Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
Participantkewp, I think you’re right. With asset price inflation, borrowers (=majority of voting population) do very well, regardless of deflation or inflation. That’s what we’ve had for years. With asset price deflation, borrowers can only do well if they can default, or inflate away their debts, with inflation here defined using consumer prices and wages.
When projecting the future, always be aware of what works best for the majority of voters. Politicians may be corrupt or statesmanlike, but few politicians are going to do anything to stand between the majority of voters and their dreams of wealth without saving*.
*Saving defined as earned income less consumption spending, excluding capital gains/losses.
Patient renter in OC
Participantkewp, I think you’re right. With asset price inflation, borrowers (=majority of voting population) do very well, regardless of deflation or inflation. That’s what we’ve had for years. With asset price deflation, borrowers can only do well if they can default, or inflate away their debts, with inflation here defined using consumer prices and wages.
When projecting the future, always be aware of what works best for the majority of voters. Politicians may be corrupt or statesmanlike, but few politicians are going to do anything to stand between the majority of voters and their dreams of wealth without saving*.
*Saving defined as earned income less consumption spending, excluding capital gains/losses.
Patient renter in OC
Participantkewp, I think you’re right. With asset price inflation, borrowers (=majority of voting population) do very well, regardless of deflation or inflation. That’s what we’ve had for years. With asset price deflation, borrowers can only do well if they can default, or inflate away their debts, with inflation here defined using consumer prices and wages.
When projecting the future, always be aware of what works best for the majority of voters. Politicians may be corrupt or statesmanlike, but few politicians are going to do anything to stand between the majority of voters and their dreams of wealth without saving*.
*Saving defined as earned income less consumption spending, excluding capital gains/losses.
Patient renter in OC
Participantkewp has it. Baby boomers haven’t been saving, but they were hoping that the next generation of homebuyers would keep them in bon-bons in their retirement. What’s that song again “… money for nothing…”.
Patient renter in OC
Participantkewp has it. Baby boomers haven’t been saving, but they were hoping that the next generation of homebuyers would keep them in bon-bons in their retirement. What’s that song again “… money for nothing…”.
Patient renter in OC
Participantkewp has it. Baby boomers haven’t been saving, but they were hoping that the next generation of homebuyers would keep them in bon-bons in their retirement. What’s that song again “… money for nothing…”.
Patient renter in OC
Participantkewp has it. Baby boomers haven’t been saving, but they were hoping that the next generation of homebuyers would keep them in bon-bons in their retirement. What’s that song again “… money for nothing…”.
Patient renter in OC
Participantkewp has it. Baby boomers haven’t been saving, but they were hoping that the next generation of homebuyers would keep them in bon-bons in their retirement. What’s that song again “… money for nothing…”.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantI think I read in the WSJ recently a survey saying that most people thought the amount you needed to be comfortable averaged twice what you actually had. (This was for wealth and income.) In other words, it’s all relative. I admit that my comfort zone is probably about twice what I have now.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantI think I read in the WSJ recently a survey saying that most people thought the amount you needed to be comfortable averaged twice what you actually had. (This was for wealth and income.) In other words, it’s all relative. I admit that my comfort zone is probably about twice what I have now.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantI think I read in the WSJ recently a survey saying that most people thought the amount you needed to be comfortable averaged twice what you actually had. (This was for wealth and income.) In other words, it’s all relative. I admit that my comfort zone is probably about twice what I have now.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantI think I read in the WSJ recently a survey saying that most people thought the amount you needed to be comfortable averaged twice what you actually had. (This was for wealth and income.) In other words, it’s all relative. I admit that my comfort zone is probably about twice what I have now.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantI think I read in the WSJ recently a survey saying that most people thought the amount you needed to be comfortable averaged twice what you actually had. (This was for wealth and income.) In other words, it’s all relative. I admit that my comfort zone is probably about twice what I have now.
Patient renter in OC
February 25, 2008 at 10:20 PM in reply to: Are you looking to get in on the ground floor? Think again. #159937ParticipantIf you can get Rex and Co to pay you $200K for some future gains on your property, go for it. It may be a good deal for you.
The people behind Rex and Co may be very smart, just as Mr Mozilo was. I doubt that $200K they’re promising you is coming from them. Are the investors putting up that $200K very smart? Haha! Were the investors putting up $2 trillion in the last few years to lend against buying homes all over California and Florida and Nevada smart? Just because you can get someone to pay you $200k for future home appreciation doesn’t mean it’s worth that much. It may just mean there are a few dumb investors left, falling for the next bait.
Patient renter in OC
-
AuthorPosts
