Search results

Steve Keen predicted a 40% drop in the housing market, 10 to 15% unemployment and 0% interest rates. When his predictions failed to materialise, he blamed the government interventions (FHOG boost etc), and said he would have been right if the government didn't intervene. In other words, he...

No you haven't. According to your tolerance of risk and future forecasts, which are subjective, you believe your money is better off in a TD. Fine, that's your opinion. I'm not here to convince you otherwise. I just think most of the risks can be mitigated through insurance and research...

OK, for the fourth time, I haven't misrepresented your position. You saying I am making a straw man argument, is itself a straw man argument. Thanks. I would argue that most risks are low, and some are not worth bothering about. Insurance and research can mitigate a lot of the risk. But as...

I suggest you go back and have a look at some of the things you wrote earlier in the thread. And for the third time, it's not a straw man argument, it's in response to your posts. You are arguing both sides of the street again, just like you were yesterday. Go back and read some of the posts...

It's not a straw man argument at all. You are saying that the entire value of the property is at risk, when in reality, the chances of a property getting to zero are so small it is not worth worrying about. But it's above zero though, so don't invest. If you took that strategy to your...

Time to start building a bunker....

I said that the likelyhood of a property investment having zero value is so small it's not worth worrying about. It's such an unlikely scenario, that you can't give one example of a possible situation where this would happen. There is a product, hardly exotic, called building insurance. If...

Insurance is also risk mitigation. OK, seeing as you're a little slow with the example Bill is after (and it's not trivial, it's central to your thesis), please give a hypothetical example where one might lose 100% of the property value where they only have 20% at risk. Let's assume that the...

Even if some event destroyed the property, THE LAND WOULD STILL BE THERE! Unless we had some sort of even where the core of the earth opened up and sucked away the land as well. But I think the chances of that happening are pretty remote.

I agree, a group of 'yes men' is no good to anyone. Bu a 'no man' who hypothesises on obscure 'what ifs' as if they are fact, and doesn't understand what median means is not much good to anyone, either.