patrick.net

state says

"eggmobiles" whatever the fuck that means

Tenoz likes cars that are big and blocky, and resists the physics of aerodynamic efficiency in cars as liberal propaganda:
http://patrick.net/?p=795306

I think that if he were forced to drive an aerodynamic vehicle he would be the guy with a plywood cutout strapped to the front bumper catching as much air as possible. Just to stick it to the "liberals".

xxxxx says

First Golden Rule of invesitng in RE is never ever buy a Condo or Townhouse. The HOA will kill you and you compete against apts. Buy a house, that is where the demand is now.

Could you elaborate? I would think that buying a house to rent out would be more risky.

1. It's a far larger investment.
2. Carrying costs would be greater.
3. You have to maintain both the interior and exterior. With a condo, you only have to maintain the interior.
4. In many places, like pretty much all of south Florida, you still have to deal with an HOA and sometimes they restrict your right to rent out. One house I rented had an HOA rule that an owner can only rent out for two years.

Of course, apartment HOAs can also restrict rental periods and can require HOA approval of tennants.

Still, I'd think that buying and renting a house would carry larger risks than a condo. The main concern I'd have over investing in condos are all the condo vultures that you are competing with. I suspect they have far more time and expertise to determine what condos are prices under market and which ones are over market.

state says

The screaming kids argument is a little better, but i dunno, there weren't any kids at the mcd's i went to

They are all either at home impatiently waiting for a home cooked meal, or in the drive through watching a DVD.

state says

I think part of it is you get addicted to fatty/sugary foods.

Yep, totally.

state says

My office always gets pizza at the same place and I had always liked it before. I'm guessing I had come down off my fat/sugar addiction and fatty stuff no longer tasted good.

You also got used to eating fresh unprocessed food. Dominoes (not saying that is where you ate at, but it is the "low bar") is a far cry from some pizza places where you can get fresh ingredients that don't rely too much on grease and sugar.

leoj707 says

Yes, have you ever tried to cook, even just for 5 minutes, with screaming kids?

Of course not! I know better than to have kids or let one in my house!

shrekgrinch says

But don't worry! The Denial Express always has train waiting for you at the station:
Top Obama adviser says unemployment won't be key in 2012
By Ian Swanson - 07/07/11 08:25 PM ET
President Obama’s senior political adviser David Plouffe said Wednesday that people won’t vote in 2012 based on the unemployment rate.

I saw that and was thinking what a moron Obama and his advisors must be. Either that or delusional. In either event I end up with a mental image of Obama in the Furherbunker

leoj707 says

Umm... you can do or get (mom and pop if you wish) natural gas conversions in the US. There are even filling stations around that will fill you up with natural gas.

I'm in Florida not in California. The only cars in Florida with Gas powered cars are large corporations with fleets. They have their own filling station location that is just for their companies cars.
I'm quite sure that if I rolled up on Peoples Gas and asked them to fill me with BBQ juice, they'd conch me on the head and call it a day.

i refuse to believe there are people who are so busy they do not have time to buy some turkey, cheese, lettuce, tomato and bread and make some sandwiches. or buy some frozen chicken breast and throw it on a foreman grill, which takes about 5 minutes.

A bit off topic, but worth addressing...

Although I usually avoid fast foods, the few times I eat them are during lunch, not dinner. I suspect this is true for most people. And since most of us have day jobs, a Foreman grill isn't an option.

I like to get fruit during lunch at a local supermarket, but fruit is a hit-and-miss. They either have 5,000 ripe bananas or 0. Never anything in between. Strawberries aren't an option since you have to clean them.

So, I suspect that people eat at fast-food restaurants during lunch simply because they are strapped for time. I'm not sure that eating a cold-cut sandwich for lunch every day is much better.

As for taste, although you might find the fast food disgusting tasting, most people don't. Fast food is bad precisely because most people find it tastes good. Fast food exploits the evolutionary food preferences of humans. Our stone-age ancestors survived because they valued sweet and fatty foods. Sweet fruits are ripe and have more vitamins, and fatty foods are high in calories, which were hard to get back in the stone age. The fast food industry is highly competitive and any restaurant that didn't invest in finding out exactly what foods their customers like, wouldn't stay in business.

Tenouncetrout says

Greetings from Pachacama.

Thanks for the info there, 10 oz.

Troy says

Actually, I don\'t think I do. The war was arguably a mistake -- or at least mistakes were made -- but it was never unwinnable. Westmoreland just fought it wrong.

If you believe that then you do need to read more. You sound just like the clueless warmongers of the time. If we just sent in more men, bombed more, sent more money, etc., etc. we would have won. Read some of the North Vietnam viewpoint sometime. Most people in the North truly believed they were fighting a war of liberation. They were committed to the cause. In the south the only people who believed in the war were the corrupt leaders trying to hold onto power and wealth. The rest of the south was divided between people believed in communism and people who didn't care one way or another. The war was unwinnable in any kind of practical terms short of the US committing to total war and overrunning the north.

Troy says

We\'d won the war against the VC by 1972,

We won the war against the VC in 1968. The tet offensive destroyed the VC. The NV leaders cynically sacrificed the VC at tet to make political gains in US public opinion. They of course hoped to win with tet but would settle for a major embaressment of the US. After that the war was between us army and nv army.

Troy says

The military geography of Vietnam made it very difficult to secure the Saigon regime\'s control over the hinterlands,

The fact that the army of sv was corrupt, incompetent, and frequently refused to fight made it impossible to control most of the country.

Troy says

The territory PAVN controlled wasn\'t significant in population terms, but it was strategically useful in that they had \"inside lines\" of communication and the freedom to concentrate their forces anywhere they desired

After 13 years of US forces at war that situation didn't change one bit. At what point would that be winnable? The only way to win would have been to commit 30+ US divisions, stop all shipping into Cambodia (nv was NOT supplying the 20+ divisions they had in Cambodia from the Ho Chi Min trail, our Cambodian "allies" were looking the other way while cargo ships delivered hundreds of tons of supplies), stop all shipping into haiphong, attack the nv forces in Cambodia, attack the nv forces in laos, and launch a full scale invasion of north vietnam. Since the American people had been told (lied to) for years we were just assisting SV with VC guerrilla forces as opposed to what we were actually doing, fighting a full scale war with against another countries standing army, this would have been a pretty hard course of action to sell.

zzyzzx says

I saw that and was thinking what a moron Obama and his advisors must be. Either that or delusional. In either event I end up with a mental image of Obama in the Furherbunker

Oh Well there's always Cake.
If you can afford Sugar and Wheat Flour.

Bang up job, the other person that is not Obama responsible for the National quality of life and well being, and overall world peace and stability.

No not you stupid you're just the President, I'm supposed to be pissed off anyone other than the One single Person who's responsibility it is to ensure there are an abundant job and the Citizens can afford adequate nutrition. And is wise enough to know that when that is broken it effects the rest of the world and creates Angry protesting Mobs, that wants to bring down their regime so they get at the Air Planes, so they can fly them up Lady Liberties Ass. That person shouldn't be standing stoic with his other clueless Liberal butt cheeks, observing the Cute display of a rabble clawing for food and a voice and calling it, the Arab Spring.

It's the Arab Spring cleaning is what it is. Them belly full but dem hungry and a hungry Mob is an Angry Mob.

bob2356 says

The war was unwinnable in any kind of practical terms short of the US committing to total war and overrunning the north.

Nah, by 1972 we'd cleaned out the South pretty well. The problem was we couldn't isolate the south from the north.

The Saigon regime was still very immature politically and that was the main problem in the 1970s. But the mistakes we had made in the 1960s produced the situation with Thieu in the 1970s.

ROK and Taiwan were also basket cases for the first few decades. ROK up to the mid-1980s even.

The fact that the army of sv was corrupt, incompetent, and frequently refused to fight made it impossible to control most of the country.

No, ARVN controlled most of the country by 1972. The problem was they couldn't project their power to take on the border strongholds at the DMZ and the hinterland down to the Saigon area. ARVN didn't have the time to mature politically and socially, and we moved in too quick in the 1960s, pushing them aside and taking over their job for them. This was one of our mistakes.

After 13 years of US forces at war that situation didn't change one bit.

Actually between 1962 and 1975 things had changed immensely. It was relatively safe for GVN to serve 90%+ of the population (but part of the problem was that much of the population had been resettled into cities and had otherwise become refugees).

(nv was NOT supplying the 20+ divisions they had in Cambodia from the Ho Chi Min trail, our Cambodian "allies" were looking the other way while cargo ships delivered hundreds of tons of supplies)

This was largely stopped after Lon Nol took over. What was needed in 1971-73 was to physically and permanently occupy Laos and fight PAVN there, much like the US Army physically occupied the truce line after the Korean war.

Not that an attractive a military proposition (given the geography), but without that as the next move, leaving SE Asia was abandoning Saigon to its fate (especially after we pulled all our advisors out in 1973).

I'm not saying it was worth it in 1971-74, or I would have sent draftees to continue dying for S Vietnamese, but if the nation still had the commitment to Saigon in the 1970s that we had in the 1960s, it would have been doable.

The main problem is that Westmoreland burned up the national morale way too quick going toe-to-toe in combat, 1965-68. The gung-ho stuff worked, but it was too costly. We were trying to win the war in two years not twenty.

Why worry? Obama's campaign manager just told everyone that his re-election will no longer hinge on job creation.

The President doesn't get it. Not that he can. He's got no experience for the office. Now he's so terrible we may end up with President Bachmann.

I like Bachmann, but no chance in hell can she be an effective President.

as long as this government keeps on bailing out bad businesses (at expense to good business) we'll be sitting ducks in this economy.

all that good capital is tied up in crap still, and will as long as the congress keeps on extending the life of this debt bubble.

I think the problems this country faces are greater than any president can solve alone.

FDR had immense majorities in 1936. The Republicans in the Senate lost 25% of their seats and were reduced to just a 1/6th presence in the chamber.

They lost 15% of their seats in the House and were down to a 20% minority.

I almost think things were better then than now, macro-wise, since we know how things turned around in the 1940s-1970s (global oil boom, electronics, data processing, jet air travel, telecommunication, satellites).

Maybe we won't see any deus-ex-machina technology improvements this century to save our bacon.

We're much richer now than then, but our economy is a lot more fragile I think -- a lot more useless people in the current economy.

shrekgrinch says

And it gets even BETTER!

Only an ignorant hyper right wing troll such as Shirkworm, would be so gleeful about the economy being bad, because it fits his one dimensional db ideological view. Democrats bad - Republicans good,...

I'm nearly convinced that it may indeed be true that we need a Republican President simply because we have huge problems to solve, and the democrats are adult enough to work with a republican president to solve them (note: I said nearly)

Sherk, speaking of denial, how would you rate the economic situation of late 2008 right before Obama started, and the economy since? Is this sort of just another standard recession that Obama botched up? Or is this one of those once a century deep lasting recessions triggered by a massive financial crisis? What do you think would have worked better, as economic policy to put us in a better situation now ?

One thing you might want to factor in, which I am quite sure the GOP takes in to account. Will the next president be able to put us in a better position? If not then they might want to wait until 2016. Then again, if current GOP policies destroy our economy terribly enough by 2012/2013 then I guess a republican President could maybe preside over an improvement before 2016.

It's all too Machiavellian for my taste, but fits quite well with the patterns we have observed in the GOP the last 40 years.

Or is this one of those once a century deep lasting recessions triggered by a massive financial crisis?

The crisis did not appear like an earthquake, it was engineered -- the damage was done 2002-2007:

YOY rise in consumer debt: (in billions)

2001-01-01 649.89
2002-01-01 751.12
2003-01-01 965.04
2004-01-01 1030.45
2005-01-01 1155.93
2006-01-01 1248.64
2007-01-01 950.67
2008-01-01 396.52
2009-01-01 -187.59
2010-01-01 -262.71

The Bush Boom featured Americans going into debt at over $1T/yr.

Now we are going out of debt at $250B+ per year, this is over a $100B/MONTH change.

The economy would be a lot nicer now if everyone had an extra $100B/month of free money to spend, like we did during the bubble years. (that works out to around $1000/mo/household)

Corporate borrowing is similar:

2001-01-01 1004.77
2002-01-01 1303.45
2003-01-01 1636.08
2004-01-01 1873.52
2005-01-01 2205.09
2006-01-01 2461.31
2007-01-01 2440.28
2008-01-01 2085.68
2009-01-01 1537.85
2010-01-01 1144.79

But the boom came a year later, 2005-2008. That was a $9T credit bubble, and current corporate debt draws are over $1T/yr less than the peak.

This is simply a deflationary economy. The cackling idiots here don't want Obama to tax, or spend, they apparently want the entire economy to crater like it did in the 1930s.

Well, they seem to be getting their wish now.

Or, now that my links to FRED are working again, here's the mountain of debt we made, 1970 - 2008:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=12I

Troy says

The crisis did not appear like an earthquake, it was engineered

I agree that it was engineered, although I don't actually attribute total malicious intentions to it. More like stupidity and hubris. They were mistakenly trying to navigate conditions after the millennium that were very ripe for a recession. We've discussed this before. The premillennial stock market enthusiasm (irrational exuberance), followed by the reality of of 2000 and 2001 (no jetsons). IT was a natural time for a pretty severe but normal recession. Instead the govt and the fed stimulated the hell out of things and we went to war. It looked like possibly a last ditch effort to stimulate inflation (at least a side motive) in the oil markets in 2005 was made by idiots who didn't know this isn't the seventies.

I think they probably hoped to pay that inflation would pay for it. Maybe it will eventually, but as others say, it costs us in terms of standard of living.

It would be a far more cynical view that what is happening now was understood and even planned.

Not everyone buying with cash are "investors". I just bought a house in San Diego in a really high end area. Just shy of $1 million and I paid cash. I wasn't buying as an "investment". I bought to live in for the long haul. I was able to negotiate 15% lower than median prices in the area with the cash offer. Part of my pitch was prices are DEFINITELY going to fall lower in 2011 and I could close quickly. From the offer to closing it was 3 weeks.

I'm not worried about prices falling lower (which I'm sure they will). For me it makes sense. I leased it back to the previous owners a few months for $6,000 a month while they look for something else. I am renting a house for several more months so it worked out perfectly for me and we'll really enjoy living in it

What they say about sometimes the first offer being the best offer holds true. Back in 2007 they had an offer for $1.38 million and they turned it down trying to get $1.5 million which was the asking price at the time. Needless to say they felt a bit sick selling for under $1 million.

unbelievable promises the ObambiCrats have made and keep on making

What promises? They did what they could in 2009-2010. It wasn't enough. The economy is your baby now that the Republicans are back in control.

Yeah, I'll admit it, I have this particular one of your identities off ignore again. You are sometimes amusing (although I'm no psychologist).

shrekgrinch says

this idiocy is not about me, despite all the attempts here to make it so

Oh, I see it's all of us who think that everything is about you.

shrekgrinch says

These people are effin' CLUELESS.

And yes people, I am quite happy that they are so damn stupid. So what?

You can't back pedal on this. It's not their stupidity that you enjoy. IT's just how bad the economy is, and that they haven't been more successful in bringing about growth and employment, and undoing the unwinding of debt, the overcapacity, and the deflationary forces. Whether a republican could have done better is irrelevant to you. Problem solving and analysis is irrelevant to you. It's just "yeah baby, the democrats aren't succeeding. wooowooo !!"

marcus says

It would be a far more cynical view that what is happening now was understood and even planned.

I tend to the opinion that 2002-2007 was a simple pump & dump; not by the politicians but by everyone else. If you can bank $50M+ overseas, what do you really care what happens afterwards.

Back in 2006, I, too, thought wage inflation would arrive to save the day, for housing at least. But NAFTA and MFN with the PRC changed the rules in the 1990s. It wasn't until late 2006 that I got an inkling as to how much fraud had been going on, thanks to the housing bubble blogs breaking the Casey Serin story.

^ ain't it the truth. Thing is, this kind of argumentation from the right is not hard to find on the internet. Dunno why that is, really. One would like to think folks like Shrek are getting paid to post their BS, cuz the alternative is rather . . . worse.

Troy says

One would like to think folks like Shrek are getting paid to post their BS

I have often suspected this. Or hoped rather, because yeah the alternative is worse.

marcus says

IT's just how bad the economy is, and that they haven't been more successful in bringing about growth and employment, and undoing the unwinding of debt, the overcapacity, and the deflationary forces. Whether a republican could have done better is irrelevant to you. Problem solving and analysis is irrelevant to you. It's just "yeah baby, the democrats aren't succeeding. wooowooo !!"

Yeah, what makes me shake my head more that the willful ignorance of facts, and lack of desire for any genuine truth; is that they (shrekgrinch, et al.) want to see America fail.

Right, wrong or what are the causes are is irrelevant, as long as a Democrat is in the White House they gleefully giggle and clap as the economy of the US flounders and crumbles.

leoj707 says

is that they (shrekgrinch, et al.) want to see America fail.

Well, if I were a rich retired bastard I'd probably be cheering on the Republicans too. "Got mine f- you" and all that. Probably 20% of the population breaks this way.

Troy says

leoj707 says

is that they (shrekgrinch, et al.) want to see America fail.

Well, if I were a rich retired bastard I'd probably be cheering on the Republicans too. "Got mine f- you" and all that. Probably 20% of the population breaks this way.

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

The key word there being bastard.

bubblesburst says

Not everyone buying with cash are "investors". I just bought a house in San Diego in a really high end area. Just shy of $1 million and I paid cash.

Whatever. WTF are you doing on here? WTF are you even on the internet for? 1 million in cash to drop on a house and you ever lay eyes on a f'ing computer let alone post on a internet forum?

Sybrib says

Ahem, investor, it's Realtor®, okay?

Oh, thank you for protecting all of us from legal suits! So how do you get the little circled thingie registration mark and are these people worth the extra trouble of learning additional Alt- key combos? Heh.

Tude says

bubblesburst says

Not everyone buying with cash are "investors". I just bought a house in San Diego in a really high end area. Just shy of $1 million and I paid cash.

Whatever. WTF are you doing on here? WTF are you even on the internet for? 1 million in cash to drop on a house and you ever lay eyes on a f'ing computer let alone post on a internet forum?

Gee, thanks for the warm welcome. Contrary to your belief that millionaires or multimillionaires don't hang out on Patrick's site. You're dead wrong. The internet is for everyone. Your post comes across as very ignorant.

Guys like me sold before the crash...have been waiting a few years and buying excellent properties 30% to 35% less than a few years ago with cash. I'd call that intelligent.

Troy says

Nah, by 1972 we'd cleaned out the South pretty well.

Troy says

The territory PAVN controlled wasn't significant in population terms, but it was strategically useful in that they had "inside lines" of communication and the freedom to concentrate their forces anywhere they desired,

Which is it? ARVN's control or PAVN control of the country. Are you reading what you are writing? You said ARVN's controlled the country except area's down to Saigon. Saigon is almost on the coast. ARVN's also didn't control the central highlands or the A Shau valley. Pretty big deficit in control.

You obviously don't read the same history books as I do. The soldiers all knew it wasn't doable, the general public know it wasn't doable, even McNamara later admitted it wasn't doable. Without invading North Vietnam it just wasn't doable period.

The problem was not Westmoreland, the problem was Johnson and McNamara lied about the war. Both to congress and the public. As the truth came out most of the American population and congress heavily resented it and refused to believe anything further that Johnson and later Nixon said about the war. If Johnson had been honest and admitted starting with the Ia Drang valley in 1965 we were fighting the NV army, not local VC insurgents then it is possible the outcome might have been different. I don't think so, but it's possible. If you want some shocking insight into this whole process read McMasters book called "Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam.". It was published in 1997 based on a lot of documents recently declassified at the time.

Why don't I think so? Because the entire domino theory of the 1950's and 60's was simply wrong. The rise of communism at the time represented the fall of colonialism around the world. Compared to the exploitation of the colonialists communism seemed like a pretty good deal. History has proved otherwise, but at the time communism was only 30 years old in Russia, 10 years old in China and looked like a successful system. Yes I know that China and Russia meddled mercilessly around the world, but the grass roots appeal of communism to people who had been in poverty and exploited for generations is easy to see. If the colonial powers had done a better job of transitioning their former colonies to self governing countries instead of taking the money and running or fighting the inevitable like the French in Vietnam it would have been different in many places.

A lot of banks have taken hold of the commercial real estate through foreclosures. They should be forced to liquidate those properties. The government is keeping them solvent while simultaneously allowing them to hold on to these properties and let them sit empty. A lot of people would consider opening up shop if they would simply let the inventory open up and stop trying to keep asset prices proped up. In doing so, they make it too expensive to buy, and too expensive to rent.

bob2356 says

Which is it? ARVN's control or PAVN control of the country.

Both! ARVN controlled the populated areas and PAVN had free range over the unpopulated hinterland where all the major border battles happened 1965-1972 (Khe Sanh, A Shau, Dak To, Ia Drang, War Zone C & D, An Loc, Iron Triangle).

The central failure of our effort was the failure to block PAVN from infiltrating south and supply their forces in SVN. This was Col Summers' thesis in:

http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Critical-Analysis-Vietnam-War/dp/0891415637

and also Lewis Sorley's:

http://www.amazon.com/Better-War-Unexamined-Victories-Americas/dp/0156013096

I think Sorley is overly revisionist but the facts on the ground in 1973 were not so bad for GVN, other than the loss of US military support and the fact that PAVN had free rein to truck as much stuff south as they wanted -- they even built a bypass road here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Kon+Tum,+Vietnam&hl=en&ll=14.382807,107.983246&spn=0.915202,1.230469&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=23.875,57.630033&geocode=FeV42wAd5bFvBg&z=10

("Highway 675" to the west of Kontum) to run supply further south.

This was strategically fatal for ARVN. They had to be strong in the North (Hue), Center (Kontum, Pleiku, Banmethuot), and Saigon area simultaneously, while PAVN had the strategic initiative and ability to concentrate on any area of their choosing. In 1974 they whittled away at the border areas, e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Phuoc_Long

~100 road miles N of Saigon. Then in 1975 they moved on Banmethuot, another city in the middle of nowhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ban_Me_Thuot

and ARVN could not deploy enough strength to save that city, or Pleiku for that matter, and they didn't have the USAF or any US ground forces to help them out any more.

All these main-force battles would not have happened if the US had a blocking force across Laos after the cease-fire.

But Southern Laos is some of the worse military ground on the planet, and holding this line against PAVN infiltration would have been difficult and costly. The Army and USMC didn't want anything to do with this when it was first proposed in the 1960s, which is why it was left to the USAF to try to interdict PAVN movement through Laos.

The soldiers all knew it wasn't doable, the general public know it wasn't doable, even McNamara later admitted it wasn't doable. Without invading North Vietnam it just wasn't doable period.

Most soldiers would say "we were winning when I left" and they'd be right. The general public couldn't find VN on a map so I don't hold any value in their opinion. McNamara has a more nuanced view than that:

"the problem was we were in the wrong place with the wrong tactics"

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/07/robert_mcnamara_vietnam_war_wr.html

Why don't I think so? Because the entire domino theory of the 1950's and 60's was simply wrong.

I don't give a shit about the domino theory, either defending the people of S Vietnam from being taken into the Hanoi regime's rule was worth it or not.

In 1974 if you'd have given me a choice between living under Thieu or whoever was running the communist regime, I'd certainly choose life in the South.

Things had in fact gotten a lot better there, at least until their economy collapsed after the US pullout. Far from perfect, but a lot better than life dealing with all the communist BS.

bubblesburst says

Gee, thanks for the warm welcome. Contrary to your belief that millionaires or multimillionaires don't hang out on Patrick's site. You're dead wrong. The internet is for everyone. Your post comes across as very ignorant.

Guys like me sold before the crash...have been waiting a few years and buying excellent properties 30% to 35% less than a few years ago with cash. I'd call that intelligent.

There's nothing ignorant about my post, and I never questioned your intelligence. I just think you're sad. If I had so many millions that I could drop a million cash on a property the last thing on earth I would be doing is pretty much bragging about it on the internet. I'd actually not be on the internet at all, I'd be out living. I wouldn't have time to even bother buying a house any one place, or have time to look at a computer. I'd be so busy traveling, volunteering, and finding ways to spend my money that actually made the world a better place I couldn't sit still. The only reason I am on the computer is because I am on it nearly every day for work..

Your post just reminded me of why the world is such a shitty place in so many ways.

Tude says

I'd be out living

Me too. Why would I lock my million $ cash in a declining value overpriced wooden box?(Sorry no offense to bubbleburst,just my opinion) :)

Tude says

If I had so many millions that I could drop a million cash on a property the last thing on earth I would be doing is pretty much bragging about it on the internet. I'd actually not be on the internet at all

That is you.

Passing judgement on others, eh?

Tude says

There's nothing ignorant about my post, and I never questioned your intelligence. I just think you're sad. If I had so many millions that I could drop a million cash on a property the last thing on earth I would be doing is pretty much bragging about it on the internet. I'd actually not be on the internet at all, I'd be out living. I wouldn't have time to even bother buying a house any one place, or have time to look at a computer. I'd be so busy traveling, volunteering, and finding ways to spend my money that actually made the world a better place I couldn't sit still. The only reason I am on the computer is because I am on it nearly every day for work..

Your post just reminded me of why the world is such a shitty place in so many ways.

No one is bragging about anything. This board is about posting facts which is what I did. Actually I don't think in this day and age $1 million is NOT much to brag about.

Your post is still ignorant to suggest that millionaires don't spend time on the internet. Yes, I do travel quite often around the world and yes I do own many properties around the world (all paid for with no mortgages), volunteer with several great charities and stay active. But I still enjoy spending time on the internet, including Patrick's great site. It's funny that you'd think that just because someone had money they wouldn't use the internet. That's really funny!

You sound like a really envious person that is bitter at the world and especially at those that worked hard, built up savings and built up net worth. Good luck to you.

and it's test comment
http://pogus.com/

bubblesburst says

in this day and age $1 million is much to brag about

No kidding.

Wasn't that long ago someone could retire on a million with regular US Treasury interest payments.

Nowadays, it'll get you a couple or so of basis points, not even enough to make a truck payment with.

Sybrib says

bubblesburst says

in this day and age $1 million is much to brag about

No kidding.

Wasn't that long ago someone could retire on a million with regular US Treasury interest payments.

Nowadays, it'll get you a couple or so of basis points, not even enough to make a truck payment with.

Now just wait until $ gets severely devalued against major world currencies. Yep,I am a millionaire but it does not mean anything in or outside USA. Happy ending. ;)