Article from Mr Jenman
- Thread starter Fester
- Start date
I hope Neil has written cheques to all his mates on the farm!
So does Mr Jenman want to change the whole underlying basis of the economy , so there are no losers and no winners.
It has been tried before but was defeated by human nature. There are always people who will want to get to the top of the heap , and there will always people who put them in unsustainable siituations.
Life goes on
see change
Do I here a Neil for PM campaign coming ??!!
It has been tried before but was defeated by human nature. There are always people who will want to get to the top of the heap , and there will always people who put them in unsustainable siituations.
Life goes on
see change
Do I here a Neil for PM campaign coming ??!!
This could be correct in some way, but it assumes incorrectly that the financial system is limited ie closed. Hypothetically imagine there is just $100 in our financial system/economy, is it really true that and all we do is to find ways to redistribute that $100 (unfairly) between ourselves? ie the top 3% control $80, the bottom 97% control the bottom $20.
I ask the question is it possible with our ideas and labor to increase the total wealth of society to $105 and keep $2 of it for ourselves. I say ABSOLUTELY!
New businesses ideas, new ways to do things cheaper and more effectively, new ways to service society all add $1 to the economy, making it bigger and better.
Lets say I develop 3 home units where one dump of a house existed...have I created something of value? Have I taken from someone something that they deserve? In fact I believe that in reality only in effect taken some minerals from the earth, some trees from a pine plation, clay from a clay pit and with the efforts of humans minds and hands created homes for people and created a $1 for myself.
What a load of nonsense.
With regard to the "Vulture Funds" (and I'm not convinced that people with the money call them that):
Firstly if someone CHOOSES to sell at a loss to people with money then that's the sellers problem.
If it is a forced sale because of inability to finance the loan, then the vendor should not have extended him self as far. If you can't afford to have the loan, then you shouldn't have it.
As for drought affected farmers, it is unfortunate, but that is one of the risks of farming. Who's to say that the new crop (pardon the pun) of buyers is going to be any better off than the current farmers.
From the farmers that I know, banks are usually pretty flexible with regard to farmers, and there is some pretty good crop insurance policy's available now to help out in regard to crop damage.
Sounds like Mr Jarman is firing from the hip.
With regard to the "Vulture Funds" (and I'm not convinced that people with the money call them that):
Firstly if someone CHOOSES to sell at a loss to people with money then that's the sellers problem.
If it is a forced sale because of inability to finance the loan, then the vendor should not have extended him self as far. If you can't afford to have the loan, then you shouldn't have it.
As for drought affected farmers, it is unfortunate, but that is one of the risks of farming. Who's to say that the new crop (pardon the pun) of buyers is going to be any better off than the current farmers.
From the farmers that I know, banks are usually pretty flexible with regard to farmers, and there is some pretty good crop insurance policy's available now to help out in regard to crop damage.
Sounds like Mr Jarman is firing from the hip.
I like it that Jenman rails against people who buy drought-affected properties. Does he prefer to see the farmers go bankrupt and the bank take their property and fire sale it?
True the owners won't get as much as they would in a boom harvest year....but they could have sold then and this way they do get to keep their dignity plus get some cash.
On SC's point - some people CHOOSE to be losers, some CHOOSE to be winners. There is very little you cannot overcome if you CHOOSE the right attitude and follow-through.
of course, a society that doesn't make people aware that they can & should make this choice, supports and encourages loserism and punishes success really shouldn't expect a lot of people to get back up when they are down......
Thankfully Australia isn't this type of place yet, though it certainly has elements of the mindset
Cheers,
Aceyducey
I might be the last person expected to defend Neil Jenman but I think he may have a point here based on my interpretation of what I read. There is many mums and dads being "screwed over" by Investment companies offering free holidays, you can buy this at no/ little cost and flying people all over the countryside to do it.
These marketing groups have been exposed recently and have severely hurt many unsuspecting investors.
The new Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act (PAMD) in Qld was restructured to deal with the problems we had and still have with these marketeers.
Through the help of this forum anyone lacking experience here is able to find a lot of information to help them make informed decisions, but this isn't the case for many others. They are sucked in by telemarketers and a lot of false promises by these marketeering groups.
Again however, this article appears to have grouped everyone together, and it seems to suggest all investors are going to be losers and everyone must suffer.
Why does every message have to have such negativity about it whenever it comes from this source?
Does this continual message of negativity say anything of the mindset of those who produce it?
Kev
www.nundahrealestate.com.au
These marketing groups have been exposed recently and have severely hurt many unsuspecting investors.
The new Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act (PAMD) in Qld was restructured to deal with the problems we had and still have with these marketeers.
Through the help of this forum anyone lacking experience here is able to find a lot of information to help them make informed decisions, but this isn't the case for many others. They are sucked in by telemarketers and a lot of false promises by these marketeering groups.
Again however, this article appears to have grouped everyone together, and it seems to suggest all investors are going to be losers and everyone must suffer.
Why does every message have to have such negativity about it whenever it comes from this source?
Does this continual message of negativity say anything of the mindset of those who produce it?
Kev
www.nundahrealestate.com.au
