Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Curval on April 29, 2003, 07:46:46 AM
-
Well, the wife and I are going to try and have a girl (two boys now). If we succeed we will be "short" one bedroom. So we have started looking for a house.
Trouble is...on an island that is a little over 20 square miles, there is a lack of availiable houses and even land to build. The laws of supply and demand are well in effect here...low supply = high prices...and boy are they high.
A quarter acre of land (assuming you can even find it) STARTS at $250,000 here. If you want to be Ross Perot's neighbour you can multiply that by a factor of 4 or 5. Costs to bulid run at about $250 per square foot. So, a quarter acre of land with a 2500 square foot home will run close to a million....might as well round it to that once you add on stamp duty, architech's fees, landscaping and over-runs.
We looked at one existing house the other day. Set on a third of an acre this place is very nice...panoramic views of Harrington sound..four bedrooms. The sellers want $1.75 million for it.
SIGH.
There is NOTHING under a million that even comes close to our needs.
:(
-
Were you not just bragging about how you had no income taxes? Well, I think this makes up for that! :)
Question: What happens if you have another boy?
-
I guess thats the down side of living in Bermuda?? I don't see how anyone could get any work done. Its the only reason I have not moved to the coast. I'd become a beach bum in a heart beat! :D
Good luck on find'n a new home!
-
Yea...no income taxes..but the cost of living is very high, particularly when looking for accomadation.
Speaking of income taxes...how'd the 15th go for you guys?;)
What if we have a boy...hmm...I will love him...and then I will get "snipped" before the wife convinces me to give it one more try.:)
-
I know where Im crashing for vacation this year. :D
-
I got lucky and got grand back from uncle sam ::snicker:: :D
-
I feel your pain... housing costs here are unbelievable.....
13.5m is avg.
I think I'll perpetually rent..
-
Originally posted by Curval
Yea...no income taxes..but the cost of living is very high, particularly when looking for accomadation.
Speaking of income taxes...how'd the 15th go for you guys?;)
I'd need about 100 more of them to come close to what you have to pay for a house.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by nuchpatrick
I got lucky and got grand back from uncle sam ::snicker:: :D
No, you didn't get lucky dude, you simply paid too much when it was withheld from your paychecks. They are just giving you back your money....after they used it for a year.;)
-
mmhhmmm
my brother, bastard that he is :), always pays at the end of the year instead of 'giving the gov't too much'.. he says he'd rather make the interest than give it to Uncle Sam.
of course you have to be disciplined but I have to agree... now if I could just get ahead...
-
bahhh...forget getting ahead for a few months, you are due for a Bda. vacation.
When are you gonna make it down?
-
it'll be a while.. due to exactly what you referred to.. the tax man
3k got sucked outta my wallet this last month
-
I believe that the housing market is going to crash worse than the stock bubble.
I would only advise buying a house now if you are selling one at the same time.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I believe that the housing market is going to crash worse than the stock bubble.
I would only advise buying a house now if you are selling one at the same time.
Ummm... the absolute stupidist thing you have ever said miko. And that's saying alot.
Any downturn in housing costs at all is a rarity. Much less anything over 5%. Don't compare real estate market to the stock market. Its two different beasts. One has steadily increased since there's been private ownership, the other has gone up and down like a rollercoaster.
Most of the wealthiest men in the world got that way through real estate investments. Those that didn't stumble across an oil field or an OS that is.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I believe that the housing market is going to crash worse than the stock bubble.
In Bermuda?
The only way that would happen is if legislation change in the US causes all of the re-insurance companies we have here to re-domicile, or if the island becomes independent from Britain. I doubt this will happen in the near future, for a variety of reasons.
-
Stick to what you know best miko, and it ain't real estate investments ;)
-
Hey Curval, can you build an addition to your house?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Ummm... the absolute stupidist thing you have ever said miko. And that's saying alot.
Any downturn in housing costs at all is a rarity. Much less anything over 5%. Don't compare real estate market to the stock market.
MiniD
I guess you were no where near California 10-12 years ago. I lost close to 18% value in 6 months. It took over 5 years to recover its value. IIRC, the rest of the country had been on a steady decline for the 3 years before that. Real Estate, not stock market. It wasn't as drastic as CA's was, but real none the less.
-
Originally posted by TPIguy
Hey Curval, can you build an addition to your house?
Or better yet, level it and start over?
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
I guess you were no where near California 10-12 years ago. I lost close to 18% value in 6 months. It took over 5 years to recover its value. IIRC, the rest of the country had been on a steady decline for the 3 years before that. Real Estate, not stock market. It wasn't as drastic as CA's was, but real none the less.
There is NO doubt that real estate will decline in short term. Long term (5 yrs. or more) in a reasonable location (I use that term loosely) even in an economic depression valuations rarely drop below 3.5% GAIN each year.
3 things I learned from my Dad that he pumped into my head over and over again while on the subject of real estate investment (I own property in Minnesota, Montana and Washington) is : "LOCATION, LOCATION LOCATION!" Thats the secret to successful financial gain in ANY economic condition.
-
Remember the PH in her blood is what mostly determines gender ;) (or so the acid fairies told me).
So pop her a few alka-seltzers 20 minutes before the attempt.
:D :D
Good luck!
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
I guess you were no where near California 10-12 years ago. I lost close to 18% value in 6 months. It took over 5 years to recover its value. IIRC, the rest of the country had been on a steady decline for the 3 years before that. Real Estate, not stock market. It wasn't as drastic as CA's was, but real none the less.
I was in Oregon... I was very near it. I know because the mass exodus was north. And I also know that 18% is perhaps the most drastic downturn ever seen in real estate and its already recovered. It is still the best investment you can have. Bar none.
And I'd really like to see a single statement that says there is a steady decline in Real Estate values over the last 3 years. I believe you are quite confused.
Once again... Real Estate is the single best investment you can make. It has consistantly shown steady growth and will continue to do so. To say otherwise is quite simply wrong.
MiniD
-
I live in a condo right now. They are pretty sticky about add-ons.:) ...and other residents may object to Horn's suggestion.
The condo cost almost what the "build a house" option.
OIO...at a time like that you expect me to think about alka-selzer?;)
-
Curval: In Bermuda?
I was speaking generally about the housing market in US and Britain. I would not think such an isolated and unusual place as Bermuda qualifies as a "housing market" for me to make so specific predictions.
There will always be enough wealth at rich people's disposal to buy houses in Bermuda even if the world comes to an end.
How about a boathouse? :)
miko
-
30 minutes before the attempt yes.
And its HER that has to take them not you. Moron ;) :D
-
Mini D: Ummm... the absolute stupidist thing you have ever said miko. And that's saying alot.
Any downturn in housing costs at all is a rarity. Much less anything over 5%. Don't compare real estate market to the stock market.
Ripsnort: Stick to what you know best miko, and it ain't real estate investments
I'll have to bookmark this thread for future reference.
I would not bother to explain now why in the long term the price of any product is determined by the income of the population and costs of manufacturing.
Seing that the US population is not likely to explode soon - highly-paid professionals (in fact baby-boom generation at the peak of their earnings will soon start retiring en-masse) and there is plenty of land for construction despite some government restrictions and the income are not growing nearly as fast as teh housing costs - I'll keep my opinion.
miko
-
Originally posted by OIO
30 minutes before the attempt yes.
And its HER that has to take them not you. Moron ;) :D
I know that...believe me "I" will be the one to have to remind her to take it...just like with her birth control pills....and to think about alka-selzer when I will be busy setting up the hand-cuffs, prepping the porno flick for a particular part that I enjoy and setting up the video camera, I mean really...who has the time?
;)
-
LOL! Curval!
-
You keep it bookmarked Miko. It can serve as a constant reminder just how stupid that statement was.
MiniD
-
I would not bother to explain now why in the long term the price of any product is determined by the income of the population and costs of manufacturing.
somebody slept through economics. prices are dictated by supply and demand. even if the cost of manufacture for a given product is cheap the prices can still be high if the demand out paces the supply.
since the earth (supply) ain't getting any bigger. and the population of the world (demand for residences) isn't getting any smaller. your basic economic law says prices will generally climb (barring local iregularitys like mercury in the water, high crime rates in your area, etc.)
BTW- What is the cost of manufacturing an acre of land?
-
K, just making sure Curval. Last person I told that came back next day complaining about the " Ol' Faithful " incident.
-
America: no housing market slump where I live..
and I seriously doubt there will be in the forseeable future.
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
I guess you were no where near California 10-12 years ago. I lost close to 18% value in 6 months. It took over 5 years to recover its value.
That was the result of a dramatic economic dislocation brought about by the end of the cold war, which cost California hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs in aerospace.
-
The answer is houseboat........ :D
Thorns
-
Male runners who run more than 35 miles per week have baby girls most of the time.
As for housing, have you considered moving to the south?
-
capt. apathy: somebody slept through economics. prices are dictated by supply and demand. even if the cost of manufacture for a given product is cheap the prices can still be high if the demand out paces the supply.
Anyone can parrot the texts without having any idea what it means, so I would expect you to explain your assertion in more detail.
since the earth (supply) ain't getting any bigger. and the population of the world (demand for residences) isn't getting any smaller.
So far I see you making the basic mistake of confusing demand with need. You may have enormous need but without ability to produce there is no demand.
Populations of developed countries are growing slowly or declining. Whatever growth is due to third-world immigration that brings need but not demand - having low buying power.
Speaking about the world in this context is silly because housing markets are country-specific, but even there you are wrong - the population of earth is going to peak way before the land available for building housing is exhausted.
What is the cost of manufacturing an acre of land?
Just by this question you expose your total lack of economic education. Nobody who had even basic (self)education in economics could have missed the worn out example of how land - and any other resource is manufactured when the price is high enough. Read some books.
WTC buildings occupied 1 acre each. But the floor areas were over 100 acred each. How did they do that? Magic? Did you ever see a multy-story residential building? Any building that is over one story high?
How about Holland? Didn't they "manufacture land"? How about cities built beyong the arctic circle? That land was not counted as inhabitable a century ago.
Most people do not go buying land but rather living space.
Anyway, I'll make some research on the housing boom and come back later in a separate thread, so hold on your criticism for a while.
miko
-
House prices have started to fall in Southern England already. But these are in areas where prices rose to ridiculous levels in a short amount of time.
In the rest of Britain, house prices continue to rise. And that's why I bought a brand new apartment last October right off the blueprint. :)
Fingers crossed my investment pays off. It should do though. The area is decent, and I got it cheap because I bought it on the strength of the builder's plans.
But remember - a house is for a long time, not just for Christmas. It's a long term investment.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Male runners who run more than 35 miles per week have baby girls most of the time.
As for housing, have you considered moving to the south?
...and the runner thing is relevant to me...how? 35 miles per week? Good Lord..that would kill me. Tell you what...I'll have my wife grab my "boys" and shake them for about an hour a day, the effect of which may well approximate that amount of running.:)
I was born here, raised here, all my family are here and my job is based here. You are right, I could buy a cheap house down south, but leaving everything behind just isn't going to happen.
Thorns:
Houseboat? No man...lots of reasons not to go that route. First and foremost is the fact that one of the kids could fall overboard and drown. It "sounds' like a good idea but it just isn't practical.
-
OK, what the hell. I'll bite.
Anyone can parrot the texts without having any idea what it means, so I would expect you to explain your assertion in more detail.
when the demand rises and the supply doesn't, prices climb. this is because there is less of the product available per prospective customer, so they may have to pay more to assure their supply of the product.
inversely if the supply goes up and the demand doesn't I may have to sell it cheaper, due to the fact that prospective customers would have more options as to where they could get their product, so I may have to cut prices to compete. also when supply outpaces demand you have a slower turnover rate you begin to take on other costs (storage or maintenance of the product while you wait for a sale to name just 2).
so in a low demand situation these costs could actually make the sellers cost higher but their sale price lower making your theory complete horsetoejam.
as another example- say I manufacture pot holders (just crappy little cloth things to set hot pots from the stove on), and it costs me $100 per unit to make them. but nobody wants them. everybody is making good money but there is no demand for my product and I have a warehouse full of them. how much would you suppose I could get for this item? manufacture costs are up, income of the population up yet my prices would be low. so again...
I would not bother to explain now why in the long term the price of any product is determined by the income of the population and costs of manufacturing.
..is horsetoejam
however if there where only a couple units of my product available for sale and everybody needed one I could pretty much charge whatever I want (even if it cost me little or nothing to manufacture)
ok next point.....
So far I see you making the basic mistake of confusing demand with need.
ok this one is real simple. open MS word, type demand, highlight it, and hit 'THESAURUS'. this will give you a list of synonyms (words that mean the same thing.)
here I'll do it for you. here's the whole list...
necessity
claim
call
NEED
requirement
charge
requisition
ultimatum
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
I guess you were no where near California 10-12 years ago. I lost close to 18% value in 6 months. It took over 5 years to recover its value. IIRC, the rest of the country had been on a steady decline for the 3 years before that. Real Estate, not stock market. It wasn't as drastic as CA's was, but real none the less.
I was here Lizard. IIRC there was a HUGE boom in housing prices prior to that decline.
I just bought a home in Southern Ca. There are still bargains to be had if you know the area.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I was here Lizard. IIRC there was a HUGE boom in housing prices prior to that decline.
Bad memories of Toronto housing market...1988 bought at the height of the boom. Sold a few years later at a $50,000 loss.
Made it back in 1999, and then some, after selling a condo I bought in the downturn.
-
Curval would have to 'ride the storm' out with a houseboat.. imagine a hurricane...
-
capt. apathy: so in a low demand situation these costs could actually make the sellers cost higher but their sale price lower making your theory complete horsetoejam.
as another example- say I manufacture pot holders (just crappy little cloth things to set hot pots from the stove on), and it costs me $100 per unit to make them. but nobody wants them. everybody is making good money but there is no demand for my product and I have a warehouse full of them. how much would you suppose I could get for this item?
You present total nonsense as my "theory" and then you proceed to refut it by arbitrarily redefining the meanings of the words. How original.
Just because it took you $100 to manufacture something, it does not make that object a product.
It will most likely end up as a piece of garbage, so you may as well call it that in which case it has nothing to do with my assertion where I use the word product in a different sense - a merchandise perhaps, a piece of capital or a consumer good but not "garbage".
however if there where only a couple units of my product available for sale and everybody needed one I could pretty much charge whatever I want (even if it cost me little or nothing to manufacture)
Not really. If you've read a single book on economics you would know of such things as competition - other busnesses manufacturing the same item - or equivalent substitution by consumers - using rags of towels or winter mittens to handle the same job.
ok this one is real simple. open MS word, type demand, highlight it, and hit 'THESAURUS'. this will give you a list of synonyms
I see. You replaced your brain with thesaurus. Certainly, if it seems to say that demand is the same as need - in all applications, it must be right.
The law of "supply and demand" can be called the law of "supply and need", right? Except it explains how the market price gets established by interaction of people offering money and demanding a product and those asking money for supplying a product and I do not see a logical connection between people having need and having money to pay for what they demand, but maybe you can invent one or find it in tesaurus.
You do not know the fist thing about economics. Please don't waste my time before you read some books.
Oh, yeah - you do not know what "synonym" is. The only words that "mean the same thing" and are "freely interchangeable" here is your handle and "ignorant".
miko
-
miko,
LAND is non-renewable and for sale. What could possibly make it worthless?
-
actually my handle means indifference.
ignorance would be not knowing.
as in "I'm apathetic, to the fact that you appear ignorant to the meanings of words in the english language"
anything someone produces intentionally is a product. pieces of crap are called 'crappy products' but products none the less. Actually the product in my example could be excellent, it could be the best damn pot-holder on the market. non-flammable, superior insulating properties, the Cadillac of pot-holders. what makes it garbage is that I have a warehouse full of them and nobody wants them.
as a consumer I don't give a rats prettythang what it costs the man to make whatever product I'm looking to buy. I consider only 2 things .
1. how badly do I need (see demand) the product.
2. and can I get the same product somewhere else cheaper (see supply).
if my need is high and my options as to where to get the product are low, odds are I will pay through the nose for it, regardless of what it cost the seller to provide it. if he got it cheap he will just pocket the difference.
BTW- sorry about the thesaurus thing. I know how frustrating it can be when you have no real logical argument and somebody starts dragging out evidence, and using their ability to reason and crap like that.
-
midnight Target: LAND is non-renewable and for sale. What could possibly make it worthless?
Oh, I would never argue that, especially in so general terms.
I only said that housing (and by extension the land for residential use) may decrease in price considerably due to many, many reasons:
Changes in land-reclamation technology making more land available for housing (dynamite, dykes).
Changes in technology freeing land from other uses due to increase in productivity - agriculture, factories, warehouses, forestry.
Changes in infrastructure making more land available for housing (new bridges, highways).
Changes in political arrangement making more land available for housing (removal of artificial restrictions on building).
Changes in economy making the existing housing less affordable (inclease in costs of heating/air conditioning, property taxes).
Correction for previous overspending and overborrowing not supported by increase in production and buying power.
Decrease in the numbers and or buying power of population.
Appearance of alternative investments that are more liquid.
Changes in government tax policies that make alternative investments more attractive by taking value outside of taxmen's reach - property taxes are asessed on the land and house but not on gold hoard or bank balances.
Change in government fiscal or monetary policies - which are largely to blame for the current sharp increase in prices.
The demand for land is greatly influenced by demand for housing, including rental land - not all of which is linked to the ownership of land.
If a high-rise is built with a lot of appartments, the need for housing for many people in that area will be satisfied while the attractiveness of housing/land in the area will be diminished due to increased traffic and overcrowding.
Many more reasons can be named. How about reasons why the housing prices suddenly shot up so abruptly over the last few years?
There are specifics to owning a house that mislead some people without economic understanding. A lot of factors like risk and deprivation are not included into total cost of the house/land.
Most people are heavily mortgaged when owning a house. Say, you owe a $300 mortgage on a $400 house. When the price drops to $250, you would have to add $50 in order to sell the house and get even with the bank. Many people cannot do that, so they keep the house on the market at $300 where nobody buys it - while possibly suffering all kinds of deprivations and losses becasue they cannot move somewhere else and get a better-paying job. They would wait 10 years for a comeback and proudly claim that the investment in the house pays off with a bit of patience - forgetting the financial and quality of life loss they suffered in the process.
There are some rare cases where land is really limited - like in Brooklyn, but even here the downturn in economy or city fortunes or taxes can - and did - drop the prices.
Even in Brooklyn the old 2-storey houses are being demolished and replaced by 3-story ones with smaller backyards, so the total amount of housing can increase a lot.
We have a bumper crop of relatively high-paid elderly retiring soon and being replaced by less-paid and fewer in number generation. There may be a run on the retirement properties but there will be glut on houses and stocks once the retirees sell their prmary residences close to former work and stop contributing to the retirement accounts. It's plain demographics.
capt. apathy: anything someone produces intentionally is a product
Labor theory of value. I cannot believe you've read Marx, so I'll assume you've got it by hearsay. It was disproved before Marx was even born.
And you do the typical mistake of only concentrating on narrow - and artificial - aspect.
When you on the market offering a potholder for which people have so much need, where did that need come from? How did people cope before? Why nobody else came with a solution or substitute? Do your potholders actually worth to the a buyer more than $100 or equivalent amount of his labor - otherwise he would get no advantage from the transacton?
Even if your potholder saved lives of desperate people, there would be a price beyong a person would not be willing to pay, even if he had money available. And if he does not - well, there is no demand for it, hovewer great is the need.
Anyway, you make a good point that if you have stuff nobody needs at a price you want, you will not sell any.
Why would the housing be any different.
miko
-
Miko.. stop digging.
The price of real estate is based on three things:[list=1]- Availability
- People's desire to live there
- Inflation (increased salary)
Cheap land is readily available if you do not want to live near existing developments (In the U.S. at least) In Europe, the availability is somewhat fixed, so people's desire to live somewhere drive the costs more.
The only variable is inflation, and that variable only goes up. Thus, it drives the cost of property. In order for it to be negative, there would have to be a catastrophic disaster in the economy. Something that would make the crash of 1929 look like a slight "dip". Cause... even during that drastic downturn, property value held its own.
I suppose a nuclear war could also make property less likely to be enhabited too, but once again, the loss of land would pale in comparison to the loss of everyone enhabbiting it.
Anything you've cited adds to the cost of developing land. It does not reduce the value of it, it increases the cost. Most real estate investments involve signing papers and either moving into or leasing out property that exists as is. Having to add to that cost does not make it cheaper.
Oh well miko, I can't make it any clearer for you than that. Try to muddy it up as much as you'd like to support an incredibly assenine statement. Maybe you should just rent for the next 30 years and continue insisting that real estate is a bad investment and you'll have no part of it.
MiniD
-
Even if your potholder saved lives of desperate people, there would be a price beyong a person would not be willing to pay, even if he had money available.
this is hilarious.
so you're saying if I had a product that would save your life, you are gonna die without it, and you had the money to buy it, there's a point where you would just say "F-it, that’s too much damn money, I wont pay, that's outrageous, I'll just go over here and die"
the only way they wouldn't pay whatever I asked (up to the limit of their resources) for a product with such a high need is if they had another supply.
hey look at that, here we are back to the point where the price is being determined be a relationship between supply and demand.
it's all very simple. I'll type slow incase you can't read fast :p .
you take any product at any given price.
if more people need this product then the price will go up.
if less people want it the price will go down.
if more product is available to the consumer the price will fall
if less product is available the price will go up
-
P.S.
capt. apathy - while calling you ignorant I am certainly using it in a derogatory sense, I attribute no shame to being ignorant in general. We all start ignorant in everything and die ignorant in most areas.
It's when ignorant dolts stick their noses into complicated discussions after looking up the meaning of a word in a spellchecker that I brand them as ignorant close-minded fools.
Just the passing familarity with the law of supply and demand "when the price of a good rises, the amount demanded falls" would make a person with a working brain think to ask a question from better-versed or look up some relevant text, because demand here could not possibly mean need.
How the heck could your need be affected by someone - maybe in another country - changing prices on his wares?
miko
-
How the heck could your need be affected by someone - maybe in another country - changing prices on his wares?
NO, NO, NO- price is effected by demand (need) not the other way around. are you reading my post from the bottom up? you seem to have it backwards.
and no I didn't have to use the thesaurus to find that need and demand mean the same thing as used in this discussion. I used it to try to illustrate a point to someone who seemed to be having trouble with his vocabulary
-
capt. apathy: this is hilarious.
so you're saying if I had a product that would save your life, you are gonna die without it, and you had the money to buy it, there's a point where you would just say "F-it, that’s too much damn money, I wont pay, that's outrageous, I'll just go over here and die"
What is hilarious is how dumb you are. Dumb an unimaginative. Of course I would not leave my family destitute by selfishly spending all the fortune to extend my life a few more years.
I am not a mindless animal driven by blind instinck. A year of my life has a definite value compared to the value I put on the well-being of my family. In some cases I would choose extra few years of my life, in others a sum of money would be of more use to my goals.
It's a purely subjective trade-off depending on my sircumstances. Is it different same for you?
Oh, I see, apparently it is different for you:
the only way they wouldn't pay whatever I asked (up to the limit of their resources) for a product with such a high need is if they had another supply.
And I assume you delude yourself into believing "they" would do that becasue you would do the same. So you would sell your children, parents and wife in exchange for your life, you miserable excuse for a human being? To meet whatever price asked by supplier? You value your life so infinitely presious? You would see them burn or get murdered without lifting a finger just to avoid risking your precious skin? You would see them die of starvation or desease just because you needed money for yourself? In that case you sir are scum.
Are those really your true sentiments about the value of your life?
miko
-
you win, I give up. you truly are a tard.
-
capt. apathy: NO, NO, NO- price is effected by demand (need) not the other way around. are you reading my post from the bottom up? you seem to have it backwards.
Which price? A market price at which the transaction occurs? Why not by supply, after all it takes two to trade? That is a trick question, the price is determined by the intersection of the supply and demand curves, which are just tables/graphs of quantities of goods that people are willing (and capable) of buying at different prices in case of demand or willing (and capable) of supplying in case of supply.
So we are talking about multitude of prices. Whic one is "effected" by demand? This very minute you would buy 20 widgets at $1 each but only 10 at $3 each and only one at $8 each - and none at $100. You bring that knowlege to the marketplace even before you learn the prices asked by suppliers.
Does your need changes? Because your demand is different at each price level - at the same moment in time.
That's of course when you use economic terms, not your own inventons.
Oh, BTW - my invective in the previous post was just an illustrative reaction to the stupidity of your statements if I were fool enough to think they represented your real thoughts and take them at face value.
Just becasue you do not realise yourself what you are thinking and cannot formulate your real views clearly, that does not mean I cannot make an educated guess as to the content to your head. :)
If you have trouble understanding the previous phrase, here it is simplified:
I do think you are a muddled fool but I do not really think you are a scum of the Earth. :)
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
[ Oh, BTW - my invective in the previous post was just an illustrative reaction to the stupidity of your statements if I were fool enough to think they represented your real thoughts and take them at face value.
Just becasue you do not realise yourself what you are thinking and cannot formulate your real views clearly, that does not mean I cannot make an educated guess as to the content to your head. :)
Irony meet miko. Miko meet irony.
MiniD
-
That was not irony but sarcasm.
-
No miko... it was irony. Your attempt at "sarcasm" was basically a self portrait. The fact that you don't get it only highlights the point.
MiniD
-
Whatever.
-
the 'logic' in your own posts seem to prove my point better than I can myself. I think I'll let this issue rest.
-
From a real estate appraiser's standpoint, this convo got a bit interesting.
-
Originally posted by Puke
From a real estate appraiser's standpoint, this convo got a bit interesting.
LOL Puke! This is my first post in this thread, and I wondered how the hell we'd got a pissing contest out of a house move thread!
Doh! I find myself agreeing with Mini D. Property is an excellent investment, and will rarely go down in value. The only time I have known property value to fall was during recession following an artificial boom - the early 1990s. In the late 1980s, Britain's property prices rocketed. But the rise was artificial, fuelled by an excess of available money. That was caused by a lowering of interest rates - (European single currency preparation crap). The result was too much money in the economy - and all this money was borrowed money. People were chasing after ever bigger and better houses, and the values were going up and up. It all ended in tears in 1992 one Wednesday afternoon, when Norman "je ne regrette rien" Lamont conceded that we could not keep pace with the German economy. Property values collapsed - only because they had been artificially high before the collapse. The £ tumbled - was $2, and went to $1.53 overnight, and never recovered. Today it's about $1.60.
I'm planning a house move myself this summer! Time to move on from the "bachelor town house", much though I have loved it. I was only meant to be temporary. I did have a larger house at one time, but *she* got that.
Right now, we're seeing another property boom which has just about peaked. My belief is that because the stock market has been down the golden crapper since about 1999, people have taken their money away, and have instead put it in property.
My house search is in the immediate area, and various towns west of here - I'd be closer to Revvin! One of those towns is Hungerford, where I stopped on Tuesday. But I am concerned about the health risks. Too much lead in the air. (http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/1988.html)