Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Fannie/Freddie bailout question

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Fannie/Freddie bailout question
  • Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:16:45 EDT

>First, let's use the facts. Real estate "values" is not useful. Real
estate sales prices are much more accurate and useful. I taught all my
real estate appraisal students that the "value" of any piece of
property is what a buyer and seller agreed upon, neither being under
any undue stress.


I too dislike the term 'value' applied to real estate. It is a term
misapplied to a lot of things. Listen to our parlance. It is the "price" of
corn and
the "value" of a dollar. The dollar has no "value", it is the corn that has
value, that and wheat, potatoes, cloth, oil etc. The value of potatoes is
constant, it never changes. If you have some, you can eat them and stay
filled
and healthy ... now, later, 100 years ago, 100 years from now. The dollar
has
no value. What, says I, would be a clearer picture would be to think of the
value of poatatoes and the price of a dollar. Sometimes a 'mess' (as we say
here in the South) of potatoes will buy a dollar and sometimes it will buy
several dollars. The value of the potatoes stays the same, but the price of
a
dollar in potatoes fluctuates.

Like that a piece of truck has a value .... how much food you can grow on it,
get fuel from it, sleep in the house on it, and have good times with your
friends and family thereupon. Like the potatoes, when you think of the real
estate in terms of dollars, it is the dollars that change in worth, not the
property, it's value always stays the same.

>
> >> Having a garden is ALWAYS a good idea.
>
> >I can think of instances where this would not be true, for instance,
> where the minimally available space might better serve for sleeping
> room or for making a living sufficient to buy clothing, etc.

If someone were so infirmed that they could not grow a garden, that would be
lamentable, but it wouldn't mean that lack of garden is a good thing.
Likewise if one had so small a space at their disposal that it was a choice
between
sleeping there or growing vegetables there, that's very bad, very much a
pity.
But finding oneself in those circumstances is the bad thing, a garden isn't.

>
> >I disagree sharply with this notion. Used prudently, debt to buy real
> property or to pay for a good education is very worthwhile.
> >


And my view would again be, but what a pity! Debt is thus viewed as a normal
course of human events, inevitable if you are ever going to have anything.
But this is a lamentable view. For example, I bought this present farmstead
when I was 36, and then built a house on it (along with road, septic, etc)
and
it never carried a mortgage. I borrowed no money. Neither did the pieces of
real estate whose sale helped buy it and build it. I bought those without
mortgages too, the first one when I was 25. It can be done if one does not
buy
into the paradigm that debt is either good or inevitable.

As far as education goes, the type of 'education' that is for sale is rapidly
fading in worth in the modern world.
</HTML>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page