Comments on: Real Estate 101

By: Piscivorus

Piscivorus — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:42:22 +0000

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

By: Jcolinsol

Jcolinsol — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:25:33 +0000

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..

By: Piscivorus

Piscivorus — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:18:32 +0000

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.

By: Jcolinsol

Jcolinsol — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:43:54 +0000

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.

By: Piscivorus

Piscivorus — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 22:08:30 +0000

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.

By: Jcolinsol

Jcolinsol — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:51:48 +0000

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.

By: mofofosho13

mofofosho13 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:55:45 +0000

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.

By: bartok6969

bartok6969 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:35:21 +0000

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.

By: Mozes540

Mozes540 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:13:53 +0000

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.

By: bartok6969

bartok6969 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:43:36 +0000

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.