By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
The GPS in my Samsung phone is pretty lousy. So google maps is worth what I pay for it;) I missed a turn last night and tried to use it. It displayed that I was on the other side of town, then would jump all over the place. I ended up having to manually figure out where I was and how to get to where I needed to be.
Also, it uses cell data for the base map. I've been out in the country with a bad signal and the map couldn't update to show my location. I'm not giving up a dedicated GPS quite yet.
I had a strong feeling you would love the iMac. I remember posting my praise for the iMac quite a ways back, and then I was excited to read your post at a later date that you were going to get one.
It is THE single best computer value in the world. Period.
And, yes, it runs Windows as well as Lion. How can you beat THAT? You cant.
I just honestly don't know at this time if I will get a desktop computer now that I seem to do so much on my mobile. I am thinking of waiting to see what the next MacBook Pro will be... and then I will decide.
But, I still think it's almost a certainty that I will get the iPad3. There are music production apps that I want the device for, and there are now some terrific proprietary hardware devices (for music production) that are made to work with the iPad. So, as I posted in the past, I really expect to get the iPad3.
And, after reading your link about the iPad app "OnLive Desktop Plus", I am even more excited about the device. That application is nothing short of awesome, if it's anything like the review. Wow.
Thanks. And I am so glad you are enjoying that iMac.
TM
It's been a pretty good GPS app for a smartphone. Most of the time, I just use the NAV in my Lexus, which I just adore... but there are times that Navigon has come in handy when I've traveled or been in a different vehicle, or just wanted to get a second "opinion".
No monthly fee whatsoever.
TM
Likewise! I am buying the 3 as soon as it becomes available.
And, after reading your link about the iPad app "OnLive Desktop Plus", I am even more excited about the device. That application is nothing short of awesome, if it's anything like the review. Wow.
Yes, definitely. That sounds extremely exciting. But as time goes by, more and more websites are making their videos to comply with the iPad nowadays anyway since the iPads and iPhones are multiplying very rapidly.
The droid isn't my cup of tea either... but I'll say again, it is not representative of any of the other Android phones... it only represents itself. There are some very good products out there that utilize the Android OS... in all shapes and sizes... and some of them are terrific pieces of hardware and utilize better software interfaces. Some are smaller than the iPhone4s and some are thinner. Many of them are blazingly faster than the current iPhone 4s and have SD cards and more battery potential and many operate on the faster 4G network.
Keep in mind, Apple is almost certainly going to increase the screen size on the next iPhone. My guess, based on everything I have read so far, is they will go to a 4" screen. It's been reported that they will probably do so with the minimum increase possible to the phone's body, and it's also been reported that they might even streamline (soften) the edges a bit on that next iPhone because the current one is a bit harsh on the edges. Next one's style could possibily even be a bit similar to the latest iPod Touch with phone capabilities.
Speaking of keyboards... there is an Android Keyboard app that offers customizable keyboards, and one of the selections is an identical iPhone keyboard, but another one of them is so fantastic that it actually changes it's display with every key input to match the upper and lower case, as well as offer the ability to shift without hitting the shift key. It's amazing, and I have it on my Android phone, the HTC EVO 4G.
Here is an article from one of my favorite websites, Engadget.com, that I have raved about for years, and I know have mentioned it here in the past, and I noticed that Charlie reminded everyone about it as recent as earlier this week. As Charlie said, it is indeed a great website. The article is about a fantastic new audio feature that will only be available on Android devices (Initially, of course. I would expect it will make its way to Apple at some point in the future... for a price).
link title
Here's the basics, if you don't want to hit the link...
The audio nerds at Fraunhofer are set to raise the bar for Voice over LTE next week in Barcelona, as the company has announced a new technology known as Full-HD Voice. By leveraging the AAC-ELD codec, Fraunhofer claims that consumers will experience audio quality that rivals the experience of chatting face-to-face. Technically speaking, it's said the codec offers four times the audio bandwidth of regular phone calls and twice the bandwidth of HD voice services, all without an increase in bit rate. The technology will only be available for Android phones initially, but that seems like a fine place to start.
Anyway, of course you have every reason to love that gorgeous iPhone of yours. But your unfavorable experience with the droid is not at all representative of the smartphone market as a whole... and some of the best of them run on the Android OS... which is now in the process of getting a very significant update, knows as ICS ("Ice Cream Sandwich"), and it has had very positive reviews thus far.
That said... if the iPhone5 is everything I expect, I will make the switch also.
TM
As you all know, I have been a huge proponent of a correlation between gasoline prices at the pump and the economic recovery. Quite a few months to perhaps a year ago, I was confident that the economic recovery would proceed along and a major reason for that was the gasoline prices were plummeting. My main point was that if the the average "Joe Blow" consumer can save say $20-50 per month on fuel cost, he/she would spend that money on something else.
Well, I have to say that I am now getting concerned that as the gasoline prices shoot higher and higher, it could have a very negative effect on the economy. My hope is that a lot of this big move up in crude and gasoline is due to manipulation, Iran, and speculation. I'm thinking that the tide will reverse back down as the manipulators/speculators go the other way as someone like the Saudis decide to increase production, etc. There is NO shortage of crude oil as Len has been pointing out for a couple years now. What do you guys think? And, please don't bring politics into the equation.
I am also concerned. But, it is truly impossible to address this problem completely without bringing politics into the equation, which you requested that we do not do.
This IS a political crisis, and it is not one of a shortage of a natural resource.
The Obama administration has a seriously deficient energy policy. Had we addressed this a few years ago, we would now be in a MUCH better position to handle what is potentially going to be a crisis... and is certainly going to be a problem (crisis or not). Obama clearly has a bias against petroleum-derived energy. He is short-sighted, as we are now still dependent on oil, and he should have at least had a transition policy in place by FIRST allowing us to be more self-sufficient on oil, and THEN applying pressure to move towards alternative energies.
There is enough oil and natural gas right here in the United States to help reduce our dependency upon oil that comes from the Middle East. It's an absolute tragedy and what does it say about Obama?
The situation in the Middle East is a mess, and the Obama administration has been soft on Iran for all these years, when it has been FACTUALLY KNOWN for quite some time that Iran has been developing its nuclear program with intentions that go way beyond the generation of nuclear-generated electricity... they have stated numerous times, and it is quite obvious to anyone with half a brain, that Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel and hates the United States, and is a sponsor and nucleus of terrorism.
We are talking about something horribly tragic here. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranians and their terrorist friends!! And we are just sitting back and letting it happen. Or perhaps we will force Israel to do the dirty work against Iran, and then make the world hate Israel even more.
What solution is there? THAT's what worries me. There is NONE. Iran MUST be stopped, which will be a terrible global incident in and of itself... but if they are not stopped then the world will suffer even more at their hands. I see no solution, and believe that there will be a terrible crisis.
I so not believe that oil will stop flowing, however. But I do believe that it is going to get VERY expensive... way more than what we see now... for a little while, until this political crisis is resolved.
I think I heard it reported that Obama is supposed to make a speech about this tonight. If that is indeed the case, then it will be very interesting to hear what he says, and frankly, I doubt it will be anything helpful or trustworthy.
I do believe that the economy is strong enough to handle some more of this, especially if Obama makes the bold decision to take militarty action against Iran, which would result in a short-term market gyration, but a long-term boost. If he does nothing that is adequate, which I suspect is what will happen, we are in for some serious stink.
People have finally started spending money again, after years of a sick economy... but with gas prices soaring, folks can only tighten their belts just so much before they have to cut back again, and push us into another recession, or economic slowdown, or worse. :sick:
TM
One very practical thing that has been suggested that Obama could do, would be to eliminate the mandatory use of all the different "blends" of gasoline around the U.S. Just go to a couple of blends based on elevations, etc. This would lower the price of gasoline dramatically overnight.
Of course he will never do that. His green energy policy depends on high priced gasoline. Every time he has had a chance to do something to help the country, it seems he doubles down in the opposite direction.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Disagree with what?
I posted that I think the spike is NOT due to a shortage of natural resources. You disagree with that?
I posted that there are political reasons for the price spike. You disagree with that?
I posted that we do NOT have a good energy policy, and we are still too dependent on imported oil from the Middle east. You disagree with that?
I posted that Iran's nuclear program is potentially very dangerous for obvious reasons. You disagree with that?
I posted that higher gas prices would probably not affect the economy right away, but that if they go too high for too long that it could have a negative impact on the economy. You disagree with that?
Len also posted that the price spike is largely about investors responding to the political situation regarding Iran... yet you posted that you agree with him and disagree with me. :confuse:
You are not making any sense here at all... with all due respect.
TM
Houdini...
I was carefull to not post anything too contraversial, although it is not possible to address the recent spike in the price of oil without considering that it is related to the political situation surrounding Iran. Len also posted to that affect quite clearly.
The whole issue of why we continue to get into these types of situations is the same old thing... we continue to be to dependent upon oil that is imported from the Middle East. It's not rocket science... and year after year after year, nothing is done about it other than the politicians make political speeches promising to end our dependence. Apparently, Obama already delivered another one last night. I had originally thought it was going to be tonight, so unfortunately I missed it. But, I can already hear him claiming that drilling for oil domestically will not help... and that would be DEAD WRONG.
It is short-sighted (and absolutely idiotic!) to remain dependent on Middle East oil. It makes no sense whatsoever to try to eliminate our dependence upon Middle East oil by first using alternative energies. The FIRST thing we need to do is become self-sufficient. Our infrastructure and way of life is already in place for that. And THEN, after we are self-sufficient... we can THEN transition to alternatives that are also domestically self-sufficient.
There must be serious corruption in high places for our politicians to always promise that we will become energy self-sufficient, but then they do NOTHING to fulfill that need... and actually seem to block any attempts to fix the problem.
There is nothing contraversial in this post. Our over-dependence on foreign oil is a fact, and it is a serious problem .
TM
The thing that I have the greatest disagreement with you, however, is your statement that we should attack Iran. That could have catastrophic consequences. If Israel wants to attack Iran that is their problem. Yes, I do agree that Iran's nuclear program is potentially very dangerous but I do not believe that the answer is for the U.S. to attack Iran.
As far as my agreement with Len is concerned, he stated that he believes the spike is mostly due to speculators using Iran as the impetus. He implies, however, that this is basically an excuse if I read between the lines. He also said that the fundamentals do not support this spike. I totally agree. He also said that he believes there will probably be a significant sell-off from near these levels. I agree. He did not bring politics into his post at all and I greatly respect that.
The President actually took credit in his speech saying there is more oil drilling in many years now, but fails to mention that these oil drilling leases were approved during the Bush years. We can and should look into the alternative renewable energy sources for our children's future realizing that they will take many dollars and years to develop but can and should be done by the private sectors. In the interim what we need is to open more domestic sites to oil exploration and drilling and development of our natural gas for automobiles and industry in an environmentally responsible manner.
B.O. said he can't be blamed for our current energy costs and problems but his unwillingness to do the above does make him to blame. I suppose he can say he "inherited" it, but won't admit that he inherited the oil leases causing the current increase in domestic oil drilling he talks about and takes credit for (due to Bush). A true energy plan would also, by-the-way, create jobs through the private sector and lower the current price of oil. We'd be able to thumb our noses at enemies who control our oil.
I'm sick of the division and deceit that politicians have created, so sorry but politics cannot be excluded from this subject.
The job of a current President (and at this point it is Obama, so it's kind of silly to try to avoid naming him) is to recognize that there are ALWAYS problems that are inherited, and it is their JOB to tackle them, and not to just toss them aside as if they are someone else's problem, or worse, to perpetuate the problem.
We are going to be very sorry if we don't deal with Iran in the most forceful way. My suggestion of an attack on Iran was not to suggest that we somehow just go in and slaughter innocent civilians, but rather to stage a strategic military maneuver that would stop their nuclear threat. It is likely going to have to be done. Their threat is not just against Israel. They have threatend the United States as well, and they (and their terrorist friends) would be in a position to smuggle a nuclear device into our country if we don't stop them. This is something that would be absolutely idiotic and potentially catostrophic to ignore.
Len's suggestion about Iran was indeed a political one, although certainly not inflammatory by any means... in that it is simply not possible to include Iran in the equation without it being a political factor. That's exactly what it is! The price spike is NOT based upon fundamentals or natural resource shortages. It is PURELY a political scenario that has investors behaving this way. And, yes, it is possible that a selloff is likely, depending on how the Iranian situation develops and how it is resolved. And, it is also possible that it could have dramatic price swings, as the "political" situation evolves and influences investors.
Sorry Charlie... there is no real argument here... but let's face it, the current situation is indeed a "political" one... and our current President is indeed Obama, and he is the one that will have to deal with it at this point... and it MUST be dealt with. So, he is the guy that gets the focus of attention at this point, like it or not. He will get plenty of the credit or blame, depending upon what he does, or doesn't do. He has had many opportunities to do something about the problem, and he has yet to rise to the occassion. Let's pray for him.
And, politics aside... I still think the world of you, so chill out! It's all good.
TM
...A true energy plan would also, by-the-way, create jobs through the private sector and lower the current price of oil. We'd be able to thumb our noses at enemies who control our oil.
I'm sick of the division and deceit that politicians have created, so sorry but politics cannot be excluded from this subject.
Great to hear from you!... and nice to have your support. We are obviously in agreement.
I honestly don't know how anyone cannot agree with this. It's so black and white.
TM
I also agree. And as a note the 2005 and 2007 energy policy signed by Bush was not helpful either. Ethanol has only made things worse. Cutting gas mileage by about the same percentage as the mandate. A real joke and corporate welfare to the corn growing states.
NO possible way to remove politics from oil. And the 2008 campaign was focused on fixing the speculation. The Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate and did not fix the oil speculation. All politics. Very little to do with demand.
That's correct. There is no way to talk completely and honestly about it without including political factors.
And yes, as you indicated... Obama is a spokesman... and let's not overlook that he is clearly one of the most anti-petroleum guys in government. He knows that one of the things that would ultimately accelerate the adoption of alternative energy would be for oil to become way too expensive, so it almost seems as if he wants high gas prices in order to achieve his goals of electric cars, solar energy, and the like.
I personally think a smooth transition would be so much better for the economy. IOW, FIRST become self-sufficient and use our own domestic resources which we have available, and THEN transition towards alternative energies as they become economically feasible.
Anyway, good post... thanks.
TM
NO possible way to remove politics from oil...
TM
Also a very clear political outgrowth of this is the bias in the reporting of the gas price problem in the media. I just saw a person on a TV show detail the number of reports in 2008-9 for 2 months or more when Bush was president and the gas price was similar in cost to the media reports now that Obama has gas prices at the same dollar level. Only about 1/3 as many reports. Amazing. And now the fuel blend changeover season used by the media and the oil PC folks as the excuse still hasn't occurred. During the Bush time, the changeover was in process. Biased reporting.
The administration CAN do something. The refiner spreads have increased. The oil products are being exported rather than sold here. The law of supply and demand is touted as the reason for pricing, but the law of supply and demand are being subverted here.
And of course, the old saw that even if we started drilling in the green folks' protected lands and others like the Gulf, it would be 3-5 years. Of course the green folks and Obama have used that for 30 years. If they'd drilled 30 years ago, we'd have been getting increased oil production for 25 years.
Excuses. Excuses. Excuses, on this administration's part. A sorry mess of incompetence.
And the extra low interest rates are hurting most seniors whose investments and retirement funds depend on interest being higher to derive secure income. Keeping the interest rates low is hiding the value of the currency problem as well as faking out the American people as to the real cost of the total debt; rising interest rates would increase the cost of maintaining this debt.
So we should have been drilling, drilling, drilling. We should be keeping a tight thumb on the oil companies and their profits. But it takes a good president to do that.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
We are all so tired of the excuses... and the lies.
However, I do want to point out that as much as Obama is the current president, and he has thrown away some of the best opportunites that a president has ever had, he is not the only president to get elected based upon a slew of promises, only to ultimately break them and betray the public's trust. Obama had soooooo much support in the early days of his administration, he could have really made a remarkable difference.
That said... there is a long string of past presidents that have also neglected to fulfill their promises, and who also were incompetent... to say the least.
The calilber (and record) of many American presidents (including, but not limited to Obama) is nothing short of an American tragedy.
But, is that really any surprise? Afterall, puppets and dummies have no brains of their own.
TM
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~ Plato
NO possible way to remove politics from oil...
Ok, I don't have a problem with the fact that there is SOME politics involved. But, some of you make it sound as if it is totally Obama's and this administration's fault that we have high energy prices right now. In fact, I still maintain that the recent spike in oil and gasoline has NOTHING to due with Obama and everything to due with speculation, Iran, and manipulation as I stated on my earlier post. This is a short term spike caused by those 3 factors and not necessarily in that order. What did Obama have to due with the nuclear concerns in Iran? Nothing!
Do I believe that we should formulate a good and reasonable energy policy for the future? ABSOLUTELY! But that is a long term approach/factor. As Len stated on his post above, "on the short term he has anger toward speculators that drive the price up with 10% down money". By the way, were you folks giving Obama credit a couple months ago when gasoline prices were about 50-60 cents cheaper than now? Of course not and you should not have. He had nothing to due with that price decline, just like he has nothing to due with the present spike. Now, if he is elected for a second term and 2-4 years from now we still have no reasonable energy policy, then you have the right to blame Obama for that. But of course who knows what the Congress will look like after this next election? Maybe he will be trying to pass what is considered a "good" energy policy but he will be blocked in doing so by the Congress. That's where politics come into play in a HUGE way.
I separate it out. Right now it's the speculators running wild and when they have to bail it'll be an over-correction. But the LT is dependent on our underlying policy. What goes unsaid though is that underlying policy is what allows the ST speculators to run wild. We have a situation where reduced demand (and we are talking big time reductions here) is driving prices higher. Now some of the production cutbacks that support pricing is natural. But it should be to support stable pricing, not increased pricing. If a business is having a hard time selling than it cuts factory production - in this case refinery utilization. But how much of that it can do should be regulated given the absolute need for such a commodity as opposed to say a Dell cutting PC production. What the economics is screaming is that we have tremendous manipulation (in a narrowly traded market no less making the manipulation even easier) going on rather than economic fundamentals and that talks to policy. So yes I do agree about the ST but something has to change in our policy. No matter how big China gets the US is such a huge user of oil that what it does will have a major effect on world prices. What I have never understood is why the Dems are against drilling. We got where we are as a country by not being fearful of anything whether a Dem or Rep was running things and suddenly we are afraid to drill for our own natural resource? Makes no sense to me at all. Don't get me wrong - I'm not tring to make this political. There are conservative Reps that I want to dismiss as much as liberal Dems. I'm a moderate guy. Give me a person with common sense who goes against the ideology of his party when it really matters and I'll hug that person whether a Dem or Rep.
I agree with that political stance, but I am afraid we are becoming a minority. Bush was OK in his first term, but was a horrible president in his second term. Obama had a lot of promise when he was running and when he was first elected but now he is as bad or worse than Bush in his second term.
I don't understand what happens to these guys.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Is it the speculators? Oil at 120-200 might be speculators now.
How much of the slow upward trudge of oil values is because the dollar is worth less and less each year with the excess printing of money so we can buy our own treasury debt to force interest rates low so BO and Geithner can screw the people with cash and equivalents to invest?
I tried to find a chart of oil vs a constant dollar and didn't find one. I did find a Dow vs inflation as a proxy for the dollar. But inflation measures have been neutered because anything that represents the inflation has been taken out of the inflation measure. People who have shopped at Krogers for the last few years know that each week there's an increase in their grocery cost. But they took gasoline out of the measure and something else that shows the sharp inflation. So the inflation charts don't show what is really happening. Look at the social security folks who didn't get any increases for two years.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes - based on the large spec trading futures on Bloomberg. If it's the dollar than how were prices so cheap 6 months ago and why wouldn't oil have just gone straight up instead of fluctuating like crazy now for years?
Why would you want the dollar to be strong? A strong dollar is bad economically. Imports become high priced in a country that still can afford to buy them and our exports would slow noticably because of their high costs to countries that couldn't afford them. Energy is less and less important to our economy every year.
Disagree with you completely on inflation. Prices have never been so stable. I'm paying even less for more car today than 5 yeras ago and I feel that way about so many products. And if gasoline was part of inflation the index would be swayed by the ups and downs of its price. Gas is cheaper today than it was a few years ago and in the depression year was half that price. So including it gives you no real indication either way. I wouldn't want gas to be included now or later when it falls and this speculation ends. Plus anything priced for the world in dollars is going to rise and fall with changes in the dollars value in a LT trend analysis. It's natural economics.
Gasoline would be a part of energy. Are energy and food included in the index?
>Why would you want the dollar to be strong?
I want the dollar not to be weakened relative to other currencies by overprint of money. The other currencies, which have been undervalued for the same trading purposes which you note, need to hae been brought into line with the dollar. Instead, we are printing money like crazy to spend $1.40 for each $1.00 we take in as income for the federal government.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Your area must be a lot different than CA. The only thing NOT inflated from 5 years ago are home prices. Rents are higher, food is higher of course gas is a lot higher. To replace my Toyota Sequoia today equipped exactly the same would be $14k more. I did get a good deal in October of 2007. However the MSRP is right at $7k more for the same exact vehicle. Where the dollar value really has shown its weakness is in foods like Coffee and sugar. Paying 50% more for milk & Cheese. Coffee, Flour and sugar are doubled in the last 5 years. Basics that hurt almost all other food products. Domestically grown fruits and vegetables have not changed as much. Our problem here is regulating small fruit & vegetable farmers out of business. According to a contractor friend all building materials have taken a big hit due to higher transportation costs. Not to mention the cost of college education. All the while wages have been stagnant to declining. Especially in the construction trades.
Short Term Energy Outlook
It's very emotional and extremely political but energy is actually in line as a low cost piece of the economy. Everything is more efficeint as well which bodes well for reduced consumption going forward and the technology will drive that efficiency further still as years go on.
From Holman Jenkins in today's WSJ "What's Right With Gas Prices":
"Ironically, the best therapy [for higher oil prices] is a higher oil price. It makes it profitable to bring into production more costly resources around the world. The rise in recent years to $100-plus a barrel is a godsend. Peak oil theorists are being refuted; so are greenies who imagined a towering oil price would usher in a carbon-free future. The opposite is seen to be true. Oil sands, shale hydrocarbons and even biofuels have been made profitable with existing technology, and of course technology can be counted on to advance.
A higher price not only elicits the new supplies to satisfy Indian and Chinese motorists; it helps to distribute production more broadly around the globe and lets the world be less dependent on cheap Mideast oil.
Gasoline is the most visible price in the economy, and its gyrations cause the juju men in Washington and elsewhere to do crazy things, if not so crazy when understood that their real goal is to receive praise and ward off blame for the behavior of energy prices. But the price mechanism itself is still America's real energy policy, thank God.
One last thing: In the past 100 years, the real price of gasoline, in current 2011 dollars, has spent almost all its time between $2 and $4 (see chart above, data here). So today's price is hardly the end of the world."
What irks me the most is the brainless comments by CEO's like Jeremy Anwyl and Dan Akerson wanting $1.00/gallon gas tax. Nothing like artificial economic pain to add to the irresponsible government spending. Looks like some CEO's have a bit of "Artificial Intelligence", might I add.
Regards,
OW
"There is one reason the U.S. economy is recovering: Low gas prices. Natural gas, that is. The price is at a 10-year low and expected to stay that way for awhile. This glut of inexpensive energy is why so many companies have been moving manufacturing back to the U.S.
The cheap price has been a boon to many industries, like plastics, fertilizers, chemicals and other things derived from natural gas. It has also helped manufacturers of everything from steel to beer, which use large amounts of energy. This, more than anything else, is responsible for the return of so much manufacturing to the U.S. Manufacturing employment rose by 225,000 jobs last year, sustaining gains for the first time since 1997."
US recovery fueled by record low natural gas prices
This alone tells me to stay invested in stocks :shades:
We had a true California winter in NJ and it was greatly appreciated!
Regards,
OW
I took issue with some here for trying to blame Obama for everything and anything (including the current spike in oil and gasoline). You and I are in TOTAL agreement about what has caused the ST spike. I also agree with you that a LT policy is needed. I'm hoping against hope that whoever the next President is will be able to pass a reasonable long term energy policy.
Not only did NJ have a California type winter, but the nation had an incredibly warm winter. It will like go down (once the climate data is finalized for February) as probably one the top 5 warmest winters (maybe even top 3) for the nation as a whole since records have been kept. It was WONDERFUL!!!!!
And, I agree that it has been a very positive influence on the economic recovery.
You and I are on the same page OW. This is the year for stocks as far as I'm concerned.
If not California then northern North Carolina or southern Virginia. I actually ran the furnace at a higher temp than normal because it worked so much less than years past so it felt cold in the house at the normal setting and I by far had the lowest energy bill I've gotten here in the past 10 years despite running it at that higher temp. I don't know NYC's temp variance from normal but in todays NY Times February is +5.8 degrees and if I remember right January was in a similar range and December was also downright warm and way above normal. In fact I read a report that this is only the second February that will come in without a sub 20 degree reading in NYC. My bet is it's probably one of the warmest DJF periods on record here. In central NJ we've had 7" of snow so far and that includes 3" on October 29th. So winter proper has seen all of 4" of snow. Incredible winter here especially when one considers the heavy snows and continuous cold of the past 2 winters. Last year we had snow on the ground in my back yard from the day after Christmas to mid March and most of the time that snow was 2-3' deep with a more interior New England type winter.
I waited for the "dust to settle" a little bit, and I think that most of us are on the same page with exception of two things I noticed.
First thing... the Obama responsibility factor. It is certainly true that it's not entirely Obama's fault that we have the situation in Iran, and its effect upon investors and oil prices. However, Obama has had a significant opportunity for THREE YEARS to bring our country steps closer to being less dependent on Middle East oil. Consider that if we were significantly less dependent upon Middle East oil, then how much impact would Iran actually have on the price of oil? LESS, of course... and that's why it is not possible to agree with Charlie, when he posted that Obama has NOTHING to do with it. Further, it is wreckless to have a foreign policy of looking the other way when it has been KNOWN for the entire time Obama has been in office that Iran was hard at work, aggressively developing a nuclear program with dangerous intentions. So, again, it is not possible to agree with any statement that says Obama has had NOTHING to do with it.
And let's be clear that I am not trying to attack Obama irrationally... and frankly I haven't read any posts here that have attacked him just for the "sport" of it, as Charlie suggested in his own words however. I think we have written and read a lot of posts here, and the general perspective is that Obama could have (and should have) done better, and he must be held largely responsible.
Second thing... inflation. I am shocked that anyone here would try to argue that the cost of living hasn't increased over the recent years. If I were to post the actual numbers for the increases to my employee's health insurance premiums, you would all be shocked at how much this expense has risen. And I am quite certain that health care costs have truly increased the cost of living in this country... significantly. Obviously the price of gasoline has increased, and while it is likely that gas prices will decrease again, I do not beleive they will retreat to their former levels. Food costs are waaaaay higher, and the other monthly expenses that folks deal with, such as water and electric, are more per month than they used to be. Higher education costs have literally skyrocketed and are approaching absurd levels. And, as Gary pointed out, there are many significant items that have increased substantially. Data regarding the high cost of diesel fuel typically suggests that the higher the cost of diesel fuel, the higher the cost of certain transported goods, and also the greater the chance for an economic slowdow.
Recently, there was a report on TV which illuminated the way the US goverment can manipulate the inflation data. by varying the means to measure it. The government can produce all the charts and graphs it wants, but there is absoutely no question that Americans are not sitting with more money left over every month... it's the opposite. The cost of living eats further into American's paychecks. Certainly, inflation isn't out of control, but it's definitely a reality.
Other than those two things, most folks here seem to be in overall agreement. I think it has been an interesting exchange... one of the best in quite a while.
Hey, good news. Wife is up and about more and more lately. Now, I just have to hope she doesn't decide to hit the ski slopes, or something crazy like that. :surprise:
TM
>Recently, there was a report on TV which illuminated the way the US goverment can manipulate the inflation data. by varying the means to measure it. The government can produce all the charts and graphs it wants, but there is absoutely no question that Americans are not sitting with more money left over every month... it's the opposite.
Precisely the point. The government has manipulated the numbers by the techniques used. That's been true through several regimes. However, the news media has been much better at pointing out idiosyncrasies when the president is one of party they don't care for. They use those news reports with little attributions to "anonymous sources" or "knowledgeable sources" to give them a reason to report the negatives about the actual data. I don't think that is going to happen during this election cycle by the newsmedia with an IQ above 85 who could actually analyze what's being done. I see the media as a major problem in a "free" country here.
The diminishing left over money to spend will be soaked up by the gasoline price increases, slowing the economy. On the other hand, I see lots of indications that businesses are expanding and investing in capital improvements here with my "business cycle indicator analysis tool." But those businesses are not employing people needing jobs.
Then there's the problem of fewer people paying taxes to support the increasing number on welfare and other pre-social security entitlement payments such as unemployment insurance.
AND now the social security funding is being cut by 2% at a time when many more people than expected are retiring because they can't find a job, partly due to age discrimination. So the social security entitlement is going to need more funding from the general fund because of this huge increase over the expected baby-boomer increases now starting to show in the retirement numbers.
>And let's be clear that I am not trying to attack Obama irrationally...
I see a person with little real world experience other than the Saul Alinsky style training he had who has blamed Bush for everything except things he takes credit for which succeded that started during the Bush era. Absolutely amazing. Did Bush take credit for things Clinton did especially after he morphed into a middle of road president after the midterm election? I don't recall Bush taking credit or blaming Clinton for negative things. But that's what's happening here. Also, remember the 8 years of Bush-bashing where I don't recall Democrats asking for moderation in the negative ridicule. Take a look at all the pop culture ridicule in Saturday Night Line, e.g. How many SNL shows have noted Obama's deficiencies?
Surely Bush(s) had theri negatives, but I'll take sincerity when I looked at an employee who worked with us over one who was deceitful and smug about it with a list of excuses and answers as to why something was always out of their control or someone else's responsibility as does the current officeholder in the WH.
And we have the MediaMatters links to the White House. Remember the uproad over Nixon's Black List? (For those of us old enough to have been following politics then.)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Surely Bush(s) had their negatives, but I'll take sincerity when I looked at an employee who worked with us over one who was deceitful and smug about it with a list of excuses and answers as to why something was always out of their control or someone else's responsibility as does the current officeholder in the WH.
Great summary of what we're dealing with now; I couldn't have said it better.
Goodness, ALL Presidents get criticized...but if anyone dares say a bad word about Obama's policies, the MSM immediately brands them as crazy, right wing fringe lunatic, or racist.
"The buck stops here" has suddenly become "The dog ate my homework".
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The only Democrat President in my opinion that was worth a HOOT, Harry Truman. Balanced budgets during a time of war (conflict). Knew what it meant to be fiscally conservative.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
TM
On Tuesday, IBM revealed that physicists at its Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York have made significant advances in the creation of “superconducting qubits,” one of several research fields that could eventually lead to a quantum computer that’s exponentially more powerful than today’s classical computers.
Whereas the computer on your desk obeys the laws of classical physics — the physics of the everyday world — a quantum computer taps the mind bending properties of quantum mechanics. In a classic computer, a transistor stores a single “bit” of information. If the transistor is “on,” for instance, it holds a “1.” If it’s “off,” it holds a “0.” But with quantum computer, information is represented by a system that can an exist in two states at the same time, thanks to the superposition principle of quantum mechanics. Such a qubit can store a “0″ and “1″ simultaneously.
IBM Busts Record for ‘Superconducting’ Quantum Computer
Perhaps that can help our political system by reducing decision- making errors in governing our country?? Run it through the "Big Q Blue" before it becomes law!!!
Regards,
OW
Ha!
The realistic uses are incredible, as the field of medicine and particularly pharmaceuticals would explode... the computers could almost instantly figure out cures for diseases.
On a down note, passwords would become obsolete, because the quantum computers could figure out every single possible password instantly. :surprise:
And just think... this is only 2012. The future looks "fascinating", and I quote Spock... because this stuff just continues to bring what was once science fiction closer and closer to reality.
Thanks for the reply. I knew you would be interested. And, everyone here should know there is plenty of cool information on the internet about it, and this is truly amazing stuff going on at IBM.
TM