We drove through Edina, Mn, a few days ago. Upscale suburb of Minneapolis. We saw many instances of million dollar 4000-5000 sq.ft. houses being torn down to make way for multi-million dollar mansions that fill almost the whole lot. The upper middle and lower upper classes are full of the show-off mentality. They managed to be in the right place for Bush's economic policies to hugely benefit them. Of course to a man or woman they believe it's due to their hard work and inherent worth.

The housing industry is full of immigrant low-cost labor that makes building a mansion (or any other house) much lower in cost than it should be. What will happen when the "gradual" slowdown in housing becomes a rout?

I convinced my daughters to switch to conventional mortgages a year ago, even though it increased their immediate cash outflow. As Brad DeLong pointed out, what will happen when when those who wouldn't (or couldn't) do that get hit with huge increases in interest rates?

Hell, I grew up in a 900 sq.ft. house with one bathroom for five. Now two of us live in a 2800 sq.ft. house on an acre (which is mowed by non-English speaking Mexicans), and we need all that house to contain our toys (necessities). I have read that the suicide rate was very low in the '30's depression. When everyone is screwed, no one feels left out.

It's going to be rough, but the Republican Party will deservedly get the blame, and spend a generation trying to figure out why ordinary people hate them.

I am not fat, but I have friends who are. I have fantasized with them about the ideal fat farm. It would be in the high desert of Idaho or Oregon. It would consist of hiking over rough terrain between feeding stations. Five miles of hiking would bring one to the feeding station where a 500 Calorie meal would be available. Every day would have 15 miles of hiking and 1500 calories. Shelter and water would be provided for those who could not cover the five miles between stations by nightfall. Essentially what we would have is a modern simulation of our hunter-gatherer evolutionary past. The meals would be basic and unprocessed food. Good health and normal weight would be the natural result of this regimen, without the need for expensive and hazardous surgery. It would also be fairly inexpensive. Obviously the morbidly obese would have to have a somewhat gradual approach to the full regimen.

I have a picture of my 8th grade graduating class in 1947 on my wall. Out of over 50 kids there is no obesity. This was an ethnically diverse class in NYC. A lot of the respondents to the article suggest that genetics is responsible for the present outbreak of obesity. There is no way for our genetic makeup to have changed in 60 years. Food has gotten a lot cheaper and more available in those 60 years, and its composition has changed. However, the same foods that were available in 1947 are still available. But even if many of the presently available foods are in some way far more fattening than they were 60 years ago, that is no excuse for obesity. We have a duty not to waste societies resources on eating excessivley or to require medical care that would not be required if not for poor personal choices. High cost oil will increase the costs of food and transportation and will help alleviate the obesity problem. Health Savings Acoounts will reduce the transfer of medical costs to those not not responsible for those costs.

Big oil for one. The same people who support Bush. I hope the Democratic Party can talk him out of running as an idependent. But I suspect that big oil and the GOP will provide money for Lieberman.

My wife and I have two daughters, one is 35, the other 31. The 35 year old was incredidly fat when she was 6 months old. And she was 100% breast fed. She is model thin at 35, eats like a horse, and hikes and kick boxes for fun. The 31 year old has two children, one and three and a half. She is also model thin, is a runner and hiker, and also eats like a horse. She was not as fat as her sister at 6 months, but was quite plump. By the time they were three they could both hike eight miles in the mountains, and that's what they did nearly every weekend. Except it was XC skiing in the winter. My daughters three and a half year old is being raised the same way. A year ago he saw a child his age in a stroller. His comment was "what's that big kid doing in a stroller, strollers are for babies". We believe that early exposure to exercise, and good nutrition, immunizes children against obesity. The one year old was a very fat baby. Now that he is mobile he is rapidly thinning down, and soon will be expected to walk long distances like his brother. When my wife and I take walks on the greenbelt we are appalled at the age of the children being pushed in strollers. By the time children are two they should be able to walk a couple of miles. The older boy has to jog to keep up with his mother walking. It doesn't bother him a bit. I'm sure that our hunter-gatherer ancestors did not carry two-year olds. Neither should we.