patrick.net

Hey Mr. theotherside, How about those who never bought a house and keep saving a lot of money?I rent a 3 BR, 2 BA average home in San Jose which priced at about $700K, for $1800 a month. Am I not better off than you?

theotherside

You presume quite a bit about me.

You are doing your family wrong by refusing to compromise on the location where you want to live and by mistakenly thinking that you are now millionaire and acting as one by not being fully employed (as long as you don’t relocate to a cheaper state, your situation has not changed, the equity is just transferred)

You don't read here often, apparently. I'm fully employed. I have been for a while now. I certainly don't act like a millionaire. I act like all people who grew up without money do -- I'm cheap. I'm not sure why you think I won't compromise on where I want to live. I'd love to hear where you get that impression. We live in Marin because of my wife's career. We moved here for that reason and that reason alone. By the way, her income alone qualifies us to buy twice the home we want, so we're back to that "acting like millionaires" thing. Luckily for me she shares my values and not your [lack of] values.

I happen to think prime Marin is full of assholes, much like the part of the city you continually push. Wasn't it you who was telling me that it's all about location and it's not worth it to buy anywhere but the most prime of the prime? If you want I'll dig up those comments and link them here.

On top of that, you new tax basis is much higher (assuming you initially bought the house long time ago)

Ex ante, post ante dear. Try real hard to accept that neither you nor I have a time machine. Life isn't a bad English movie about a woman on a subway taking different courses in life. Anyway, assuming that we had to move when we did, how exactly is my tax basis higher on a *lower* purchase price? Show me the equation where .012 * X is _less_ than .012 * (X-Y). Oh wait! That only works if Y is negative, meaning prices _rise_, not _fall_. But then that's the core of all your arguments at the end of the day, isn't it?

For how much everybody hates them, I think Jim Cramer and Robert Kiyosaki make some intelligent points. I don’t believe that they were purely lucky (although their TV shows and books are of gratingly poor quality). Both have acumen in investing and real estate, respectively. I could potentially start my own company or massively upgrade my education in the stock market. One of my good friends started a small company and is making nice money with control of his free time.

Unfortunately, it seems likely that Kiyosaki is only worth a few million at best, and the bulk of that is from the sale of his gratingly poor books, seminars and appearances...

Kiyosaki's only intelligent points seem to be made (and only made recently) by reading a few articles by actual economists and commentators, and then regurgitating them, some weeks and months later after he's finally absorbed what they were saying. Even I do that, but I don't write books and articles about it... presumably he was tired of being lambasted for being superficial and lightweight for years...

He's made virtually no money in real estate except by buying his own place in Phoenix and riding the boom like everyone else.

see www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.htm (again, sigh -- I see John has finally sexed up his website after much badgering...)

www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html even

UNIONS RULE, and their activities are arguably orthogonal to concerns around 'market efficiencies' ref Keynes. i.e. paid workers are the consuming market... and what are 'market efficiencies' and who do they really benefit on analysis anyhow?

I note that when the overseas blow-in Sol Trujillo recently escalated his pay while his telcom is going nowhere caused a huge slump in its share price, $2 bn in fact, more than offsetting his paltry multimillion payrise...

Telstra boss sets sights on $50m | Herald Sun

"turncoats and chameleons"

Can someone PLEASE... make POS go away!

At this late stage of the game to show up and declare that the reason we're bitter is b/c the funny money dried up is simply ridiculous. When I first came on board here the entire debate centered on "when is the Fed FINALLY going to raise rates!? Anything, just shut this thing down!

Bitter? You've got to be kidding.

@theotherside

You will no longer be welcome on my threads (I cannot speak for other authors though I encourage them to consider my position). This will remain true until such time as you do any one of the following:

* Follow through on past commitments. For example, if you say a model is flawed, and you'll prove it then prove it. Simply crying the model is too complex for you is not sufficient (or sufficiently entertaining).

* Apologize for having purposefully trolled. We don't need to pull up all those "looky here! sold with 6 offers for $280K over asking!!!" postings, do we?

* Apologize for continually insulting people here and admit that you were wrong about much of what you kept insisting for so long. Really, it won't hurt that much. Everyone else here has admitted to being wrong about stuff, myself included. It's liberating, really.

* Tell us who you are so we can verify the (sometimes outrageous) claims you've made. You have zero credibility right now because we can't trust anything you say. Although we could have gone a long way towards finding out who you really were any time, we respect your privacy so long as you respect this forum. At this point you're just abusing our "we don't censor trolls anymore" policy. I'm willing to make an exception in your case if you don't try to cooperate.

new thread

TOS, while I am 180 degrees in opposition to your points of view, I feel that you are treated quite harshly here. I happen to respect people that stick to their beliefs in the face of adversity.

I happen to think in a normal, traditionally valued market your points on the long term benefits of owning a home are correct, but have always disagreed with you on the current timing. In many markets the last year has proved that holding off when the fundamentals don't justify the purchase decision is far more beneficial in the long term. Someone who would have listened you you just 6 months ago would be facing a financial disaster now. Even if someone purchased now the benefit of waiting that 6 months would be significant, and the trend is clearly going to continue for a couple of more years even by the most optimistic predictions.

Lost Cause Says:
August 11th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
"Does anybody really think this injection of liquidity will make people buy the now worthless finacial products formerly so popular? Hahahahaha…"

Actually my take on it is now the government has done just that. Basically they have pumped money into banks to keep cash reserves up because the banks' lending ability is locked into paper which is becoming worthless. This is a patch, but I think I will add to my prediction that we will see the fed forgive these additional lines which will be converted from fed loans to basically grants.

Randy, maybe a thread discussing whether this liquidity infusion is actually a masked bailout might be fun. There are all kinds of tangents that could lead off to.

@Malcolm

theotherside has been very disingenuous. If you search back through the threads you'll find that she incited every fight with insults and other trolldom.

She also pissed off a bunch of people and drove away a few regulars when she began abusing our no-filtering of trolls policy by spamming us with the same listing for month after month.

She definitely backed herself into a corner with her 'houses are an absolutely good investment, and are always a safe bet point of view' but never struck me as particularly nasty or malicious. I think she is just really misguided, and I do agree with you that there is a hidden motive of either self preservation, or industry cheerleading at work there.

My experience is that when people act like that it is from a bruised ego, and I tend to try to guide them to my side rather than rub it in especially when you have the upper hand of clearly being superior to her in your sound points of view.