once again, no. honda vs. lexus. source: my brain.

the entire bay area is like an inflamed pimple of overpriced housing. SF is the crusty white head on that pimple.

ok but then the car is still powered by fuel. in your scenario you would still need an external combustion engine to produce heat.

the magna carta?

here's the deal. california cities use very little water. 80% of the water in this state is used by agriculture. only 10% by people. An a large part of the agriculture water is used to grow stupid crops, like rice or feed for chinese cows. if farmers in california grew climate appropriate crops then everybody whould have enough water.

I'd want $5,000,000. I have 15-20 years until retirement. I'm on track. Are you?

I'd re-define "millionaire" (as in the rich with no money cares rich) to be people with unearned income greater than a million a year. That's the level of comfort people think of for millionaire. The millionaire next door type (I know quite a few) don't live that well. A tiny 2-bedroom house, raising one child, one new car every 10-20 years. Saving most of their disposable income. Having just enough so that when their health fails, they can go into a nice home, rather than the worst ones (and there's quite a difference). Maybe leaving a little for their child. Of course, the one I'm thinking of managed to put their child through medical school, paying her whole way, so she got her inheritance early. Each generation better off than the one before. Not like my father who left us nothing. Well, piles of bills that will never be paid. But my plans never counted on that anyway.

technically, you would still need an energy source (gasoline, natural gas, batteries) to power the cars. thermo electrics could make it more efficient by recycling waste heat. but the thermoelectrics themselves would not power the cars.

the availability of housing in mountain view has exactly zero impact on the availability of housing in SF. SF is a hip urban city while Mtn View is a suburban community. If you're priced out of housing in mtn view then you're definitely not moving to SF. If you can afford to live in SF, then you live there because you want to and not because you couldn't find a place in mtn view.

SF does not feel the ripple from mountain view!!!!! stop being illogical!!!!! you're saying that if the price of a honda accord went up $2k it would drive people to buy a lexus.

Not all issues are negative. Relatives die, leaving you things and such. I've had a similar plan, and am still on track to retire at 55 with $5,000,000+ in net worth. 15 years into the plan, and still nothing that set it off track. That includes a few layoffs, some major medical issues, no accidents.

It's simple. It just takes a plan, and some self control. Why aren't you a millionaire?

what facts are coming out of my ass? I can't believe I've been downvoted in this thread even though I'm the only one making sense. I've forgotten the point of this whole conversation anyway.

Look. The summary makes a false equivocation. "goog tried to build housing in mtn view and they wouldn't let them, so where are people to go? they have to go to san francisco!". false false false.

the housing crisis in san francisco has nothing to do with the ability to build new projects in mtn view. san francisco is a hip urban city, while mtn view is a suburban community. You can buy houses in mtn view for OM less than it would cost in SF. so compared to availability in SF, there are still plenty of available places on the peninsula or elsewhere in the bay.

what you're effectively saying is, "honda raised the price of an accord by $2k, so now I have to buy a lexus!"

mod me down now, bitches! after I just owned everybody with my logic and oratory.

And what about Australia and NZ? And since many of the people came from England, is England ready to accept all white NZ, OZ, and USA peoples back? How much Native American does one need to have to claim US ownership?

No. Texas was recognized as an independent country for 10 years before it joined the US. Even Mexico recognized it, I think (not to clear on the details, they become moot after a 100+ years and other treaties recognizing the independence). So the US had no direct dealings or conflict with Mexico with regards to Texas.

Searching on paid agitators indcated more paid agitators were at OWS than tea party events.

The American civil war was about much more than slavery--in fact, the slavery thing was pretty much just a PR tool Lincoln used to solidify public opinion in the north. The real issues were about state's rights, self governance, secession, and consolidation of federal power. It's good to know that mass "education" is successfully keeping people confused about this.

As long as we still have third amendment protections, the republic is OK. As soon as they try to quarter troops. In my home, I'm fucking out of here.

You. Can't just arm yourself to the hilt. Look at the branch dividians in Waco. What they were doing was illegal, and the FBI had to step in to stop it.