Also, what question … Also, what question are you talking about? My original comment had no question. It had a statement, that is, he sounds hypocritical when he says go Stock (which appreciates solely from appreciation, then flames Real Estate for being speculation because it’s counting on appreciation.
Where in the world … Where in the world did I even mention investment real estate within my first few posts? All I was doing was comparing the properties of real estate (which affect both private and investment) and stocks. Then someone started talking about investment housing and dividend paying stock so I responded to him about that. Then you start talking about private housing something completely different. Once again what is your argument and what are you trying to prove?
You need to watch … You need to watch the video again and reread what I wrote. The questions arose from personal residential housing, not real estate in general. This is precisely what I was referring to as well as Peter, since many Americans have lost their homes due to the illusion of it as being a wise investment. That’s it.
Let me get this … Let me get this straight. You were referring to the whole of real estate as a money sucker. You did not specify that it was just ones own home, however, when I refute your regular argument you go back and say you’re just talking about owner resided homes? I never said when I was speaking of wealthy people making money off the houses they live in (although I’m sure they usually do make a profit). I was speaking of real estate in general. Also, what is your point, there doesn’t seem to be one.
Hopefully you’re … Hopefully you’re joking. Wealthy people make money from buying houses they live in? Personal residence and real estate investments are not the same thing, as Peter Schiff explains. My friend did look at his condo as an investment and that’s the problem because Americans over built based on a phony economy.
LOL. Do you … LOL. Do you understand no investment is full proof? Even bonds carry risk. Investments never have a 100% chance of being profitable. If you want to bring out examples of houses causing people to lose money, fine. I can call out about 200x other examples of houses gaining money. Almost all of the wealthy in this country have made their wealth from real estate. Maybe it’s because your friend did not look at his house as an investment and chose badly.
If you buy a house … If you buy a house and lose your job, where is the investment? How about foreclosure? A friend of mine lost his job, but was offered a job in another state, and he’s now paying on 2 houses. After being on the market for over a year, he’s trying to rent it out, but still no luck(a condo in a great location). So it doesn’t bring in money, it sucks out money.
No! It’s better to … No! It’s better to have extra money in your pocket immediately for real investment. His example was perfect, $7,500/month to rent vs. 2.5 million, which would take over 30 years to pay off with interest. If you can afford 2.5 million upfront, great, but it’s still better to put that 2.5 million into a low risk fund which yields dividends, something a house won’t do.
Yes that was my … Yes that was my point. The term “free-market” is a fallacy, there is really no such thing, it’s just people in the absence of coercion.
My point being that, in the absence of a formalized system, people will develop varied modes of organization. Socialism and Capitalism will exist simultaneously, and in varying levels.
lol – you make … lol – you make great points. I used to think the same way. I totally agree that governments are no more trustworthy than businesses. But, as Ron Paul told Larry King, the solution to corporatism is the free market. Only in a free market can you re-allocate ‘your’ (ownership) resources (labor and capital) away from fraud, waste and abuse, and towards the public good. I understand perfectly well that our rights are not endowed to us by any creator but by mutual consent- i.e. democracy.
If the problem is … If the problem is that PEOPLE are selfish and dishonest, how does it solve the problem to institute a system where PEOPLE have power over other people? The whole notion of the state is a fallacy. The solution to dishonesty is voluntarism, being able to re-allocate your own resources away from the dishonest, and towards the virtuous, at will.
You don’t understand the nature of property rights, they don’t exist, they are defined subjectively, so of course you can share ownership if you agree to.
The socialist ideal … The socialist ideal assumes that everyone will be completely honest and unselfish. But people are inherently dishonest and selfish. You need laws and police to keep people in line. That requires government. All societies require government. The absence of government is anarchy. Free market societies at least recognize that it’s good to own things. But there is no such thing as sharing ownership. You either own something or not. You can’t share something unless you own it.
No, nothing about … No, nothing about Socialism inherently demands the existence of the state, it’s just a non-hierarchical form of organization based on all participants sharing ownership of their own labor. Do you think it’s wrong for people to agree to share ownership? Do you think that businesses should be run as plutocracies? It’s asinine.
In the absence of the state there will be varying shades of Capitalism and Socialism, because society itself is populated by people who think that way..
Everything is a … Everything is a mental construct, that doesn’t invalidate anything. Yes, capitalism and socialism are ideals (i.e. “conceptions of things in their perfection”) and perfection is unobtainable but, capitalism is a superior ideal because, in the absence of coercion by the state, people will ultimately seek to profit from their labor and capital. That’s not the opposite or absence of capitalism, it IS capitalism.
No, both capitalism … No, both capitalism and socialism are simply intellectual constructs used to define non-existent ideals. The reality is, and will always be, much more complex than our models of how reality should work.
In the absence of a state extortion racket, human beings will arrange their labor and resources independent of these meaningless ideologies, according to necessity balanced against individual value judgments. Both Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, and other social orders will simply co-exist.
Peter: What about … Peter: What about when the house is paid off? Then you’re no longer paying rent – extra money in your pocket every month. Can’t that be considered an investment? An annuity is a large sum up front in exchange for smaller periodic payments going forward. Isn’t home ownership basically the same thing – a large sum up front in exchange for NOT making small periodic payments going forward? (assuming you stay put once the home is paid off; also depends on the actual principal, interest, etc). Thx
God bless you! I’m … God bless you! I’m recently married and young and as one of the newer generation with some common sense in me… I could never wrap my head around a house being an investment when everyone explained it to me. Everytime I consider it the word “lunacy” comes to my mind. And as for the American dream… you took the words right out of my mouth. Home ownership is a lie, the American Dream was about potential as an individual!
I think that Peters … I think that Peters logic is pure sense, house flippers try to paint a reality construct to justify their speculation as investing at their childrens and grand children’s expense!
Go to shelter Flippers, pip and dot with your 17 and 20 house real estate portfolios deserve what they get
No it’s not the … No it’s not the same thing. Dividend paying stocks barely count for inflation and you have almost no power on the appreciation or interest of the stock. On the other hand rent can be raised or lowered based on what you do with the house. In other words you have more power in raising your returns with rent other than with dividend paying stocks.
I’m not a socialist … I’m not a socialist, I’m a free market libertarian. The way I see it, capitalism is not a market system, it’s a natural human behavior. Socialism is a market system which oppresses and discourages capitalism. It’s the opposite of the free market system which impresses and encourages capitalism. Neither system is perfect but the free market system is by far superior. Unfortunately we’ve never had a free market. That must be why everything costs 10x more than it should.
wood is cheap ..its … wood is cheap ..its the dollar that sucks ..
i like that your tring to understand whats wrong with the US ..but the train of thaught your on will only lead to blameing lumber jacks of being greedy ..when in fact all it is,is the dollar ..lumber companys have to have more dollars to pay the same taxes ..thusly they have to charge more ..or go under ..our dollar sucks ..so our government tries to make up losses by cutting programs and taxing more and borrowing ..instead of fixing this Dollar!
Not to be rude, but … Not to be rude, but maybe you should look up the definition of the word “slave”. The way you use it sounds like socialist talk to me. But I could be mistaken.
And your wrong about prices. My brother in law remodeled our kitchen, and that alone cost $6000, with free labor. Wood isn’t cheap. Neither are power tools, electrical equipment, plumbing, foundations, etc.
But if you’re right, then go borrow 100k and build your mansion, then sell it for a million and get rich. Best of luck.
Peter Schiff video blog Oct 27th 2009 Also check me out on
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Also, what question …
Also, what question are you talking about? My original comment had no question. It had a statement, that is, he sounds hypocritical when he says go Stock (which appreciates solely from appreciation, then flames Real Estate for being speculation because it’s counting on appreciation.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Where in the world …
Where in the world did I even mention investment real estate within my first few posts? All I was doing was comparing the properties of real estate (which affect both private and investment) and stocks. Then someone started talking about investment housing and dividend paying stock so I responded to him about that. Then you start talking about private housing something completely different. Once again what is your argument and what are you trying to prove?
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
You need to watch …
You need to watch the video again and reread what I wrote. The questions arose from personal residential housing, not real estate in general. This is precisely what I was referring to as well as Peter, since many Americans have lost their homes due to the illusion of it as being a wise investment. That’s it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Let me get this …
Let me get this straight. You were referring to the whole of real estate as a money sucker. You did not specify that it was just ones own home, however, when I refute your regular argument you go back and say you’re just talking about owner resided homes? I never said when I was speaking of wealthy people making money off the houses they live in (although I’m sure they usually do make a profit). I was speaking of real estate in general. Also, what is your point, there doesn’t seem to be one.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Hopefully you’re …
Hopefully you’re joking. Wealthy people make money from buying houses they live in? Personal residence and real estate investments are not the same thing, as Peter Schiff explains. My friend did look at his condo as an investment and that’s the problem because Americans over built based on a phony economy.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
LOL. Do you …
LOL. Do you understand no investment is full proof? Even bonds carry risk. Investments never have a 100% chance of being profitable. If you want to bring out examples of houses causing people to lose money, fine. I can call out about 200x other examples of houses gaining money. Almost all of the wealthy in this country have made their wealth from real estate. Maybe it’s because your friend did not look at his house as an investment and chose badly.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
If you buy a house …
If you buy a house and lose your job, where is the investment? How about foreclosure? A friend of mine lost his job, but was offered a job in another state, and he’s now paying on 2 houses. After being on the market for over a year, he’s trying to rent it out, but still no luck(a condo in a great location). So it doesn’t bring in money, it sucks out money.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
No! It’s better to …
No! It’s better to have extra money in your pocket immediately for real investment. His example was perfect, $7,500/month to rent vs. 2.5 million, which would take over 30 years to pay off with interest. If you can afford 2.5 million upfront, great, but it’s still better to put that 2.5 million into a low risk fund which yields dividends, something a house won’t do.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Yes that was my …
Yes that was my point. The term “free-market” is a fallacy, there is really no such thing, it’s just people in the absence of coercion.
My point being that, in the absence of a formalized system, people will develop varied modes of organization. Socialism and Capitalism will exist simultaneously, and in varying levels.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
lol – you make …
lol – you make great points. I used to think the same way. I totally agree that governments are no more trustworthy than businesses. But, as Ron Paul told Larry King, the solution to corporatism is the free market. Only in a free market can you re-allocate ‘your’ (ownership) resources (labor and capital) away from fraud, waste and abuse, and towards the public good. I understand perfectly well that our rights are not endowed to us by any creator but by mutual consent- i.e. democracy.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
If the problem is …
If the problem is that PEOPLE are selfish and dishonest, how does it solve the problem to institute a system where PEOPLE have power over other people? The whole notion of the state is a fallacy. The solution to dishonesty is voluntarism, being able to re-allocate your own resources away from the dishonest, and towards the virtuous, at will.
You don’t understand the nature of property rights, they don’t exist, they are defined subjectively, so of course you can share ownership if you agree to.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
The socialist ideal …
The socialist ideal assumes that everyone will be completely honest and unselfish. But people are inherently dishonest and selfish. You need laws and police to keep people in line. That requires government. All societies require government. The absence of government is anarchy. Free market societies at least recognize that it’s good to own things. But there is no such thing as sharing ownership. You either own something or not. You can’t share something unless you own it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
No, nothing about …
No, nothing about Socialism inherently demands the existence of the state, it’s just a non-hierarchical form of organization based on all participants sharing ownership of their own labor. Do you think it’s wrong for people to agree to share ownership? Do you think that businesses should be run as plutocracies? It’s asinine.
In the absence of the state there will be varying shades of Capitalism and Socialism, because society itself is populated by people who think that way..
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Everything is a …
Everything is a mental construct, that doesn’t invalidate anything. Yes, capitalism and socialism are ideals (i.e. “conceptions of things in their perfection”) and perfection is unobtainable but, capitalism is a superior ideal because, in the absence of coercion by the state, people will ultimately seek to profit from their labor and capital. That’s not the opposite or absence of capitalism, it IS capitalism.
watch?v=yAa6dYBwy7M
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
No, both capitalism …
No, both capitalism and socialism are simply intellectual constructs used to define non-existent ideals. The reality is, and will always be, much more complex than our models of how reality should work.
In the absence of a state extortion racket, human beings will arrange their labor and resources independent of these meaningless ideologies, according to necessity balanced against individual value judgments. Both Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, and other social orders will simply co-exist.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Peter: What about …
Peter: What about when the house is paid off? Then you’re no longer paying rent – extra money in your pocket every month. Can’t that be considered an investment? An annuity is a large sum up front in exchange for smaller periodic payments going forward. Isn’t home ownership basically the same thing – a large sum up front in exchange for NOT making small periodic payments going forward? (assuming you stay put once the home is paid off; also depends on the actual principal, interest, etc). Thx
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
God bless you! I’m …
God bless you! I’m recently married and young and as one of the newer generation with some common sense in me… I could never wrap my head around a house being an investment when everyone explained it to me. Everytime I consider it the word “lunacy” comes to my mind. And as for the American dream… you took the words right out of my mouth. Home ownership is a lie, the American Dream was about potential as an individual!
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
In two years you …
In two years you won’t reconize america – lindsey williams.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I think that Peters …
I think that Peters logic is pure sense, house flippers try to paint a reality construct to justify their speculation as investing at their childrens and grand children’s expense!
Go to shelter Flippers, pip and dot with your 17 and 20 house real estate portfolios deserve what they get
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Look up, Bill Hicks …
Look up, Bill Hicks on JFK here on youtube!
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Please post more …
Please post more videos like this one Mr. Schiff.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
No it’s not the …
No it’s not the same thing. Dividend paying stocks barely count for inflation and you have almost no power on the appreciation or interest of the stock. On the other hand rent can be raised or lowered based on what you do with the house. In other words you have more power in raising your returns with rent other than with dividend paying stocks.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I’m not a socialist …
I’m not a socialist, I’m a free market libertarian. The way I see it, capitalism is not a market system, it’s a natural human behavior. Socialism is a market system which oppresses and discourages capitalism. It’s the opposite of the free market system which impresses and encourages capitalism. Neither system is perfect but the free market system is by far superior. Unfortunately we’ve never had a free market. That must be why everything costs 10x more than it should.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
wood is cheap ..its …
wood is cheap ..its the dollar that sucks ..
i like that your tring to understand whats wrong with the US ..but the train of thaught your on will only lead to blameing lumber jacks of being greedy ..when in fact all it is,is the dollar ..lumber companys have to have more dollars to pay the same taxes ..thusly they have to charge more ..or go under ..our dollar sucks ..so our government tries to make up losses by cutting programs and taxing more and borrowing ..instead of fixing this Dollar!
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Not to be rude, but …
Not to be rude, but maybe you should look up the definition of the word “slave”. The way you use it sounds like socialist talk to me. But I could be mistaken.
And your wrong about prices. My brother in law remodeled our kitchen, and that alone cost $6000, with free labor. Wood isn’t cheap. Neither are power tools, electrical equipment, plumbing, foundations, etc.
But if you’re right, then go borrow 100k and build your mansion, then sell it for a million and get rich. Best of luck.