Let’s hear you say that, Click here for the story.


Adam “Mini Peter Chris” Engst: ‘I’m not sure if you are familiar with San Francisco’s Gay Pride Parade, but if not, let me assure you that they put on quite a show. So much so that my fellow band members and I went unnoticed as we walked through the streets to get to our gig. This may seem like no big deal, but I must tell you that (click here:) I am the drummer for MiniKiss, a KISS tribute band comprised entirely of little people. I would like to invite your readers to our upcoming show in Atlantic City. We perform at the Borgata casino on Sunday, September 3rd.’

☞ Be there or be square.


Steve Baker: ‘In Canada, where it gets very cold in the winter (40 below without wind chill), a large national chain of gas stations has converted to 10% ethanol, which requires no special cars, engines or modifications. It also runs cleaner and prevents gas line freezing in winter. Now wouldn’t it make sense to reduce overall gasoline consumption by 10% immediately?’

Stephen Gilbert: ‘Today’s remarks from Richard Factor show the seriousness of the energy problem we face. Factor no doubt thinks he’s doing his part for the environment, but he continues to drive an automobile more that 18,800 miles a year. Compared to other Americans, he may be economizing, but he still used 632 gallons of gas in a 20 month period. The environment doesn’t ‘care’ how many miles per gallon you get; it cares how much gas you burn.’

☞ Hey, don’t look at me: I never leave my keyboard.

Michael Kern: ‘Elon Musk writes: ‘However, let’s assume for the moment that the electricity is generated from a hydrocarbon source such as natural gas, the most popular fuel for U.S. power plants in recent years.’ This statement is false, and it strongly biases his conclusions. It is true that much new generating capacity has been gas turbines, and to a lesser extent gas co-generation. But this is for peaking capacity – what you use on a hot summer day. The base load is now and likely will be for a long time carried by coal – a much worse greenhouse gas emitter than gasoline; and by nuclear, which has no greenhouse problems but is nevertheless not loved by environmentalists.’


According to Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, which credited Yale University economist Robert Schiller for this information, U.S. residential real estate prices rose – in real terms, after inflation – by 66% from 1890 to 2004, or four-tenths of one percent a year. But between 1997 and 2005, the gain was 52% above inflation, which works out to 6.2% a year.

‘Many contend that a sustained pullback in house prices in unthinkable,’ Grant writes. ‘But the unthinkable – or, at least, the highly atypical – has already happened. In 2001-05, prices levitated.’

He goes on to say that ‘a return to the post-1968 trend-line would imply a drop of 22%. Which, of course, for these real estate-centric United States, would imply disaster. We do not predict disaster, but we do expect a pullback severe enough to inhibit the leveraged American consumer and to stunt the growth of the U.S. economy.’


Comments are closed.