Canadians play big role in real estate rush

[sdrealtor]

Isnt someone who rents more free to move than someone who owns? In today’s society mobility is a huge asset to workers. Being a renter could easily be viewed as a net positive to society for most workers. of course we would have to exclude the entitled public sector workers who expect stable life time employment which others dont enjoy.

Once again where you stand depends upon where you sit.

[scaredyclassic]

freedom is a kind of odd word to use in these circumstances.

[scaredyclassic]

freedom is a kind of odd word to use in these circumstances.

[scaredyclassic]

freedom is a kind of odd word to use in these circumstances.

[scaredyclassic]

freedom is a kind of odd word to use in these circumstances.

[scaredyclassic]

freedom is a kind of odd word to use in these circumstances.

[svelte]

[quote=walterwhite]I guess I’m a socialist but I think everyone should have access to food and water (and air) regardless of what they’ve accomplished.[/quote]

Lol. I always find it amusing that those who think we are now a socialist country due to the actions of the present administration never seem to use the word socialist in connection with the UK, who long ago implemented some of our recent actions.

Back to foreign ownership, Oklahoma restricts foreign ownership of land and as we all know that state is at the top of the heap economically as a result. 😛

[svelte]

[quote=walterwhite]I guess I’m a socialist but I think everyone should have access to food and water (and air) regardless of what they’ve accomplished.[/quote]

Lol. I always find it amusing that those who think we are now a socialist country due to the actions of the present administration never seem to use the word socialist in connection with the UK, who long ago implemented some of our recent actions.

Back to foreign ownership, Oklahoma restricts foreign ownership of land and as we all know that state is at the top of the heap economically as a result. 😛

[svelte]

[quote=walterwhite]I guess I’m a socialist but I think everyone should have access to food and water (and air) regardless of what they’ve accomplished.[/quote]

Lol. I always find it amusing that those who think we are now a socialist country due to the actions of the present administration never seem to use the word socialist in connection with the UK, who long ago implemented some of our recent actions.

Back to foreign ownership, Oklahoma restricts foreign ownership of land and as we all know that state is at the top of the heap economically as a result. 😛

[svelte]

[quote=walterwhite]I guess I’m a socialist but I think everyone should have access to food and water (and air) regardless of what they’ve accomplished.[/quote]

Lol. I always find it amusing that those who think we are now a socialist country due to the actions of the present administration never seem to use the word socialist in connection with the UK, who long ago implemented some of our recent actions.

Back to foreign ownership, Oklahoma restricts foreign ownership of land and as we all know that state is at the top of the heap economically as a result. 😛

[svelte]

[quote=walterwhite]I guess I’m a socialist but I think everyone should have access to food and water (and air) regardless of what they’ve accomplished.[/quote]

Lol. I always find it amusing that those who think we are now a socialist country due to the actions of the present administration never seem to use the word socialist in connection with the UK, who long ago implemented some of our recent actions.

Back to foreign ownership, Oklahoma restricts foreign ownership of land and as we all know that state is at the top of the heap economically as a result. 😛

[SD Realtor]

AN it is not worth arguing over. CAR try not to confuse home ownership with shelter okay. Really is that the best you can do?

Let’s prohibit people from buying homes? Really.

Okay then play fair, make it even, you should be prohibited from buying a home until EVERYONE can afford a home.

Isn’t that a gaurantee that ALL OF SOCIETY will get shelter which in your own argument means home ownership.

You see the argument is about what is best for society but what I read is actually what is best for me. I am frustrated so we need to do what is best for society. Thus lets lock out those evil foreigners, lock out those evil investors.

If you want the argument to be REALLY for society then it doesn’t really work does it? Because for society means everyone gets a home. EVERYONE GETS A HOME, not just you. That also means that someone gets a beach home and someone gets a crapper in El Cajon but who decides who gets what?

You see the argument becomes so overwhelmingly absurd that inevitably the idea that desireability is something that has value and can be attained through hard work rather then having it given to you just because of a utopian dream. Unfortunately many gain wealth and can procure things without working hard. It is how the world operates. However people have the freedom to live wherever they want and guess what.. the are plenty of other cities with fantastic housing prices, better employment, lower taxes, and many many many citizens love living there.

Nobody is forcing you to live in one of the highest priced housing markets in the country. Cries to implement or restrict buyers because of their means or citizenship is to me, more based on selfishness rather then anything else. Your argument may be based on housing only, but can be abstracted to other assets as well.

[SD Realtor]

AN it is not worth arguing over. CAR try not to confuse home ownership with shelter okay. Really is that the best you can do?

Let’s prohibit people from buying homes? Really.

Okay then play fair, make it even, you should be prohibited from buying a home until EVERYONE can afford a home.

Isn’t that a gaurantee that ALL OF SOCIETY will get shelter which in your own argument means home ownership.

You see the argument is about what is best for society but what I read is actually what is best for me. I am frustrated so we need to do what is best for society. Thus lets lock out those evil foreigners, lock out those evil investors.

If you want the argument to be REALLY for society then it doesn’t really work does it? Because for society means everyone gets a home. EVERYONE GETS A HOME, not just you. That also means that someone gets a beach home and someone gets a crapper in El Cajon but who decides who gets what?

You see the argument becomes so overwhelmingly absurd that inevitably the idea that desireability is something that has value and can be attained through hard work rather then having it given to you just because of a utopian dream. Unfortunately many gain wealth and can procure things without working hard. It is how the world operates. However people have the freedom to live wherever they want and guess what.. the are plenty of other cities with fantastic housing prices, better employment, lower taxes, and many many many citizens love living there.

Nobody is forcing you to live in one of the highest priced housing markets in the country. Cries to implement or restrict buyers because of their means or citizenship is to me, more based on selfishness rather then anything else. Your argument may be based on housing only, but can be abstracted to other assets as well.

[SD Realtor]

AN it is not worth arguing over. CAR try not to confuse home ownership with shelter okay. Really is that the best you can do?

Let’s prohibit people from buying homes? Really.

Okay then play fair, make it even, you should be prohibited from buying a home until EVERYONE can afford a home.

Isn’t that a gaurantee that ALL OF SOCIETY will get shelter which in your own argument means home ownership.

You see the argument is about what is best for society but what I read is actually what is best for me. I am frustrated so we need to do what is best for society. Thus lets lock out those evil foreigners, lock out those evil investors.

If you want the argument to be REALLY for society then it doesn’t really work does it? Because for society means everyone gets a home. EVERYONE GETS A HOME, not just you. That also means that someone gets a beach home and someone gets a crapper in El Cajon but who decides who gets what?

You see the argument becomes so overwhelmingly absurd that inevitably the idea that desireability is something that has value and can be attained through hard work rather then having it given to you just because of a utopian dream. Unfortunately many gain wealth and can procure things without working hard. It is how the world operates. However people have the freedom to live wherever they want and guess what.. the are plenty of other cities with fantastic housing prices, better employment, lower taxes, and many many many citizens love living there.

Nobody is forcing you to live in one of the highest priced housing markets in the country. Cries to implement or restrict buyers because of their means or citizenship is to me, more based on selfishness rather then anything else. Your argument may be based on housing only, but can be abstracted to other assets as well.

[SD Realtor]

AN it is not worth arguing over. CAR try not to confuse home ownership with shelter okay. Really is that the best you can do?

Let’s prohibit people from buying homes? Really.

Okay then play fair, make it even, you should be prohibited from buying a home until EVERYONE can afford a home.

Isn’t that a gaurantee that ALL OF SOCIETY will get shelter which in your own argument means home ownership.

You see the argument is about what is best for society but what I read is actually what is best for me. I am frustrated so we need to do what is best for society. Thus lets lock out those evil foreigners, lock out those evil investors.

If you want the argument to be REALLY for society then it doesn’t really work does it? Because for society means everyone gets a home. EVERYONE GETS A HOME, not just you. That also means that someone gets a beach home and someone gets a crapper in El Cajon but who decides who gets what?

You see the argument becomes so overwhelmingly absurd that inevitably the idea that desireability is something that has value and can be attained through hard work rather then having it given to you just because of a utopian dream. Unfortunately many gain wealth and can procure things without working hard. It is how the world operates. However people have the freedom to live wherever they want and guess what.. the are plenty of other cities with fantastic housing prices, better employment, lower taxes, and many many many citizens love living there.

Nobody is forcing you to live in one of the highest priced housing markets in the country. Cries to implement or restrict buyers because of their means or citizenship is to me, more based on selfishness rather then anything else. Your argument may be based on housing only, but can be abstracted to other assets as well.

[Author]

Posts