Right, and this is a hard point to overstate. The average home price was around $80,000 in the early 80s, whereas it's currently $525,000. If we see home prices drop by 85% we won't be buying homes with US dollars any more.
That $80,000 isn't inflation adjusted. Drop would be more like 40%, not 85%.
But current home prices don't need to drop. The average price needs to drop. That means more housing. Likely ends up meaning some drop or stagnation in current prices, but you don't need to shift down 40% to reach the goal.
Housing in my area is only a little above the 80s price after adjusting for inflation. Of course, the 80s price is nationwide average, while my given price is only the local average.
You cannot do a cash out refinance if you don't already have a mortgage on the property. You can do a home equity loan or line of credit but those come at higher interest rates than a refinance.
But yes the real winners are almost always those who have ample resources.
I'm not. You can do something similar with a home equity loan, but you can also do a cash-out refinance. The main distinction is that a refinance, like a mortgage on a home you don't own out-right has a better rate than a home equity loan or HELOC
Well, that's a pretty extreme interpretation of what I said. It's just one piece of bayesian evidence, not a 100% determiner. Are there any witnesses who claim that this other individual killed her? Because there is one for Adnan. Also, it seems like a recent ex is probably more dangerous than a new lover.
It's been a long time since I've listened to the show so I may be way off here, but it did demonstrate that the prosecutor's timeline was flawed, the cell phone data was unreliable, and that Syed's counsel overlooked a potential alibi witness.
In any case Serial was a landmark in the fields of true crime and podcasting, so it holds some merit as a historical piece if nothing else.
A bank seems like one of the worst businesses to operate as a money laundering front. They are subject to a lot of disclosures and reviews other companies aren't.
I looked into your statement about bitcoin mining preventing methane emissions and it doesn't add up to me. Oil drillers already flare the methane, which turns it into carbon dioxide. The solution these bitcoin miners are implementing is to burn the methane in a controlled manner so they can harness the energy produced for electricity to mine bitcoin. The same chemical reaction occurs, converting methane into carbon dioxide. The companies internal research claims this reduces carbon dioxide equivalent units, but I'm pretty skeptical. Of course, they would want their research to show they are doing something good. Sure, I guess it is more useful to harness the energy than to just burn it fruitlessly, but I don't see how it reduces emissions. Is there something I'm missing as to why this would make sense?
I have been on oil and gas pads and drill sites. Flares have significant incomplete combustion. A financial incentive (lots outside north America) to pipe it into a generator encourages those with troublesome gas leaks to fix it.
If you release the CO2 into the atmosphere, it doesn't really reduce emissions. However, because miners can harness the energy in a profitable way, they could afford to sequester or scrub the CO2. That would make oil and gas companies look a little greener, which is even more of an incentive. I believe some miners are doing this already.
They may or may not be able to afford to sequester the carbon. Even if they do that (and I have never heard before that they do), in the long run would surely be out-competed by other miners who don't bother.
I thought about this too, but I'm not sure there is anything you can do to make this group happy, short of removing the turbines. So is it worth even considering their perspective? I know that's a harsh question.
