To answer most of your other points … Huge robot pours concrete, installs the flooring, plumbing, electrical, windows, doors, and paints the walls. As it is 3D printing the house it shapes the outer walls to look like cut stone. Like magic in a day or two English manor house. The costs become set up and material costs which are far below current norms.

About the failure of the landlords, it is economics 101. Someone provides the same item for less you buy the item that costs less. If you add value like free electricity, heat, and AC it only accelerates peoples adoption.

Let us take the latter case first. The so-called “housing bubble” of the last decade, or rather the “fiscal crisis”, was a direct (and probably intended) result of Government meddling in the housing markets, mostly at the behest of the Democrat Party, though there are certainly enough blame to go around for both partys. Schemes, or should I say “Scams”, like the Community Reinvestment Act are essentially Marxist inspired redistribution programs designed to stealthy further the Democrat’s communist agenda, grab power for the federal government, and, of course, buy votes (this last case being where the Republican’s moral turpitude comes in). It has nothing at all to do with the cost of construction per se. In fact, through government meddling, the cost of construction was in effect artifically “disocunted” out of the economic model.

To manage the risk involved, all manner of derivatives were used. Note that these where used mostly by the large money center banks, or bank like institutions on what we call “Wall Street”; they were not used by the “Main Street” bank that in fact to most of the retail. lending in the residential housing market.

Two, I do not know why you want landlords to “go bankrupt” as they are mostly decent people. Here you reflexively echo Marxist cant. More to the point, the price of house has to do with supply and demand, and that has to do with both demographics and the broader state of the economy. Having cheaper construction cost alone does not change thi much. A building that is 50 years old has pretty much had its construction cost paid off; other market forces are in play.

Lastly, it the broader sense, you have to prove that this sort of technology infrastructure do not increase costs in other areas, and that this cost invalidates your thesis that housing is cheaper.

As an aside, you are really stretching matter to jump to the conclusion that this the will allow you to fabricate an English manor house, as per your illustration.
You understand that they are not just made of stones piled on top of each other, right.

I fear that here too, as in matters of economics, you knowledge is somewhat limited and thus you reach unwarranted conclusions, not to mention grandiose ones.

“Configurations which would otherwise be costly to build and energize will be possible as it is needed rather thsn permanent.”

Layout any circuit design or logic, at pretty much any scale imaginable.

Can you say the words game changer?

Chip architecture will become a blank slate platform in a sense ready to provide functional processing resources for a variegy of load conditions. Configurations which would otherwise be costly to build and energize will be possible as it is needed rather thsn permanent.

Very exciting. I’m not quite as enthused about extensible architecture as finecas that is. It’s specifically the ability for it to change that is such a mind bending prospect.

small group of producers make a product, customers see value in product equal or greater than purchase price, customers buy product

Then new technology comes along. it now costs next to nothing to press a cd. Customers know how much it takes to record the cd. So the total value to the customer is in music. apparently the music isn’t worth $30 a cd.

Content providers cry, Our profits are falling. But so are the costs, and the customer knows this. Unfortunately the content providers priced themselves out of the market.

When the cost in time to do something illegally is greater than the legal price then you will see a return to the legal market. Following this logic, content providers have decided to wage war on the consumer to try and increase the price of doing illegal business. Waging war doesn’t win you friends. And it costs an awful lot. A cost that they are trying to put onto the consumer by making it a crime.

The most amusing thing is that records were originally sold to encourage people to go see live shows, which you can’t digitally replicate.

All energy on the planet is nuclear, stored thermal, gravitation-ally induced, or a by product of solar. Eventually we will get to 60% efficient solar cells that are inexpensive with low cost energy storage. Just the average rooftop will be enough to power the house and the cars.

You mean like Germany? Oh wait, they are seriously invested in solar and its working for them …

Could we be nearing the end of the age of scarcity?

Energy storage is the problem at this point. With technologies like methane synthesis and hydrogen we have the potential to solve any energy issues permanently. They are inefficient for storage and we are just a few years from an energy glut where storage efficiency doesn’t matter.

The reason I have my bet on solar is mass per megawatt. Paper thin, 10% efficient solar cells, will cost less to produce than mile high wind turbines.

Also, I think you’re overly optimistic about solar. It won’t cost less than wind until about 2020, because wind is falling in cost as turbines keep scaling up and go high altitude, too. The dashes on http://j.mp/globalwind are 95% confidence intervals from a simple exponental extrapolation.