Jump to content
If interest rates are lower today than they expect them in the future, what impact will those increased rates have on future property values? Rising rates will have doward pressure on rates and unfortunately tax revenues making future county and school funding more difficult. Needless to say also the projected tax increases to fund using others money to pay for these grand ideas
35 or so years
So in the last 35 or so interest rates have been falling. When the trend reverses as it has throughout history what will happen to property values that are to find these projects?
Interest rates moving from 4 to 5 percent will increase the carrying costs by 20%. As those carrying costs rise downward pressure on property values will become greater.
The biggest risk is not in making some bold investment to draw more tourists, to differentiate this town/region from others. What made this area different was the fact that it is not a box canyon with a more rural feel. It is not fancy benches next to a river, streetlights, etc., but rather the intangibles the other places could not easily replicate. Not that this community seems to want to embrace its roots.
If you have 17 million to invest in the community, what will provide you with the highest marginal reaction towards moving you to your underlying goals ( I would guess that is vision 2030). My thoughts would lead me to different ways to get there. You have a new bakery that could be part of the draw. Buying and leasing them equipment so they can produce their product be able to be priced in a way that might its regional distribution, creating another reason to visit river city. It also works towards a broader economic base. Finally, it is an economic activity which is focused on creative ways of generating wealth not extracting it from tourists, which may fail to come in the same numbers in the future as technology continues to destroy jobs.
Yep topsoil is carbon. Increasing it as he has done around the country and Canada has the ability to quickly right the co2 numbers. Unfortunately little funding to show his work is available as there is no money to be made off it. The co2 trading schemes have no mechanism to actually guage how much carbon comes out of the atmosphere in my discussion with Abe and research.
Ag subsidies almost entirely go to gmo and large farms. Ending the subsidies will cause small farms to be more competitive. Doing so works toward one of the three pillars of sustainability directly, the financial side. It works to the environmental side by undoing the incentives that row cropping has and will help to solve the dead zones as most row crops are used for feed. Then as Kevin Fulton, Litchield Nebraska (written up in the times many times), has done without the eliminating subsidies, put more humans to work at decent wages by leasing buying up conventional farms to put them back into grasslands and is putting people to work over tractors being more socially sustainable and helping.
Joel Salatin, not the leader on the area of mob grazing, and many others are showing how mob grazing is improving grass yields over time by six fold. That is six times the carbon being utilized by plants and taken from the atmosphere.
Taxing machines for their labor like humans will also and put regional food systems back on the map.
Where will the subsidy money come from when those machines displace the 33% of jobs they are forecasting?
Heaven forbid that there is a solution that may require less government. Unfortunately those pencil pushers in the ivory towers know more than us pleabs in the real world.
I offered a suggestion on how to mitigate excess carbon in the atmosphere, as proposed by others.
Go watch the video of Abe Collins here and while we are worried about CO2 emissions, that CO2 can be used to grow more food, if our soil structures can be improved upon. Improving the soil structure (rebuilding the topsoil that was eroded via tillage over the last 200 years) will also make the land more drought tolerant as the water infiltrates the soil and releases slowly.
End the federal agricultural subsidies and you put more people to work, you improve the nutritional quality of our food and thus the health of the people ,the environmental conditions as the fertilizers and pesticides so heavily used in row cropping will wane.
The grain subsidies and the distortions to the free market have caused some of the largest problems we face and can be fixed by phasing them out. Unfortunately, more government and taxes are the solution to all our ills.
Cowboy Logic: “The human mind treats a new idea the
same way the body treats a strange protein. It rejects it!”
That was the isle of the brits not the sole.
If you want the quickest most effective way of extracting carbon from the atmosphere, then you eliminate government subsidies for agriculture and tax all goods sold at the same rate. Today technology faces a favorable tax consequences to that of us lowly people. That benefits those with capital to the individuals detriment.
iUsing simple technological fixes (hot wire fencing), moving livestock every other hour and subsoil tillage, you can extract most of the excess carbon out of the atmosphere that has been added by us small part of the climate change equation. I say small in that they used to grow wheat on the sole of the brits and now they can't as the climate has cooled since they used to be able to.
It is unfortunate that the collectivists sitting in their offices believe that we are so powerful as to be causing all the climate change issues. Those pencil pushers have no idea as to what the real situation is and are not able to comprehend the individual attributes to every situation and dictate what needs to happen from afar and yet the individual who is more closely related to a given situation and more of an expert on their individual situation is than the pencil pusher in their office from afar.
That is the true battle in government the individualist versus the collectivist not deems versus repugs. Moving government to the world stage as Mr. Gates suggests will not solve our problems which have been created by government in many cases.
Harvey one of those harmful man made things are.
Fertilizer resulting in many dead zones. Completely disrupting the natural cycle. End the subsidies for those and the world is a better place.
I think most understand the positive economic impacts of coal. Though what Dan stated is correct it is a temporary positive as it is a limited resource and it is an extractive economic activity. While there is some addition of value to it, in the long term something else needs to be done to replace it... hopefully whatever replaces it is a creative economic force. That being taking raw materials and leaving the whole better off when all is said and done.
I guess it is hard for some to change their beliefs, or to convince them they have been fooled than it is to initially fool them as Mark Twain used to say.
Unfortunately, most times in life we want to treat the symptoms of a problem as opposed to address the root cause of the problem. Treating the symptoms is far more profitable rather than addressing the underlying cause.
I think that is the goal of naturopathy and maybe a reason people are looking to it for answers as opposed to the quick fix that was the magic elixir of pharmaceuticals.
Last login: Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.