[carlsbadworker]

It is very noble of you. But when it comes to investment, if you stand with the middle and lower class, that is exactly where you get screwed. If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution. No pain, no gain. A revolution that requires very little effort will not work … because people will always give up easily unless they are in extreme dire conditions.

[carlsbadworker]

It is very noble of you. But when it comes to investment, if you stand with the middle and lower class, that is exactly where you get screwed. If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution. No pain, no gain. A revolution that requires very little effort will not work … because people will always give up easily unless they are in extreme dire conditions.

[carlsbadworker]

It is very noble of you. But when it comes to investment, if you stand with the middle and lower class, that is exactly where you get screwed. If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution. No pain, no gain. A revolution that requires very little effort will not work … because people will always give up easily unless they are in extreme dire conditions.

[carlsbadworker]

It is very noble of you. But when it comes to investment, if you stand with the middle and lower class, that is exactly where you get screwed. If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution. No pain, no gain. A revolution that requires very little effort will not work … because people will always give up easily unless they are in extreme dire conditions.

[carlsbadworker]

It is very noble of you. But when it comes to investment, if you stand with the middle and lower class, that is exactly where you get screwed. If history tells us anything, the middle and lower class only improve their conditions via revolution. No pain, no gain. A revolution that requires very little effort will not work … because people will always give up easily unless they are in extreme dire conditions.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Most investors, however, cannot read a financial statement. A lot of CEOs cannot read one, either (I’ve worked with more than my fair share of them). [/quote]

I would agree with that completely, but I’m afraid that it may help scaredycat’s argument that any fool with enough luck can be a good investor as wll as a CEO. It is true that luck could explain almost everything in the world, but still I think we piggs analyze the data rigorously because we think it will impact the probability of the luck to our favors. Otherwise, what’s the point of learning anything?

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Most investors, however, cannot read a financial statement. A lot of CEOs cannot read one, either (I’ve worked with more than my fair share of them). [/quote]

I would agree with that completely, but I’m afraid that it may help scaredycat’s argument that any fool with enough luck can be a good investor as wll as a CEO. It is true that luck could explain almost everything in the world, but still I think we piggs analyze the data rigorously because we think it will impact the probability of the luck to our favors. Otherwise, what’s the point of learning anything?

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Most investors, however, cannot read a financial statement. A lot of CEOs cannot read one, either (I’ve worked with more than my fair share of them). [/quote]

I would agree with that completely, but I’m afraid that it may help scaredycat’s argument that any fool with enough luck can be a good investor as wll as a CEO. It is true that luck could explain almost everything in the world, but still I think we piggs analyze the data rigorously because we think it will impact the probability of the luck to our favors. Otherwise, what’s the point of learning anything?

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Most investors, however, cannot read a financial statement. A lot of CEOs cannot read one, either (I’ve worked with more than my fair share of them). [/quote]

I would agree with that completely, but I’m afraid that it may help scaredycat’s argument that any fool with enough luck can be a good investor as wll as a CEO. It is true that luck could explain almost everything in the world, but still I think we piggs analyze the data rigorously because we think it will impact the probability of the luck to our favors. Otherwise, what’s the point of learning anything?

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Most investors, however, cannot read a financial statement. A lot of CEOs cannot read one, either (I’ve worked with more than my fair share of them). [/quote]

I would agree with that completely, but I’m afraid that it may help scaredycat’s argument that any fool with enough luck can be a good investor as wll as a CEO. It is true that luck could explain almost everything in the world, but still I think we piggs analyze the data rigorously because we think it will impact the probability of the luck to our favors. Otherwise, what’s the point of learning anything?

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=briansd1]You are correct peterb.

I studied some history of appraisal. Back before WWII, real estate was depreciated. The comparative sales approach to appraisal did not take hold until prices started consistently increasing.

Before FHA, residential real estate were balloon payment loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_Administration

I think that in Germany it is cheaper to own. It’s perfectly acceptable to rent over there.

[/quote]

I love history as well. But sometimes history is not that relevant. Back the old ages was the golden time to be a landlord, you can literally dictate everything (including rents) and put the tenants into extreme misery (perhaps they were even your servants)…we couldn’t do that anymore. Also the reason “back before WWII, real estate was depreciated” is that the mass home production was introduced only at the turn of last century…and it makes housing a truly commodity market.

The buy v.s. rent is applicable now because the housing market is a commodity market already … there is no turning back. But it could go extreme. Imagine one day that a robot can just build a house in a day with soil as the basic material and with the sun as the energy source of the production. How much would the house price be when you can live in such a cave, I mean, nice house? No one would rent anymore just like no one rent time on personal computers now even though they are much much more powerful than the main-frame back then. The only renters at that time would rent the historical housing units such as the White House for a weekend.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=briansd1]You are correct peterb.

I studied some history of appraisal. Back before WWII, real estate was depreciated. The comparative sales approach to appraisal did not take hold until prices started consistently increasing.

Before FHA, residential real estate were balloon payment loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_Administration

I think that in Germany it is cheaper to own. It’s perfectly acceptable to rent over there.

[/quote]

I love history as well. But sometimes history is not that relevant. Back the old ages was the golden time to be a landlord, you can literally dictate everything (including rents) and put the tenants into extreme misery (perhaps they were even your servants)…we couldn’t do that anymore. Also the reason “back before WWII, real estate was depreciated” is that the mass home production was introduced only at the turn of last century…and it makes housing a truly commodity market.

The buy v.s. rent is applicable now because the housing market is a commodity market already … there is no turning back. But it could go extreme. Imagine one day that a robot can just build a house in a day with soil as the basic material and with the sun as the energy source of the production. How much would the house price be when you can live in such a cave, I mean, nice house? No one would rent anymore just like no one rent time on personal computers now even though they are much much more powerful than the main-frame back then. The only renters at that time would rent the historical housing units such as the White House for a weekend.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=briansd1]You are correct peterb.

I studied some history of appraisal. Back before WWII, real estate was depreciated. The comparative sales approach to appraisal did not take hold until prices started consistently increasing.

Before FHA, residential real estate were balloon payment loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_Administration

I think that in Germany it is cheaper to own. It’s perfectly acceptable to rent over there.

[/quote]

I love history as well. But sometimes history is not that relevant. Back the old ages was the golden time to be a landlord, you can literally dictate everything (including rents) and put the tenants into extreme misery (perhaps they were even your servants)…we couldn’t do that anymore. Also the reason “back before WWII, real estate was depreciated” is that the mass home production was introduced only at the turn of last century…and it makes housing a truly commodity market.

The buy v.s. rent is applicable now because the housing market is a commodity market already … there is no turning back. But it could go extreme. Imagine one day that a robot can just build a house in a day with soil as the basic material and with the sun as the energy source of the production. How much would the house price be when you can live in such a cave, I mean, nice house? No one would rent anymore just like no one rent time on personal computers now even though they are much much more powerful than the main-frame back then. The only renters at that time would rent the historical housing units such as the White House for a weekend.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=briansd1]You are correct peterb.

I studied some history of appraisal. Back before WWII, real estate was depreciated. The comparative sales approach to appraisal did not take hold until prices started consistently increasing.

Before FHA, residential real estate were balloon payment loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_Administration

I think that in Germany it is cheaper to own. It’s perfectly acceptable to rent over there.

[/quote]

I love history as well. But sometimes history is not that relevant. Back the old ages was the golden time to be a landlord, you can literally dictate everything (including rents) and put the tenants into extreme misery (perhaps they were even your servants)…we couldn’t do that anymore. Also the reason “back before WWII, real estate was depreciated” is that the mass home production was introduced only at the turn of last century…and it makes housing a truly commodity market.

The buy v.s. rent is applicable now because the housing market is a commodity market already … there is no turning back. But it could go extreme. Imagine one day that a robot can just build a house in a day with soil as the basic material and with the sun as the energy source of the production. How much would the house price be when you can live in such a cave, I mean, nice house? No one would rent anymore just like no one rent time on personal computers now even though they are much much more powerful than the main-frame back then. The only renters at that time would rent the historical housing units such as the White House for a weekend.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=briansd1]You are correct peterb.

I studied some history of appraisal. Back before WWII, real estate was depreciated. The comparative sales approach to appraisal did not take hold until prices started consistently increasing.

Before FHA, residential real estate were balloon payment loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_Administration

I think that in Germany it is cheaper to own. It’s perfectly acceptable to rent over there.

[/quote]

I love history as well. But sometimes history is not that relevant. Back the old ages was the golden time to be a landlord, you can literally dictate everything (including rents) and put the tenants into extreme misery (perhaps they were even your servants)…we couldn’t do that anymore. Also the reason “back before WWII, real estate was depreciated” is that the mass home production was introduced only at the turn of last century…and it makes housing a truly commodity market.

The buy v.s. rent is applicable now because the housing market is a commodity market already … there is no turning back. But it could go extreme. Imagine one day that a robot can just build a house in a day with soil as the basic material and with the sun as the energy source of the production. How much would the house price be when you can live in such a cave, I mean, nice house? No one would rent anymore just like no one rent time on personal computers now even though they are much much more powerful than the main-frame back then. The only renters at that time would rent the historical housing units such as the White House for a weekend.

[Author]

Posts