Re: Meg Munn chunters on...


Hyerdahl wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > In article <1126633945.715932.72090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > "Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > All the money in the world would be pointless were it not for loved
> > > ones to spend it on.
> > >
> > > [Again, women are buying their own houses these days, dear, and
> > > providing for their OWN families. They aren't asking you.]
> >
> > I'm holding off buying a home myself because numerous
> > respected investors (including Greenspan)
> > say there's a real estate bubble.
>
> I don't place much importance on "bubbles" unless you're looking at
> buying a house STRICTLY as an investment. A home for your family is a
> good investment anyway if you get a tax break on it, whether or not
> there is a bubble coming your way. So, it really depends on your
> REASON for buying or not buying.

Sure, if someone wants to _settle_ for "good" rather than great.
I would rather buy a home at the bottom of the market and watch
it's value grow rather than beg for tax break scraps every year.

> > If a liberated career woman wants to bust her ***
> > to pay an interest-only mortgage for what's
> > precious to her, she's welcome to it.
>
> I don't know ANY single women who are buying into the interest only
> mortgage, Mark. That's for couples. :-)

Personal unsupported anecdote, I see. "Only for couples?"
You're saying single people don't buy interest only loans?

> One of my dearest friends
> (who works as a massage therapist) saved $30,000. for her down, and
> purchased a house that was within her means. So, again, you are
> speculating.

By definition, banks shouldn't loan money to anyone who is making
a purchase that isn't within their means. The goal for me has
been to buy a home that produces immediate cost savings over
rentals and/or provides a solid investment opportunity.

> I'll just pick it up when the market drops by 30% (or more).
>
> You do that, Mark.

I plan to.

> > I'm reminded of career women during the 90's bragging
> > that they could buy their own diamond rings. A few years
> > later, the market on diamonds plunged.
> >
> Women don't generally buy diamonds as investments, Mark. They buy
> jewlery based on aesthetics. They save their investment dollar
> for..investments. :-)

Except that you said that such women didn't buy homes STRICTLY
as an investment. (See above.)

> > > We recognise that> most geeks, me included, would love to have some
> > > young birds working along side us, (provided they can take jokes about
> > > tits without running off trying to hold the company to ransom, for the
> > > twin purposes of getting money for nothing, and ruining our work
> > > environment because they hate men's sense of humour,)
> > >
> > > [The workplace isn't the place for boys being boys at the expense of
> > > everyone else and burgers like you are bound to discover that at some
> > > point in time. :-)]
> >
> > I believe Bill Clinton got an education in this.
>
> ????? Bill Clinton survived two terms in office and an impeachment
> process that made his accusers look bad.

This ties in interestingly with your admiration of women
who "invest" in overpriced homes but not "strictly" as investments.

If the goal is to succeed and thrive and "empower" someone with
"domination" over their product, then the method shouldn't
be merely to "survive" or live within one's "means".

> > Goodbye national daycare and healthcare!
> > What's good for the goose...
>
> Don't say goodbuy so soon, Mark. Since we are the ONLY western
> civilization not yet addressing national health care, it's only a
> matter of time. Isn't evolution wonderful.

Oh no! It must make Americans so worried that the French
and Germans of Olde Europe look down upon them! Lions
and tigers and bears! What if we lose the next soccer match? :-)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski

.

Quantcast