beginning of the crash? IMO, oil has already broken the affordability barrier (lagging indicator) and all the demand in the world cannot prevent a collapse in prices if there is no money to pay for it. The bottom line here is that the world is broke--there is no credit. Banks are failing and we headed into recession. Oil at $200 is a luxury well beyond the ability of anyone to pay.

 

The US cannot afford to import so much oil, but other countries can, like China, Japan and India.

Remember that $1.5 trillion dollars of reserves in China, and almost $1.0 trillion in Japan? $1 trillion buys alot of oil.

 

Here's the Faustian bargain that the US has made:

Instead of "taking the pain" during Greenspan's time, by having higher rates, a weaker economy, and less borrowing from foreigners, the US took a different path. Greenspan put off a recession by forcing rates down to near 1%, and he "got away with it". Foreigners provided the capital, American borrowed against their homes, and kept spending, avoiding a recession when the dotcom bust came.

 

But this path is now leading through some dangerous land. Too many foreigners hold dollars, and the dollar is falling in value, as the US tries the low-interest trick another time.

 

Instaed of taking the pain through higher rates, the US is taking it through higher commodity prices- and oil in particular iis going through the roof. This is hitting Ameicans where they are most vulnerable. The US uses three times as much oil per capita as Europe, and ten times as much per capita as China and India. That's because 50% of Americans live in the suburbs. And now those who rely too much on cars fir commuting are going to bear the full force of the pain. So as the dollar slides, the dollar oil price will soar. And America will have to suffer the demand destruction that is inevitable in a time of Peak Oil. Instead of a two recessions, one after the dotcom bust and one now, the US will get a depression, and it will be triggered by high dollar oil prices.

 

How the rest of the world fares will depend upon how much oil they use, and whether or not their currencies can maintain food and energy purchasing power, as the dollar slides. Some can, especially oil producing countries. (Sadly, the UK is no longer in this category.) And smart companies and countries will be re-orienting their economies to export to oil producers. Watch for China and Japan (maybe India too) to look away from US consumers, and towrds those in the Middle East.

 

America's best chance, is to change itself: beginning to restructure its living arrangement, and move fast and seriously into becoming a world leader in alternative energy. That's a far more palatable mission than being "world policeman", and one that would win the US miore friends abroad.

[gwizzie]

A CLONE THREAD - on hPC has had several good postings.

I thought this one was worth carrying over here also:

=======================================

 

 

 

The US cannot afford to import so much oil, but other countries can, like China, Japan and India.

Remember that $1.5 trillion dollars of reserves in China, and almost $1.0 trillion in Japan? $1 trillion buys alot of oil.

 

Here's the Faustian bargain that the US has made:

Instead of "taking the pain" during Greenspan's time, by having higher rates, a weaker economy, and less borrowing from foreigners, the US took a different path. Greenspan put off a recession by forcing rates down to near 1%, and he "got away with it". Foreigners provided the capital, American borrowed against their homes, and kept spending, avoiding a recession when the dotcom bust came.

 

But this path is now leading through some dangerous land. Too many foreigners hold dollars, and the dollar is falling in value, as the US tries the low-interest trick another time.

 

Instaed of taking the pain through higher rates, the US is taking it through higher commodity prices- and oil in particular iis going through the roof. This is hitting Ameicans where they are most vulnerable. The US uses three times as much oil per capita as Europe, and ten times as much per capita as China and India. That's because 50% of Americans live in the suburbs. And now those who rely too much on cars fir commuting are going to bear the full force of the pain. So as the dollar slides, the dollar oil price will soar. And America will have to suffer the demand destruction that is inevitable in a time of Peak Oil. Instead of a two recessions, one after the dotcom bust and one now, the US will get a depression, and it will be triggered by high dollar oil prices.

 

How the rest of the world fares will depend upon how much oil they use, and whether or not their currencies can maintain food and energy purchasing power, as the dollar slides. Some can, especially oil producing countries. (Sadly, the UK is no longer in this category.) And smart companies and countries will be re-orienting their economies to export to oil producers. Watch for China and Japan (maybe India too) to look away from US consumers, and towrds those in the Middle East.

 

America's best chance, is to change itself: beginning to restructure its living arrangement, and move fast and seriously into becoming a world leader in alternative energy. That's a far more palatable mission than being "world policeman", and one that would win the US miore friends abroad.

 

I have make several remarks (in jest) about China getting pulling out of the dollar after the Olympics. I never really promoted the idea as a realistic possibility because of the global implications.

I really am finding it hard to dismiss it though. I dont understand exactly how it would happen, but if "foreigners" start winding up their investments in America and placing their money in commodities (especially gold) would the implications not be catastrophic to the dollar and fantastic to gold?

The reason for my concern is the continued falling value of the dollar and the antipathy towards the "world policeman"

Does anyone else have these concerns?...even a little twinge?

 

oh congrats on hitting the 5 digits Dr Bubb!

 

 

[wren]

I really am finding it hard to dismiss it though. I dont understand exactly how it would happen, but if "foreigners" start winding up their investments in America and placing their money in commodities (especially gold) would the implications not be catastrophic to the dollar and fantastic to gold?

Don't you think that whether or not most payments for crude oil must be in dollars is the main lynchpin of the dollar system?

 

[gwizzie]

Don't you think that whether or not most payments for crude oil must be in dollars is the main lynchpin of the dollar system?

I realise that everything is priced in dollars. Is there a practical point to that other than convenience? The foreign exchange has to be done at some level and at some stage during the transaction anyway. I see no difference in the US having to purchase using Riyals, the only thing that changes is the stage where the currency exchange takes place.

[cbs7]

I realise that everything is priced in dollars. Is there a practical point to that other than convenience? The foreign exchange has to be done at some level and at some stage during the transaction anyway. I see no difference in the US having to purchase using Riyals, the only thing that changes is the stage where the currency exchange takes place.

It is true there is no practical difference what currency is used for pricing, however the fact that oil, precious metals and other commodities are priced in US dollars is probably because the USD was (and just about still is) the only world reserve currency and the USA, the world's strongest economy. This means people still place a good deal of faith in the USD versus other fiat currencies. IMO worldwide pricing oil in say euros or some other currency would be a huge blow to the USD and sends a big signal that the USD is no longer considered the world's reserve currency.

[wren]

I realise that everything is priced in dollars. Is there a practical point to that other than convenience? The foreign exchange has to be done at some level and at some stage during the transaction anyway. I see no difference in the US having to purchase using Riyals, the only thing that changes is the stage where the currency exchange takes place.

If you have to pay for something in dollars you need dollars in hand to make the payment. That inevitably increases demand for dollars, even if you purchase the dollars only shortly before making the payment. In practice, I guess, many hold dollars longer because they know they will need them for future payments.

 

That's why I said payment, rather than price.

[drbubb]

If you have to pay for something in dollars you need dollars in hand to make the payment. That inevitably increases demand for dollars, even if you purchase the dollars only shortly before making the payment. In practice, I guess, many hold dollars longer because they know they will need them for future payments.

 

That's why I said payment, rather than price.

 

I see you point, but I look at it differently.

The main question is what happens to the dollars once they spent on commodities or consumer goods.

If Middle Eastern oil producers hold their surplus in dollars, and so do exporters like China and Japan,

then there will be a stable dollar. But if they become reluctant, and start dumping them, for gold or whatever,

then the dollar will fall. So far, they have mostly kept the dollars, but no guarantees that they will continue to

do so.

 

I can imagine a world where few want dollars, and people only buy them for a day or so, when the need them

to buy oil and other commodities, and then the commodity sellers rush to dump the dollars as soon as they get

them. When we see that, there will be great pressure to change the currency in which oil trades are denominated

[drbubb]

(EUROPE has its own problem of falling living standards):

 

In Germany, according to a report published by consultancy McKinsey, those earning between 70 and 150 per cent of the average income - the standard definition of the middle class - will make up less than half the population by 2020, against 54 per cent today.

 

Only eight years ago, 62 per cent of Germans were in the middle-class bracket, according to a second study. Key markers of middle-class status - such as overseas holidays - are disappearing or becoming blurred. 'I haven't been away for two years,' said Aurel Thurn, 38, who works for an art gallery in Berlin and has top-level qualifications, 10 years' experience and speaks four languages fluently. 'I have enough money for my rent, my telephone and food. But that's it.'

 

Many feel that Germany's middle class has not benefited from the nation's recent economic recovery. The result has been political pressure, with trade union activism and a wave of industrial action aimed at securing higher wages and enhanced benefits as well as lower taxes for average earners and higher taxes on the rich. Germany's political parties have reacted by boosting public spending and are considering wide tax cuts.

 

'There is a political swing towards what were once considered the ideas of the political left such as minimum wages, benefits and so on,' said Holgar Schaefer, labour economist at the Cologne Institute of Economics. 'It is a tendency that is only likely to become more obvious in coming years.'

 

The same thing is happening elsewhere. In France, there has been a mass mobilisation of teachers and pupils against plans to slash staffing levels. 'It is completely unprecedented,' said author and journalist Ariane Chemin.

 

'There is a potentially explosive combination of political disillusion with a fascination for politics. Young people are both deeply cynical and deeply politicised. They are at the school gates calling teachers who work "scabs". We haven't seen anything like it for years.'

 

But it may be that, instead of the demise of the European class, we are merely witnessing its evolution. Daniel Gros, of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, said the middle classes across Europe were 'splintering'. 'The homogeneous middle class that you once had based on industry and a protected government sector is disappearing,' he said.

 

The political and social consequences are already visible. The success of Nicolas Sarkozy is one, according to Gros. 'The old massive blocs of Gaullist right and Socialist left based on clear understandings of what it is to be working class and socialist have broken down,' he said. 'Sarkozy's appeal cut across those classic divisions.'

 

Analysts also point out that the 'hardship' of the middle classes is relative - according to the European Commission, there are an estimated 16 million people in the EU at risk of poverty. 'The decline in standards of living for young middle class people is pretty moderate when compared with the very dramatic situation of their counterparts in totally marginalised communities such as the poor French suburbs,' said Professor Ian Begg of the London School of Economics.

 

/see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/11/spain.france

[No6]

Exactly.

Now here's the interesting part. The anti-suburbs investment strategy IS WORKING.

 

Those who can walk, or cycle to work, are little hurt by the rise in petrol prices.

And I believe it is a fact that HOMES NEAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT are holding value far better than those

far out in the "stranded suburbs". People are talking about it yet, but if you check the data, I think you

will find this is true.

However, because of rising house prices many people have had to travel further to work because they cannot afford to live close to their place of work. Are there any hard facts on this? All I know is that I work with many people who travel long distances to get to work. In the past this did not happen so much. How you change it is anyone's guess, but a 50% fall in house prices will help.

 

A CLONE THREAD - on hPC has had several good postings.

I thought this one was worth carrying over here also:

=======================================

 

 

 

The US cannot afford to import so much oil, but other countries can, like China, Japan and India.

Remember that $1.5 trillion dollars of reserves in China, and almost $1.0 trillion in Japan? $1 trillion buys alot of oil.

Realist bear makes a good point point however. There is an assumption that oil will keep on rising in price and people will pay, but if they don't and if in the west we start to use less and become more aware of what is going on, then why would China or anyone else pay any price for oil? They are not stupid, if demand goes down in the west, especially the US, surely the likes of China and India will be telling the oil producers how much they are prepared to pay and if they have any sense they will be using all those dollars to buy the oil companies so they have some control over how much they might pay. Competition for oil resources helps keeps the price high, take it away, let the market smell the fear of recession and the price could probably fall quite dramatically. Not saying this will happen, but how many people thought after the 70's hike in the price of oil, it would be as low as $10 a barrel, 10-15 years later. They were talking about peak oil back then as well. Never say never.

 

 

[drbubb]

Realist bear makes a good point point however. There is an assumption that oil will keep on rising in price and people will pay, but if they don't and if in the west we start to use less and become more aware of what is going on, then why would China or anyone else pay any price for oil? They are not stupid, if demand goes down in the west, especially the US, surely the likes of China and India will be telling the oil producers how much they are prepared to pay ...

 

If global demand falls, then prices will too.

And that may happen for a few months, if the world goes into recession, but perhaps not long. Here's why:

 

+ As Jim Puplava has pointed out, demand for oil is rising within Opec countries, so if their production fails to rise, then their exports of oil are tending to fall,

 

+ Car ownership is rising fast in China and India, and things like Tata Motors' new bargain Car ($xxxx per vehicle) are reinforcing the growth in auto ownership. Everytime a chinese or indian buys a car for teh first time, that is tending to bring a PERMANENT increase in oil demand in the country. So the rapid growth in car sales in those countries has a different impact that the replacement demand in the US or Europe,

 

Remember that glut of centre city 2BR and 3BR flats in Britain?

AFTER the price drops, I can see demand stabilising while demand for properties in the stranded suburbs continues to shrink. This will surprise the old property bulls on SP who ae so negative about those properties. But the day of this shift is still perhaps a minimum of 18 months to 2 years away, because the pressure for price falls is now so great. Meantime, watch for rental demand for these properties to pick up, as people SELL their stranded suburban homes to STR and downsize into a city centre flat

 

[malco]

They were talking about peak oil back then as well. Never say never.

 

No one who knew what they were talking about was saying we were anywhere near "peak oil" back in the 1970s. It may have been said, but not by people who knew what the supply situation was. Hubbert talked about it, but predicted it would not happen for another 30 years. The shock was to people who had known unprecedented plenty for almost 30 years suddenly having to wait in long queues for gas just like in war time. So, doubtless there was reactionary rhetoric.

 

People who today talk about "running out of oil" also do not know what they are talking about, since Peak Oil of course does not mean that. In any literal sense, we will never run out of oil. Part of the problem of peak oil is the surprising number of people who just don't grasp the concept that "not having plenty" is different from "running out of oil". There is reactionary rhetoric today too.

[dst]

 

Don't shoot the messenger:-

 

Canada.com's view on the subject

 

Don't be too quick to dump your SUV

 

The rising price of gasoline offers all of us an interesting logic test. What's the right thing to do in response? Should we sell our big vehicles, give up our houses in the suburbs, or spend billions of dollars on a new transit system?

 

If you checked off none of the above, you're on the right track.

[drbubb]

Don't shoot the messenger:-

Canada.com's view on the subject

 

Let's look at his argument:

 

"If you want cheaper transportation, buy a less expensive car. Improving fuel efficiency will save you very little. Driving less doesn't matter that much either, because of the high fixed costs of owning a car. By cutting back to a mere 12,000 kilometres of driving, the minivan owner would shave only $700 off his annual driving bill.

 

(how about getting rid of the car altogether?)

 

Some predict that rising gasoline prices will contribute to "hollowing out" the suburbs, with empty-nest owners selling their large homes and moving closer to the centre. The high cost of commuting is said to be a key factor. American author James Kunstler has made a career of flogging this prediction and avid collectors of received wisdom are quick to agree with him.

 

But consider this: Statistics Canada reports that the average commute in Ottawa is 8.1 kilometres. The return trip costs the guy in the minivan $2.07 a day in fuel costs. You could quadruple the cost of gasoline and it still wouldn't make sense to move just to get closer to work.

 

The end-of-the-suburbs doomsdayers tend to forget that other popular destinations, such as the grocery store and the hockey rink, are actually quite close to suburban homes. And where do we think all of these people from the suburbs would go? Accommodation closer to the centre of the city is costly and in limited supply. For that matter, when suburban people retire, the cost of commuting downtown becomes irrelevant."

 

Hmm. I dont think he gets it.

If you keep commuting from the suburbs: the wind will be "in your face" for years to come:

+ Every bit of commuting will cost more and more,

+ Your suburban home will lose value

+ The quality of the air you breathe will continue to decline

+ Your currency will lose value

 

And these negative trends will go on, hitting you in the face, until gasoline prices rise to a level (5x, 10x, 20x ...)

- whatever is needed to get enough people to start making the decision to get rid of their cars, that massive demand

destruction brings oil demand in western countries down so that overall supply and demand is in balance in a time

of peak oil. Meantime, those who have grabbed those nice properties next to decent public transport, will see their

relative standard of living improving, as more people catch on, and start bidding up the value of the well connected

properties.

 

So there's the choice:

+ You can be part of the problem, and find yourself increasingly stranded in the suburbs, or

+ You can be part of the solution, and work towards designing a New Urbanist existence that will make sense

in a world of peak oil

[dst]

Let's look at his argument:

 

Hmm. I dont think he gets it.

 

Yes, it isn't a very far sighted article, but interesting to see that people can seriously write this stuff.

 

He compares the fuel efficiency of mini van with a large saloon car and concludes it is hardly worth the switch.

I think my medium sized car is 30-40% more efficeint at city driving than the Cobalt he mentions, let alone a small car, or as DrBubb points out no car at all.

 

Remember when gas went over a buck and we all thought it was an outrage? Now, if we see it for $1.16, we grab the bargain

That, in my book, is not really an augument for continuing driving.

 

I think one needs to experience public transport done well in a city before you really appreciate how good it can be.

 

 

[drbubb]

I think one needs to experience public transport done well in a city before you really appreciate how good it can be.

Better yet, a city that grew up around public transport, like HK is growing up around its MTR

 

More images: http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=3124

[Mabon]

Better yet, a city that grew up around public transport, like HK is growing up around its MTR

 

More images: http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=3124

 

Seattle's got an excellent public transport network.

 

I was really impressed as to how the Monorail, trams, electric trolley-buses and buses all fairly seemlessly integrated.

 

Pretty good train service too.

 

A good example of what can be achieved in a fairly large and growing city. And one that, as far as I know, didn't grow up around it's public transport network, although it has had a tram network (as did most places) for a long time.

 

[microbe]

I need to replace my car - not having a car is not really an option for me, I do a fair amount of IT contract work on varied sites.

 

I have always thought if cars as being 1) transportation 2) an extremely good way to get rid of money.

 

I buy cars second hand (pre-depreciated) and keep them a long time, 6 or 7 years. This time I will buy a diesel and plan to keep it even longer.

 

I think that increasingly people are being trapped into having to have two earners in a family. While household earnings have been rising, individual earnings are being chipped away. Every time you hear the Government banging on about how they have got more people into work, that is what they mean.

 

 

While Government policy has succeeded in pushing up the very bottom end of the curve a bit so that they can claim to have reduced poverty, the mass of the working population are being impoverished to pay for it and to pay for the very wealthy drifting off further away from them. Look at the sharp little spike at the very far right of the graph - I couldn't find the English version of this, but I suspect that spike is even more pronounced.

 

Remember that household income after housing costs includes the money that is going to pay for having the second job (second car, child care, work clothes, etc etc), so, net, families will have less discretionary spending and if they lose the second job, they are stuffed completely - no access to benefits and no means to pay their bills.

 

 

Shows how pay for individuals is being squeezed notice how the green line is starting to tail away.

 

For families, the cost of this is huge - with both parents working in each week 10 man days (or rather person days) out of every 14 are lost to the cause of making ends meet. This reduces the amount of time available for life from 9 days in a one worker home right down to 4. I think there are huge unbudgeted social costs implicit in this.

 

Frankly, since a lot of the GDP being generated by all these extra jobs is in services and not creating real wealth, I think the way forward is a second earner strike. Withdraw the extra workers, force up the wage rates for the jobs that need doing. This would have the added benefit of taking a huge slice of traffic off the roads.

 

EDIT (In any event once all the costs, including child care have been accounted for, many of these second jobs are barely paying for themselves - rising oil prices are going to make an awful lot of them uneconomic...)

[drbubb]

Great charts and comments!

 

 

Shows how pay for individuals is being squeezed notice how the green line is starting to tail away.

 

For families, the cost of this is huge - with both parents working in each week 10 man days (or rather person days) out of every 14 are lost to the cause of making ends meet. This reduces the amount of time available for life from 9 days in a one worker home right down to 4. I think there are huge unbudgeted social costs implicit in this.

 

Another interesting thing is how GDP per capita grew faster than incomes.

Presumeably that was due to the impact of:

+ Rising house prices,

+ Increased mortgae debt against that higher "housing wealth"

+ The borrowed money gets spent, increasing GDP

(An important underpinning of Brown's phoney "miracle economy"- the miracle that wasnt)

 

This is not healthy, and not sustainable. And I suppose that GDP will soon tail off as well.

 

In the coming recession, there will be plenty of job losses, and more "free time", and I hope people use it well.

It can be very stressful if people have predicated their spending on two incomes, and then lose one.

People will have to downsize, spending less. I see a big rise in frugality, mending, and a possible rise in

political action against the rich (higher taxes on high earners, more luxury taxes, and innovative taxes like

congestion charges.)

 

People really must re-learn how to reign in what they think they need. It wikll be easier to "keep up with the

Jones" when Mr.Jones or Mrs.Jones loses her job.

[drbubb]

I need to replace my car - not having a car is not really an option for me, I do a fair amount of IT contract work on varied sites.

 

A motorcycle?

Or change your work?

 

Just a few suggestions to maybe help you "think outside the box"

 

I am sure many will be forced towards these unconventional ways of thinking.

 

[microbe]

People really must re-learn how to reign in what they think they need. It wikll be easier to "keep up with the

Jones" when Mr.Jones or Mrs.Jones loses her job.

 

:lol:

 

Think I might get that framed.

 

[microbe]

A motorcycle?

Or change your work?

 

Just a few suggestions to maybe help you "think outside the box"

 

I am sure many will be forced towards these unconventional ways of thinking.

 

I am thinking of changing the work - that way I can keep the car, but mainly parked, and if things get really bad, I can keep chickens in it.

 

[drbubb]

I am thinking of changing the work - that way I can keep the car, but mainly parked, and if things get really bad, I can keep chickens in it.

 

LOL. Is it a coupe?

 

Second hand car: acquired cheap, and "heavily parked" will definitely keep your transport costs down.

Eventually hybrids will be available in the secondhand market.

 

Has anyone seen any sign of new property being marketed with its "good tranport links" (ie nearness to public

transport), as a key selling point?

 

Barratt could learn something from that.

 

Later/ I found this: on a search for : "good transport links" + "Barratt"

 

Price range: From £184,995

 

New development of seventy six units with a mix of four bedroom semi-detached and detached villas and three storey town houses. Shopping can be found nearby in Airdrie town centre, with Coatbridge and East Kilbride also a short distance away. The development also has excellent motorway and rail links. Guaranteed offer within 7 days. Full market value and more. No expensive bridging costs. Move home to suit your timescales. Our offer will not be withdrawn. Carpets. Light fittings. Curtains. Kitchen appliances package.Special discounted prices for June 2008 settlement.

 

 

A glance at the house, and I can see they dont get it. You dont build homes like that with the notion of a

nearby public transport link.

 

Following are examples of what might get built:

 

+ The classic idea - a brownstone

 

+ The new brownstone

(Notice how the image shows one car, and three pedestrians) : Neighborhood

"The rooftops of HCA Wesley Medical Center and Wichita Clinic can be seen from Parkstone, less than a mile away. Many College Hill youngsters walk to school with Wichita K-12 and magnet schools nearby. Wichita State University, Friends and Newman University are minutes from your Parkstone home."

 

Kids walking to school. (Mom not a chauffeur.) What a wonderful old-fashioned concept that is!

 

Why is Barratt incapable of building projects like this?

[happylarry]

 

A glance at the house, and I can see they dont get it. You dont build homes like that with the notion of a

nearby public transport link.

 

They must have gotten it a tiny bit, there is no driveway to the garage door