[chyamor]

I was wondering what you guys think of these industries specific to the US

Auto
Real Estate
Stem Cell

Auto: According to some reports the generation entering HS is less dependent on cars. Thus car sales are expected to decline. 1 out of 4 jobs in the US are auto related...

Real Estate: Can things get any worse? All the bankruptcy should be off the book by year end correct?

Stem Cell: Slowly gay rights is being accepted. Do you think stem cell research is next in line?

I ask because I'd like to either invest in stocks or real estate, just not sure which is better the next 5-10 years. I also wouldnt mind buying a cheap stem cell penny stock in hopes of government throwing some money towards that sector. (Thus why I threw stem cell in there)

Also curious on what you guys think will happen to airlines

[Blackhawk]

>Real Estate: Can things get any worse? All the bankruptcy should be off the book by year end correct?

Yes, it can get worse. Now the Baby Boom is at the age where they sell off their single family homes in areas with good schools and move to retirement housing and retirement communities that are child free, have lower property taxes (no school bonds because no children are allowed), and reserved only for those 55 and older.

Previous predictions have been that 2012-2014 would be the tipping point when this would happen, driving down real estate into a tailspin, but with the bad economy this may get pushed out a few years further as potential retirees attempt a few more years in the workforce before cashing out.

Overall, buying realestate in this decline is like catching a falling knife.

[Kitsune]

What are your goals?

As in, are you looking to invest in these industries?
Go to college and get qualified to be in the industry?

What information do you want as regards them?

[kerouac]

I like how Stem Cell research is less controversial than Gay Rights. The people who don't want to get behind stem cell research don't have to, and they ought not to receive any of the benefits from the research and use as well.

Real Estate - The hot spots are the metro areas. Younger people like being around other people, much more than their parents' generation who preferred the secluded suburban lifestyle over the fast & furious lifestyle of our generation. Real Estate is going to come back, but movement is shifting.

Auto: Auto sales are also shifting from powerful gas engines, to more efficient means. America was made for cars, so I don't see that going away any time soon. Just a movement from SUVs, V8s, and even V6s, to more efficient I4s, hybrids, and electric cars. The technological movement in electric cars is pretty impressive. Also, with greater advances in self-driving cars, we might live in POD cities in the future.

In other words, I don't think Auto is going down, and I don't see Real Estate staying down much longer either.

[Andy_B]

Stem Cell research is a grower, absolutely.

As for the auto industry... I dunno.

I think German car sales are growing because the rich population in Asia is increasing, but I'm not sure what current trends say for the kind of mid levels cars produced in the U.S.

Unless prices can somehow come down, I imagine eventually more Americans will eat humble pie and take a bike/transit like the rest of the world.

[kosko]

The Oil trolls won't be rolling out electric anytime soon. GM has been sitting on adequate Battery technology for 20 years now but won't re-open the plans. Electric cars are a a smoke screen they will never be widely available anytime soon. Remember Ethanol? it set us back like 10 years, we pumped so much money and effort into that dud. Engines will become more efficient but the removal of gas from them I don't see.

Real Estate is done. As in Real Estate as an "asset" - your home being a asset like a plot of farm land, or barrel of oil is gone. Once the boomers tap out the next generations won't view home the same way as we did. It will go back to simply just being shelter, renting will be more prevalent as young people will have to be more mobile to seek out jobs. Top tier metros will always be a draw and have steep prices but other areas will continue to falter (Vegas, Arizona) while more cheap spots in the mid-west will see a rebound.

[chyamor]

(06-11-2012 03:15 PM)Kitsune Wrote:  

What are your goals?

As in, are you looking to invest in these industries?
Go to college and get qualified to be in the industry?

What information do you want as regards them?

Nothing more then investing

[j r]

I said this on another thread, but it bears repeating: be wary of making investments based on broad macroeconomic and demographic trends. Prices are a function of information and you'll never have as much information as the big boys.

Think about how many people right now are pouring over 10-ks and analyst reports, running complicated analysis on a company's fundamentals. Or think about how many people right now are running price information through an algorithm designed by some guy with a Phd from Caltech. You have to ask yourself, what information do you have that they don't? And can you exploit any arbitrage opportunities faster than they can?

If one of those sectors interests you, you should probably pick a small segment of that sector, throw yourself into it, and learn everything you can about it. That way, when an opportunity presents itself, you will be able to recognize it. If you're interested in real estate, buy a foreclosure and try to flip it or buy a rental property and see how you like being a landlord. In situations like that, you can close the information gap.

[Blackhawk]

(06-11-2012 03:51 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

I like how Stem Cell research is less controversial

That's because in 2009 liposuction fat from adults was discovered to have large amounts of stem cells. The controversial aspect was using human fetuses as a source of stem cells, killing them in the process. Stem cells from liposuction fat? No ethical issues.

(06-11-2012 03:53 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

As for the auto industry... I dunno.

Google's forays into self-driving cars could be a real game changer in the auto industry.

Currently every major city is clogged with idle cars parked everywhere being stored while not in use by their owners.



We've already seen non-ownership options like CityCarShare prove themselves profitable. If instead of needing two drivers to deliver a car to a customer the car simply drove itself to you, this could be a major game changer. Why own a car and store it 23 hours a day unused? Why pay for parking until you need it later when you can just let it go and call another car on your cell phone when you're done?

We would probably see a large drop from the current level of sales to far fewer, but more robust, cars sold to service providers whose goal would be to keep them moving 24 hours a day making money, with secondary uses like package and mail delivery when not being used as human transport.

Science Fiction writers have been predicting this change over since the 1950s. But Google seems hellbent on making the investment to bring it about today.

[kosko]

(06-11-2012 05:29 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 03:51 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

I like how Stem Cell research is less controversial

That's because in 2009 liposuction fat from adults was discovered to have large amounts of stem cells. The controversial aspect was using human fetuses as a source of stem cells, killing them in the process. Stem cells from liposuction fat? No ethical issues.

(06-11-2012 03:53 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

As for the auto industry... I dunno.

Google's forays into self-driving cars could be a real game changer in the auto industry.

Currently every major city is clogged with idle cars parked everywhere being stored while not in use by their owners.



We've already seen non-ownership options like CityCarShare prove themselves profitable. If instead of needing two drivers to deliver a car to a customer the car simply drove itself to you, this could be a major game changer. Why own a car and store it 23 hours a day unused? Why pay for parking until you need it later when you can just let it go and call another car on your cell phone when you're done?

We would probably see a large drop from the current level of sales to far fewer, but more robust, cars sold to service providers whose goal would be to keep them moving 24 hours a day making money, with secondary uses like package and mail delivery when not being used as human transport.

Science Fiction writers have been predicting this change over since the 1950s. But Google seems hellbent on making the investment to bring it about today.

Why not just take the Subway or Train instead since in these dense Cities where Car-share programs are most successful they generally already have adequate transit?

The trends for younger people is growing away from cars. It is becoming more normal to bike, walk, take the train to work and stuff.

[T and A Man]

Because people like point to point transport, such as shop to front door.

I'd be willing to say they'd pay a premium for it, a premium that allows it to compete with public transit.

Really, it's a taxicab without a driver, and with a taxicab, most of the cost is paying the drivers wage or licensee holders rent.

[Johnny Football]

Real Estate: Can things get any worse? All the bankruptcy should be off the book by year end correct?

The worst is yet to come, especially with this Euro debt crisis and the fact the U.S. is still 16 trillion dollars in debt..

[johnwu]

(06-11-2012 01:54 PM)chyamor Wrote:  

I was wondering what you guys think of these industries specific to the US

Auto
Real Estate
Stem Cell

Auto: According to some reports the generation entering HS is less dependent on cars. Thus car sales are expected to decline. 1 out of 4 jobs in the US are auto related...

Real Estate: Can things get any worse? All the bankruptcy should be off the book by year end correct?

Stem Cell: Slowly gay rights is being accepted. Do you think stem cell research is next in line?

I ask because I'd like to either invest in stocks or real estate, just not sure which is better the next 5-10 years. I also wouldnt mind buying a cheap stem cell penny stock in hopes of government throwing some money towards that sector. (Thus why I threw stem cell in there)

Also curious on what you guys think will happen to airlines

This will be fun.

The basis for all my responses is that we are going to be entering a global depression.

Auto: Forget the report about kids not owning cars... the only reason they don't own a car is because they don't have the money. They do not have the money because unemployment in teenagers is as amazingly high rates. If automakers are able to cut out significant costs, as in the ridiculous union contracts, they should be able to continue along alright.. The thing is that would also involve getting rid of many wasteful jobs within the companies. I don't believe that we will come back to the same level of growth that we were seeing in the auto companies from some time now, as that growth was directly fueled by cheap money. Auto makers profits have only looked alright recently because they have been using accounting tricks to make it appear as if they have sales, when in reality they are just stuffing dealer inventory.

Real estate: Have you looked at the case shiller index? We still have a significant way to go till we erase the previous debt fueled boom in the housing market. The fact is that there are over 10 million vacant homes, there are reports of anywhere from 20% to over 50% of all homeowners having negative equity (where the house is no longer worth it to continue to pay off their mortgage). We have a large population of our workforce retiring, the baby boomers, with benefits paying out on a 1 to 10 ratio, when we barely have a 1 to 2 ratio of people paying into the system. Savings/income isn't improving at all either. It is true that all the foreclosed homes were supposed to be offloaded into the market this year, but that process is taking even longer than expected as the government is allowing more and more time for people to pay when they should've been foreclosed a while ago. Where will this great demand for homes come from and who is paying for it?
But what do I know

Keep in mind, there will always be some small exceptions to the overall trend.

Stem cells: There is always some biotech industry sweetheart. If I don't understand an entire business model, and its viability, I don't put my money in it.

It honestly sounds like you are hoping to get rich off of "some penny stocks"... Good luck!

[Basil Ransom]

Robot cars are the future, probably inside of 10 years. Brad Templeton has a great series of articles on robot cars.

I'm willing to bet that robot cars are going to be one of the most influential inventions since the original auto, on a par with computing and the internet. Without needing to own a car, and thus park it, cities will change dramatically.

(06-11-2012 11:49 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Because people like point to point transport, such as shop to front door.

I'd be willing to say they'd pay a premium for it, a premium that allows it to compete with public transit.

Really, it's a taxicab without a driver, and with a taxicab, most of the cost is paying the drivers wage or licensee holders rent.

There will be a price advantage, not even a premium. Cost of current cars = gas + insurance + depreciation.

Gas: Most of your driving is with one person in the car, so you'll dial up a car with a capacity for one. Smaller car --> greater fuel economy. Or, robo-cars could get by with electricity, because they'd charge whenever necessary, and their smaller size would reduce the need for big batteries.

Insurance: The robocar accident rate will be lower than that of humans, probably much lower --> lower insurance rates.

Depreciation: A robocar, like a taxicab, spends much more time on the road in its early years, going 100-200,000 miles per year. The cars would be professionally maintained. And most people aren't going to demand glamorous, depreciation-heavy cars just for their ride to work, especially when they don't own it, just as most people don't get pricier Town Cars to the airport when a regular Crown Vic is available.

Miscellaneous: Fewer accidents on the road means fewer traffic jams and less damaged infrastructure. Lighter cars means less wear and tear on the road. Smaller cars with lightning reflexes means streets can pack several times more cars, if the lane is robot car only.

There's definitely going to be a market for making and servicing these robot cars, but you can bet it will be a lot less on a passenger mile basis. A typical car today needs ~$5,000 of service for 100,000 miles driven, on average. A company owned and maintained robot fleet would cost even less. Plus the original manufacturing will probably be designed to require as little labor as possible.

I'm curious as to how driverless cars will affect the game. You might see nightlife in places like LA reinvigorated by the irrelevance of DUI laws. Perhaps girls and guys in the suburbs would get out to the city more often. More nightlife --> fewer relationships? Overall, robot cars will make your precise location less of a factor.

[kosko]

(06-12-2012 12:51 AM)basilransom Wrote:  

Robot cars are the future, probably inside of 10 years. Brad Templeton has a great series of articles on robot cars.

I'm willing to bet that robot cars are going to be one of the most influential inventions since the original auto, on a par with computing and the internet. Without needing to own a car, and thus park it, cities will change dramatically.

(06-11-2012 11:49 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Because people like point to point transport, such as shop to front door.

I'd be willing to say they'd pay a premium for it, a premium that allows it to compete with public transit.

Really, it's a taxicab without a driver, and with a taxicab, most of the cost is paying the drivers wage or licensee holders rent.

There will be a price advantage, not even a premium. Cost of current cars = gas + insurance + depreciation.

Gas: Most of your driving is with one person in the car, so you'll dial up a car with a capacity for one. Smaller car --> greater fuel economy. Or, robo-cars could get by with electricity, because they'd charge whenever necessary, and their smaller size would reduce the need for big batteries.

Insurance: The robocar accident rate will be lower than that of humans, probably much lower --> lower insurance rates.

Depreciation: A robocar, like a taxicab, spends much more time on the road in its early years, going 100-200,000 miles per year. The cars would be professionally maintained. And most people aren't going to demand glamorous, depreciation-heavy cars just for their ride to work, especially when they don't own it, just as most people don't get pricier Town Cars to the airport when a regular Crown Vic is available.

Miscellaneous: Fewer accidents on the road means fewer traffic jams and less damaged infrastructure. Lighter cars means less wear and tear on the road. Smaller cars with lightning reflexes means streets can pack several times more cars, if the lane is robot car only.

There's definitely going to be a market for making and servicing these robot cars, but you can bet it will be a lot less on a passenger mile basis. A typical car today needs ~$5,000 of service for 100,000 miles driven, on average. A company owned and maintained robot fleet would cost even less. Plus the original manufacturing will probably be designed to require as little labor as possible.

I'm curious as to how driverless cars will affect the game. You might see nightlife in places like LA reinvigorated by the irrelevance of DUI laws. Perhaps girls and guys in the suburbs would get out to the city more often. More nightlife --> fewer relationships? Overall, robot cars will make your precise location less of a factor.

I am a fish looking for some water to buy. This Robo-car stuff is fairy tales. They we're talking about floating cars running on batteries 20 years ago, or nuclear cars in the 60's all had working prototypes, and all failed when the price tag came up. People underestimate the power of Big oil, Its the most profitable industry on earth for a reason. The will hang on to standard combustion manual engines until death does them part. Again I will say whom foot the bill to convert are current infrastructure with transponders and sensors? To outfit the Interstate system would most likely cost a cool 50 billion. Whom will pay?

Insurance will for sure be cheaper yes but then companies have to charge lower premiums...which means they can't speculate and play the markets as much which is where the real money is. The same argument can be applied to the health industry. It has no reason to make America well, it makes its money off illness and disease. Insurance makes its money off risk, it makes no business sense for it eradicate human error which they profit off of. They like accidents just as much as they like smokers, added risk adds to thier rate of return.

The 230 Billion in accident costs is a net loss in GDP once they are solved. GDP is flawed but accidents and destruction of property still counts for positive ticks in GDP. So if you removed traditional cars even with a better "alternative" GDP would still be negatively affected. Because when a car gets totaled a new one is usually bought, more debt is taking out, more "Value" is added to the economy. Its fucked I know....but this is how GDP is tallied on the books.

So "Safer" cars that last "longer" actually are worse of for GDP metrics then a bunch of lemons that break down and need to be replaced. This is why Automakers have no incentive to make sturdy cars like they used to, they can inflate sales and their balance sheet with crap and get rewarded for it with more access to money/credit to grow... wash...rinse...repeat. Another analogy is chewing gum, why would a gum company make a piece of gum that lasts 7 hrs versus 20 min? The user uses more gum and thus gives the company more money in the end. Resilience is factored out of the modern western economy as its bad for business and the bottom line. "The market" won't allow a resilient Robo-Car car to come on line unless its forced too *Cough.. Govt.. Cough*.

It is still not a replacement for mass transit. Single use robo-cars still clog the roads. It does not matter how smooth they run they still take up space. A typical Subway car (most lines are 5-8 cars long, per train) replaces about 600-800 cars. These Subway trains have capacities of 1200 persons with crush loads (the capacity you can squeeze in above "recommended capacity") sometimes up to 1500 persons. You have the ability to move 100K's of people quickly in a matter of a hour and some to employment clusters that single-cars can not compete with. And thus with these employments points you still have negative impacts on traffic as people are still all trying to reach point B in a given set space so you still get gridlock.

This Brad Tempelton guy is on coke. I have dealt with transportation planing for years now and he does not know shit. To much utopanism and not enough cold hard facts on money, distance, politics, and travel times. Yes people do prefer private transit, and yes the most efficiency cities have a host of options from run down jitneys to sleek high speed rail. But having robo-taxis-cars for short trips and commutes does not solve the issue of congestion at all, as it does not take away the issues of time, space, or practicality. Why would you build a 30 lane highway to have super speed robo-cars if you can achieve the same with a two tracked high speed train in a private right of way? His argument is that these private right of ways cost way more but this is a falalcy. Highways eat up considerably more money and have considerably higher maintenance costs.

The issue's of green house gas is warranted but Brad Tempelton cherry picked his comparisons to prove this. The Galveston Trolleys are pieces of shit that run on Quasi-Diesel engines. These Electro-Diesel Hybrids have proven to be the most inefficient for transit rolling stock with many cities breaking contracts and dumping them only a few years after purchase, returning back to traditional diesel as its more environmentally friendly as crazy as it sounds.

The majority of Heavy and Light rail systems in America run on electricity and are more resourceful than a single electrical powered car will ever be. He also chose to cherry pick again for Streetcar/light rail. Santa Clara-San Jose LRT has some of the lowest ridership in America, if he used Boston for instance or San Francisco the numbers would blow this robo cars out of the water. Aside from Cleveland, Santa Clara (San Jose) Transit has the lowest ridership numbers per mile. The only ones below it are novelty lines such as Kenosha and Tampa which do nothing other the offer tourist tours and are not legitimate transit services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un..._ridership

This robo-car is also not guaranteed to run on anything other than traditional fossil fuels... Electric and Hydrogen are still 15-20 years off from mass market viability.

The service market where the majority of the money is after financing, and would be most likely be controlled by Google. They might even control the financing part as well. I don't see the type of entry that was available to regular combustion cars for people in the service industry. It will be tightly controlled and licensed out like Apple servicing.

This stuff is fantasy. Nobody will foot the bill to make this viable on a wide scale. I can see Google re-formating some roads in select Cities like Vegas, the Bay Area, maybe I-95, but to expect them to do it nation wide is a stretch.

So that's why I ask.... whom will pay?

The satellites, transponders, and sensors will not be cheap.

The only trend that will hit America with cars is Americans will gruelingly accept smaller more efficient models from Europe and Asia.



^ It does not matter if single-cars are powered by donkey's, gas, or Google they still take up space. Fixing where point A to B is will solve congestion more-so then fixing personal modes in getting there. Employment is usually grouped, outside of that single use trips can be re-organized closer to where you live. Giving people options is key and single-use cars are part of that equation but the allocation of so many resources to this idea which pretty much solves none of the main issues is a pipe dream.

If your intrested in honest practical transportation ideas then check out this site. Its the most comprehensive online guide you can find for free. I can't take nothing serious unless the $$$ and politics is figured out but most importantly the $$$. Money talks and unless Brad Templeton is talking about it he's nothing but a Utopian.

Check it out:

Victoria Transportation Policy Inst.



^ Google Self powered car circa 1950 (prototype of Nuclear fueled car; Ford Nucleon, 1950)

@Johnwu

I do agree tho that maybe young people are shunning away cars since they have no scratch. And with housing yes its still a long way till the floor is hit. The banks still have 5-10 million homes in shadow inventory they are holding off the market to keep prices for tanking further. Once the last of the boomer unload housing will cease to be viewed as a wealth generator. You'll save up buy a house and live in it, none of this flipping shit. Those days are done. Govt created the illusion of housing as a right and asset. This all started post-war and manifested itself into the mess that was 2008.

Canada is a on the brink of a housing bubble. And per capita we are worse off than America was. Vancouver right now housings costs as much there on average the same as NYC or Paris. Toronto has planned, proposed, or is building some 200 Condo towers that equal 80K units. More construction is going on in Toronto then in North America combined!

[SVK]

^^^ maybe I'm mistaken, but as I understand it Google car is already being tested in SF and doesn't need any extra infrastructure (perhaps only 3G/4G network connection). Nowhere I read about needing roads with transponders or anything like that. The only satellites used would be navigation GPS satellites that are already there. As for price, somewhere I read the extra cost would be only about $3000 per vehicle when it gets mass-produced, since it is mostly computer hardware and software (cheap), some sensors and a few servo motors.

Personally I'm very excited about this technology, although probably won't go mainstream until 10 years or so. I see legal, insurance and public perception as major roadblocks. But when it comes, it's going to be sweet. No more fucking DUIs or expensive cab rides, haha

[T and A Man]

Well pretty much have all the technology requird in operation.

Satellite navigation for directions. Google maps runs a 'traffic density map', so that will plot trajectory. Some degree of motion sensors to avoid getting too close to cars or changing lanes.

If/when this technology becomes universal, there will be no going back.

And really, the cost.. economies of scale could have it done for less than $600.

[Jack Of All Trades]

tl;dr most of the posts, just like to say that you're lumping very broad industries with a huge umbrella of other industries in together.

Auto: you're forgetting the entire chain of suppliers and producers of parts and focusing on the major car companies. you have to understand even if gasoline cars overall demand declines, parts suppliers can also continue making profits and pay dividends from maintenance costs on existing cars and other streams of income (ex: they make parts for airplanes or military trucks). Also if more efficient cars or electric cars are available the supplier that first retools production will make a killing as the market leader in supplying parts for electric cars.

Real Estate: Most everyone is lumping all real estate together, and most everyone on this thread is assuming it means residential real estate. Investments in real estate can range from commercial, to rural, to industrial. Considering that most boomers are going to retire it would be a good bet to buy reits or real estate development groups that own/develop/manage retirement homes. You could actually make a killing ceteris paribus if this demographic transition hits as it should and short the residential home market to make money?

Stem Cell = big pharma
Stem cell research is essentially a subset of big pharma and you'd have to do research on what it can do and how they convert this research as a product. If you want to make money making pharma bets its going to be risky and you should make some doctor/biochemist friends and understand how FDA works in the USA. I had a MA biochem friend who broke down the stages of development of drugs and it opened my eyes how risky pharmaceuticals are outside the huge ones like merck, pfizer, and glaxo smith kline are.

Also airlines are a shitshow, but then again I'm in canada and our airline industry is ridiculous.
If you want to make it big with investing in cyclical industries you'd better have nerves of steel and a deep wallet to make big cash.

[kosko]

(06-13-2012 09:49 PM)zeeman Wrote:  

tl;dr most of the posts, just like to say that you're lumping very broad industries with a huge umbrella of other industries in together.

Auto: you're forgetting the entire chain of suppliers and producers of parts and focusing on the major car companies. you have to understand even if gasoline cars overall demand declines, parts suppliers can also continue making profits and pay dividends from maintenance costs on existing cars and other streams of income (ex: they make parts for airplanes or military trucks). Also if more efficient cars or electric cars are available the supplier that first retools production will make a killing as the market leader in supplying parts for electric cars.

Real Estate: Most everyone is lumping all real estate together, and most everyone on this thread is assuming it means residential real estate. Investments in real estate can range from commercial, to rural, to industrial. Considering that most boomers are going to retire it would be a good bet to buy reits or real estate development groups that own/develop/manage retirement homes. You could actually make a killing ceteris paribus if this demographic transition hits as it should and short the residential home market to make money?

Stem Cell = big pharma
Stem cell research is essentially a subset of big pharma and you'd have to do research on what it can do and how they convert this research as a product. If you want to make money making pharma bets its going to be risky and you should make some doctor/biochemist friends and understand how FDA works in the USA. I had a MA biochem friend who broke down the stages of development of drugs and it opened my eyes how risky pharmaceuticals are outside the huge ones like merck, pfizer, and glaxo smith kline are.

Also airlines are a shitshow, but then again I'm in canada and our airline industry is ridiculous.
If you want to make it big with investing in cyclical industries you'd better have nerves of steel and a deep wallet to make big cash.

I agree with that last part but not so much on the first part. Anything that has to do with old people: Hospitals, Retirement homes, Funeral homes, Land for cemeteries is going to be hot business.

Commercial space, the market is a mess. Supply is being casted into different tiers that don't reflect reality. You have empty older towers of class AAA that firms don't want to fuck with, but with cheap money that is circulating around they are building new more efficient towers. I understand this, but the only stock of units are not being scooped up so you end up with a bubble which drives u leases... which brings on more new towers... wash ... rinse.. repeat. Obviously certain Cities are immune to this. For instance NYC has re-zoned much of Mid-town Manhattan to knock down and or retrofit many of the old bummy towers in around Grand Central Station, plus you got the Yards near Penn Station being developed. No shortage of $$$ to be made there if you can get into it *Cough REITs Cough*.

Industrial is awkward too somewhat. The majority of new space is organized around highways and with gas creeping the fuck up you get a bunch of Industry sites that are inefficient while old industry sites near rail lines are being used for other stuff. There is a lot of growth in the Midwest though they still are relying on highways but they are using their substantial rail networks and building new inland ports. St Louis, Kansas City, Winnipeg are all fucking with this heavy.

And lastly, I never understood how Airlines make money. I've herd its a toss up with each flight if they even break even. No more than 2 or 3 consecutive people pay the same air fair. In Canada Air Canada has a monopoly but its still cheaper for me to fly to London England for fuck sakes then to Vancouver from Toronto. Like really?

[chyamor]

peer-to-peer car sharing service

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/rent-your-car-for-cash.html

[All or Nothing]

(06-11-2012 04:00 PM)kosko Wrote:  

The Oil trolls won't be rolling out electric anytime soon. GM has been sitting on adequate Battery technology for 20 years now but won't re-open the plans. Electric cars are a a smoke screen they will never be widely available anytime soon. Remember Ethanol? it set us back like 10 years, we pumped so much money and effort into that dud. Engines will become more efficient but the removal of gas from them I don't see.

Real Estate is done. As in Real Estate as an "asset" - your home being a asset like a plot of farm land, or barrel of oil is gone. Once the boomers tap out the next generations won't view home the same way as we did. It will go back to simply just being shelter, renting will be more prevalent as young people will have to be more mobile to seek out jobs. Top tier metros will always be a draw and have steep prices but other areas will continue to falter (Vegas, Arizona) while more cheap spots in the mid-west will see a rebound.

Here's the thing, electric cars are not the wave of the future. Hydrogen powered cars are. The emission is water, and hydrogen can be produced from water through sunlight. I watched a video where a guy dipped a leaf-like solar panel in water, and with the power of sunlight it created a reaction that separated oxygen and hydrogen where they immediately bubbled up from the water (you can see this at 51:00 in http://video.pbs.org/video/1768954299). Essentially it is a completely renewable fuel. On top of that, many safety measures have been taken to keep the cars very safe even on impact.

The only thing barring hydrogen powered cars from rising is politics, infrastructure, and the U.S. arbitrarily barring their mass production. From what I have studied, there is a rule that cars need to go about 240 miles on one fuel up. Hydrogen powered cars are maxing out around 180 miles right now.

I would definitely suggest watching this video: http://video.pbs.org/video/1768954299. I had to watch all four for my class, but they ended up being very informative videos. If you watch them, you will definitely be amazed by everything that is on the horizon. Some high points were: a couple guys had found the cure for cancer, completely recyclable cars, and all the things being done with solar power.

[kosko]

I agree with you but yet again the Oil trolls and the immense power they hold over Washington bars any viable alternatives to fossil fuels. They will make more money as scarcity goes up even if it costs them more to bring stuff online they will still see gigantic profits. Hydrogen is not coming to your street anytime soon. What will happen is people will simply be priced out or will have to resort to car sharing measures or downsizing. Oil will still be in the picture. I wish it wasn't like this but Big Oil is the largest tangible economic sector on the globe they will fight tooth and nail to keep there monopoly.

The technology has existed now and for many decades now. Its has just been cronies and political hacks bought off by special interests that keep the technology in the dark.

Considering the avg Americans daily road trips are only about 100 miles this would be easy to attain with out the hurdles put in place. The system is designed to fail. More money is to be made from that.

The ideal solution would be to give these emerging technologies space to grow while time goes on and re-align are living and transport patterns so that they can meet at some point in the future in harmony.

[snoop]

in the 1970s, Shell Oil Company sponsored a contest to see who could build the most fuel efficient car.

The guy who won got about 370 miles per gallon.

And the car companies are just now getting around to selling a car in the 40 mpg range. So think about that when you consider all these wild ideas about technology changing the car game.

[Jack Of All Trades]

btw does anyone know a good site for screening and getting info on reits in canada/US? or do I have to goto sedar and edgar filings to dig up data after getting lists from google?

[T and A Man]

Uhh no.

The main thing preventing hydrogen cars from rising is the energy intensity of transporting hydrogen fuel.

Planes can't fly using hydrogen fueld engines because they can't carry enough.

With a tanker, IIRC you can't really have a tanker travel more than 180km before it consumes more fuels than it carries. The only thing would be a nationwide series of pipes to reticulate hydrogen to everywhere it is needed.

So it can be said that hydrogen works well in a high population density environment, but for someplaces like the U.S and Australia, it's not a workable solution. But regarding the former, the obvious start would be Japan, but they'd be funding an orphan item if they went solo.

The next would be Europe, and then you think that would be enough. The fact that they haven't, to me, says that even Europe doesn't have enough population density to make it worthwhile.