How quickly prices have gone up... oh my...

[Doctor Jeff]

The first step in "stepping back from the agenda" is to stop reading the WSJ Opinion page.

How can a paper's news organization be so relentlessly objective and factual, and its editorial arm so ridiculously, singlemindedly ultrapartisan? The mind boggles.

[brad4d8]

Fact: Nice archtop guitars are going up faster than wages....

And I'll never own an air cooled Porsche. Damn. Poor me. It's all just.. so.. unjust.

Even mediocre archtops are going up faster than wages, along with just about everything else (except maybe my stock portfolio this year).
As to the air cooled Porsche, these days a vintage air cooled VW bug goes for about what a Porsche did when the bug was $1800!
Brad

[Spook410]

The first step in "stepping back from the agenda" is to stop reading the WSJ Opinion page.

So was there a claimed fact you disagree with in the article or is attacking the source adequate? WSJ is not golden, but it is a premier and accountable outlet. And it is certainly more reliable than Bloomberg, MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, ABC, USA Today, Washington Post, NY Times, or even Reuters. Et al. I'll take their business bias over political pandering any day. If you have a more credible and less politically biased news outlet let us know.

Bottom line and not really in question: China, India, and all emerging markets will continue to burn coal and every other energy source they can lay their hands on for the foreseeable. Green energy efforts in the US and Europe won't impact global warming. To make the math come out any different takes some very, very unrealistic assumptions.

That being said, we need alternative energy sources and it will be expensive to develop them. There isn't going to be enough lithium for batteries. The infrastructure itself is not designed for alternate sources and does not support where the energy will come from (sun, wind, and like it or not nuclear) to where it's consumed. Nobody has included these costs in a budget. And we still don't have solutions for peaks. Hard problems we need solutions for. But we should stop claiming a needed evolution in energy will be a solution to global warming. Time line does not align and it simply isn't true.

[Doctor Jeff]

I am merely pointing out that the WSJ Opinion page is highly biased and in particular has carried an animus against climate change science and China for years. It's hardly a secret.

I don't disagree with you that there are major obstacles to getting to sustainable energy goals, but many experts feel that those can be overcome, for instance moving toward battery types other than lithium.

The US historically has been far and away the largest contributor to greenhouse gases. Yes China is currently number one, but they will be much more impacted by climate change than the US, and have taken steps to address it. (Admittedly critics say China could do more.) For instance, the percent of energy from coal was cut from 70% to 57% over the last decade. (Vs 22% in the US.) Chinese citizens buy 51% of all EVs made, vs 9% by the US.

And of course it's nihilistic to say that the US and Europe can do nothing to affect the environment because of China and India. That is just "what-aboutism" which has always been the biggest obstacle to changing the way we do things.

[2bornot2bop]

So was there a claimed fact you disagree with in the article or is attacking the source adequate? WSJ is not golden, but it is a premier and accountable outlet. And it is certainly more reliable than Bloomberg, MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, ABC, USA Today, Washington Post, NY Times, or even Reuters. Et al. I'll take their business bias over political pandering any day. If you have a more credible and less politically biased news outlet let us know.

Bottom line and not really in question: China, India, and all emerging markets will continue to burn coal and every other energy source they can lay their hands on for the foreseeable. Green energy efforts in the US and Europe won't impact global warming. To make the math come out any different takes some very, very unrealistic assumptions.

That being said, we need alternative energy sources and it will be expensive to develop them. There isn't going to be enough lithium for batteries. The infrastructure itself is not designed for alternate sources and does not support where the energy will come from (sun, wind, and like it or not nuclear) to where it's consumed. Nobody has included these costs in a budget. And we still don't have solutions for peaks. Hard problems we need solutions for. But we should stop claiming a needed evolution in energy will be a solution to global warming. Time line does not align and it simply isn't true.

But choosing the WSJ because of it’s business bias, is still a bias. As if their word is God. Meanwhile, the ice melt’s.

[Spook410]

And of course it's nihilistic to say that the US and Europe can do nothing to affect the environment because of China and India. That is just "what-aboutism" which has always been the biggest obstacle to changing the way we do things.

I think simple math is the polar opposite of nihilism or 'what-aboutism'. As we are talking specifically about tons of emissions over specific periods of time, this would be the realm of engineering.

[Spook410]

But choosing the WSJ because of it’s business bias, is still a bias. As if their word is God. Meanwhile, the ice melt’s.

As a major outlet they are at least accountable. Sometimes I think people look to either FoxNews or Mother Jones for their news which I find baffling. WSJ certainly has a business bias but I don't know of a more reliable or less annoying alternative. What media outlet would you suggest?

[Stringswinger]

As a major outlet they are at least accountable. Sometimes I think people look to either FoxNews or Mother Jones for their news which I find baffling. WSJ certainly has a business bias but I don't know of a more reliable or less annoying alternative. What media outlet would you suggest?

I like The Economist.

But the WSJ is pretty damn good (I ignore their editorials).

[Oscar67]

Predicting how prices will develop… if I could do it then I’d certainly be able to afford any guitar that I fancy. All of the different perspectives offered in this thread are true, in the sense that there are specific examples proving each point of view. Still, predicting where vintage guitar prices will go from now on is speculation. No more, no less. We’ll see. My best guess is that Norm won’t be going out of business anytime soon. Neither will his European counterparts at Vintage & Rare in Bath or at TFOA in Holland.

It’s not just vintage, BTW. A core line PRS that I bought brand new four years ago in a shop is worth just as much used, while a new one now costs almost 25% more. And if I were to sell my 10-year old PRS DC3 or NF3 (which isn’t going to happen) then I could make a 60% to 75% profit.

Some have mentioned “the rich”. I worked my ass off to raise a family and save a few bucks and to be able to finally play something nice. It’s a bit disconcerting to be labelled as “rich” or “capitalist”. When I got married and we started to raise a family, I sold almost everything and played cheap guitars for 20 years. Didn’t bother me. First things first. Ironically, one of the best guitars I have ever played and which I’ll never part with was acquired during that period for 300 euros (a very early PRS SE Soapbar). Sometimes one gets lucky. Anyway, once the kids started leaving home I was able to get a nice guitar again and since the jazz bug bit me I have been able to get a very small but very nice little collection of 3 solidbodies (being the PRS guitars I mentioned) and 4 hollowbodies (an Eastman workhorse, a beat up but wonderful ‘37 L7 that everyone wants to buy, a Collings CL Jazz and a recent Gibson Custom ES335 VOS that’s as close to being my holy grail as any guitar is likely to get. I could perfectly well make do with just that Eastman, but the joy I get from this little collection is priceless.

[stevus]

I like The Economist.

But the WSJ is pretty damn good (I ignore their editorials).

Me too, for years I have a subscription to The Economist. Unfortunately, however, through the years it feels they have become more Britain oriented, and their overall writing style is less witty than in the past.

[RJVB]

I think simple math is the polar opposite of nihilism or 'what-aboutism'. As we are talking specifically about tons of emissions over specific periods of time, this would be the realm of engineering.

Or ungineering

Some examples of cognitive dissonance reduction:

- "I know smoking is bad for my health but I like it so much and we're all going to die anyway"
- "I know climate change is bad but even stopping all emissions worldwide isn't going to stop/reverse it [immediately] so let's just continue to enjoy our current lifestyles"

[Stringswinger]

Me too, for years I have a subscription to The Economist. Unfortunately, however, through the years it feels they have become more Britain oriented, and their overall writing style is less witty than in the past.

I like the Britain orientation of the Economist as American news (with the exception of the WSJ) comes with an agenda (sometimes right-wing nut mostly left-wing). I prefer my news without editorializing.

[stevus]

I like the Britain orientation of the Economist as American news (with the exception of the WSJ) comes with an agenda (sometimes right-wing nut mostly left-wing). I prefer my news without editorializing.

True, and I absolutely love their international news coverage including the US. Though The Economist has an agenda too. Maybe I am more sensitive for that one because I am from Europe :-)

[skiboyny]

I don't disagree with you that there are major obstacles to getting to sustainable energy goals, but many experts feel that those can be overcome, for instance moving toward battery types other than lithium.

I really feel I have to remind everyone that batteries only "store" energy. They don't make energy. The big problem for me with the whole push, is the story is presented as a end picture, with none of the work, or even talk, it takes to build towards it. Thusly I find it hard to believe that anyone is on board at all. It seems nothing more than a fairy tale at this point presented by politicians representing their donors, that stand to make a lot of money. You are talking about one of the largest aspects of our economy and society. Remember the oil boom how much wealth did that create for the right people? Any move towards alternative "energy" must be Dependable, Sustainable and Affordable. I see none of that criteria met, not even close. How are we pushing a change to battery vehicles without the resources to even build them let alone support them??? How about we start at the beginning.

[bluejaybill]

I like The Economist.

But the WSJ is pretty damn good (I ignore their editorials).

I am a subscriber too, and also don't look at the editorials, they have a hugely biased editorial slant, to me it's nearly as bad as Fox news. I have frequently come close to canceling because of that.

[stevus]

I am a subscriber too, and also don't look at the editorials, they have a hugely biased editorial slant, to me it's nearly as bad as Fox news. I have frequently come close to canceling because of that.

I understand what you mean. The Economist used to be truly liberal, which was a relief compared to many other magazines. And their journalists could write about serious things with a light humourous touch, which often made me smile. Still, I wouldn't know a good alternative to keep abreast of what is happening in the world.

[Spook410]

Or ungineering

Some examples of cognitive dissonance reduction:

- "I know smoking is bad for my health but I like it so much and we're all going to die anyway"
- "I know climate change is bad but even stopping all emissions worldwide isn't going to stop/reverse it [immediately] so let's just continue to enjoy our current lifestyles"

You don't continue on the same path. You also don't try to sell 'green energy' to a naive populace as a solution to global warming. It's simply not true.

We need new energy technologies and should be investing in them. In the US the approach, because we are political idiots, is to send money to states that support the political party of whoever is in power and writing the checks. So, 'green energy' means 'send money to California' in the form of tax breaks and heat pumps. The correct approach if you want to develop technology is through research and development following where tech leads you. Not where political dollars leads you.

As for global warming, we need to invest in the reality. Reduce forest fires in the west by building necessary fire breaks and reducing forest debris. Labor intensive in counties that are not Democrat. So places like Oregon and California are not interested. Even though 15% - 20% of CA's carbon emissions are in the form of wild fires. We also need to build sea walls and change policy to stop encouraging people to live on the coast (e.g. low cost insurance). As for water and drought.. I see no solution other than population migration. Not sure what mitigations look like for Europe. Guess the current energy crisis will take center stage in any case.

So there is a lot we can do. Develop tech without the politics. Develop real mitigations. Without the politics. But some people want the emotion. They want to feel like they are helping the planet. That's why we have recycling bins that get emptied into land fills. That's why we say we're addressing climate change. When, in fact, we're just re-directing political dollars. Democrats in power: build stuff on the coasts. Republicans in power: Do nothing. Good for Red states with natural resources to sell.

[Spook410]

I like the Britain orientation of the Economist as American news (with the exception of the WSJ) comes with an agenda (sometimes right-wing nut mostly left-wing). I prefer my news without editorializing.

I listen to their podcast and like the technical stuff but do find they like to insert lots of left political content. They like to wag their finger at US gun laws, history of racism (like the Empire wasn't), and wealth gaps.

[m_d]

You don't continue on the same path. You also don't try to sell 'green energy' to a naive populace as a solution to global warming. It's simply not true.

We need new energy technologies and should be investing in them. In the US the approach, because we are political idiots, is to send money to states that support the political party of whoever is in power and writing the checks. So, 'green energy' means 'send money to California' in the form of tax breaks and heat pumps. The correct approach if you want to develop technology is through research and development following where tech leads you. Not where political dollars leads you.

As for global warming, we need to invest in the reality. Reduce forest fires in the west by building necessary fire breaks and reducing forest debris. Labor intensive in counties that are not Democrat. So places like Oregon and California are not interested. Even though 15% - 20% of CA's carbon emissions are in the form of wild fires. We also need to build sea walls and change policy to stop encouraging people to live on the coast (e.g. low cost insurance). As for water and drought.. I see no solution other than population migration. Not sure what mitigations look like for Europe. Guess the current energy crisis will take center stage in any case.

So there is a lot we can do. Develop tech without the politics. Develop real mitigations. Without the politics. But some people want the emotion. They want to feel like they are helping the planet. That's why we have recycling bins that get emptied into land fills. That's why we say we're addressing climate change. When, in fact, we're just re-directing political dollars. Democrats in power: build stuff on the coasts. Republicans in power: Do nothing. Good for Red states with natural resources to sell.

Woke California wants to reduce emissions: it should definitely reacquaint itself with proper forest maintenance. Taking care of nature for real. I hear their forest management is really poor.

[rlrhett]

Woke California wants to reduce emissions: it should definitely reacquaint itself with proper forest maintenance. Taking care of nature for real. I hear their forest management is really poor.

Then you hear wrong. As someone with family who directly works in fire suppression in California, I can tell you we spend hundreds of millions annually on forest management and there is no scientific consensus that there is more that isn’t being done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Stevebol]

Electric guitars have been around for a while now and many old ones are luxury/collector items. Nothing wrong with that. They could be considered works of art.
10 grand for a 60's strat doesn't make sense to me but it might to someone else. I'm happy with my 2000 MIM strat I got for $400.

[st.bede]

Woke California wants to reduce emissions: it should definitely reacquaint itself with proper forest maintenance. Taking care of nature for real. I hear their forest management is really poor.

why the name calling… everyone has names to de-humanize each other.. that is what people do so they can justify hate and violence… last time I checked there is a 50-50 split… no one ahould get to full of themselves..

solutions will be a process that no really likes but everyone has to give some… but we can ignore that and just call each other names

[Bop Head]

why the name calling… everyone has names to de-humanize each other.. that is what people do so they can justify hate and violence… last time I checked there is a 50-50 split… no one ahould get to full of themselves..

solutions will be a process that no really likes but everyone has to give some… but we can ignore that and just call each other names

One of the oldest principles of ruling over others is “divide et impera” — “divide and rule”. And it works so well because of the way our thinking works: discerning things. That’s why we all get so easily tricked into it.

United we stand, divided we fall — as one nation, the only nation I know: the human nation.

PEACE

[Doctor Jeff]

Then you hear wrong. As someone with family who directly works in fire suppression in California, I can tell you we spend hundreds of millions annually on forest management and there is no scientific consensus that there is more that isn’t being done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

As I recall, a lot of the risk areas in California (as well as many other states) if not the majority are on federal lands. So there’s only a limited amount the state can do.

Of course every little bit helps, but the twin monoliths of rapid development in wilderness areas and climate change are almost overwhelming.

[rlrhett]

As I recall, a lot of the risk areas in California (as well as many other states) if not the majority are on federal lands. So there’s only a limited amount the state can do.

Of course every little bit helps, but the twin monoliths of rapid development in wilderness areas and climate change are almost overwhelming.

All very true, although CalFire and the National Forest Service do work very closely together in what is a massive effort to manage and protect the forests.

The reality is that vast forest land in California and the Pacific Northwest is rapidly turning into semi arid scrub land. Fire is how Mother Nature is doing it.

It may well be too late to stop it; but the notion that somehow California and the National Forest Service are not trying or don’t know how is pure fiction from ragetainment TV and radio. I don’t know why people watch those angry fantasies, but I feel compelled to call it out when people repeat that nonsense as if it were truth. Especially when they denigrate the sacrifice of thousands of fire fighters and forest professionals who are on the front line every year fighting this fight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro