Comments on: Real Estate 101

By: fox20012

fox20012 — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:15 +0000

I think that Peters …
I think that Peters logic is pure sense, house flippers try to paint a reality construct to justify their speculation as investing at their childrens and grand children’s expense!

Go to shelter Flippers, pip and dot with your 17 and 20 house real estate portfolios deserve what they get

By: Lingerfoot

Lingerfoot — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:15 +0000

Look up, Bill Hicks …
Look up, Bill Hicks on JFK here on youtube!

By: Theevagabond

Theevagabond — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:14 +0000

God bless you! I’m …
God bless you! I’m recently married and young and as one of the newer generation with some common sense in me… I could never wrap my head around a house being an investment when everyone explained it to me. Everytime I consider it the word “lunacy” comes to my mind. And as for the American dream… you took the words right out of my mouth. Home ownership is a lie, the American Dream was about potential as an individual!

By: studentoflife01

studentoflife01 — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:14 +0000

In two years you …
In two years you won’t reconize america – lindsey williams.

By: Piscivorus

Piscivorus — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:13 +0000

Everything is a …
Everything is a mental construct, that doesn’t invalidate anything. Yes, capitalism and socialism are ideals (i.e. “conceptions of things in their perfection”) and perfection is unobtainable but, capitalism is a superior ideal because, in the absence of coercion by the state, people will ultimately seek to profit from their labor and capital. That’s not the opposite or absence of capitalism, it IS capitalism.

watch?v=yAa6dYBwy7M

By: Jcolinsol

Jcolinsol — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:13 +0000

No, both capitalism …
No, both capitalism and socialism are simply intellectual constructs used to define non-existent ideals. The reality is, and will always be, much more complex than our models of how reality should work.

In the absence of a state extortion racket, human beings will arrange their labor and resources independent of these meaningless ideologies, according to necessity balanced against individual value judgments. Both Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, and other social orders will simply co-exist.

By: molynieux

molynieux — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:13 +0000

Peter: What about …
Peter: What about when the house is paid off? Then you’re no longer paying rent – extra money in your pocket every month. Can’t that be considered an investment? An annuity is a large sum up front in exchange for smaller periodic payments going forward. Isn’t home ownership basically the same thing – a large sum up front in exchange for NOT making small periodic payments going forward? (assuming you stay put once the home is paid off; also depends on the actual principal, interest, etc). Thx

By: Jcolinsol

Jcolinsol — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:12 +0000

If the problem is …
If the problem is that PEOPLE are selfish and dishonest, how does it solve the problem to institute a system where PEOPLE have power over other people? The whole notion of the state is a fallacy. The solution to dishonesty is voluntarism, being able to re-allocate your own resources away from the dishonest, and towards the virtuous, at will.

You don’t understand the nature of property rights, they don’t exist, they are defined subjectively, so of course you can share ownership if you agree to.

By: Piscivorus

Piscivorus — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:12 +0000

The socialist ideal …
The socialist ideal assumes that everyone will be completely honest and unselfish. But people are inherently dishonest and selfish. You need laws and police to keep people in line. That requires government. All societies require government. The absence of government is anarchy. Free market societies at least recognize that it’s good to own things. But there is no such thing as sharing ownership. You either own something or not. You can’t share something unless you own it.

By: Jcolinsol

Jcolinsol — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:24:12 +0000

No, nothing about …
No, nothing about Socialism inherently demands the existence of the state, it’s just a non-hierarchical form of organization based on all participants sharing ownership of their own labor. Do you think it’s wrong for people to agree to share ownership? Do you think that businesses should be run as plutocracies? It’s asinine.

In the absence of the state there will be varying shades of Capitalism and Socialism, because society itself is populated by people who think that way..