Comments 1 - 40 of 77       Last »     Search these comments

1   WookieMan   2017 Oct 13, 6:39am  

"Money will be donated to charity." I call buuullllllll shit!
2   zzyzzx   2017 Oct 13, 6:43am  

WookieMan says
"Money will be donated to charity." I call buuullllllll shit!


Yeah, the Empty Wallet Fund...
They should have read the contract before they signed it.
3   WookieMan   2017 Oct 13, 7:33am  

zzyzzx says
Yeah, the Empty Wallet Fund...
They should have read the contract before they signed it.

I wouldn't waste the time reading it. I can promise it's in 99% of all contracts realtors use with buyers and sellers. It's just really petty for a broker to actually take action on it.

I supposed they could have red lined that part of the contract to avoid it. They just need to read to find the language, cause it's always there.
4   joeyjojojunior   2017 Oct 13, 7:47am  

Why didn't they just bring up something ridiculous during home inspection or the final walkthrough and say it's a deal breaker. Or screw up their financing. I would have thought they could have relatively easily gotten out of the contract legally.
5   anonymous   2017 Oct 13, 7:59am  

Wookie said
"It's just really petty for the broker to take action on it"

Agree mostly. The thing I have learned is that there are always two sides to every story, which makes me wonder "why" this broker acted this petty. By the time he is done with depositions legal fees ETC most brokers realize chasing 37K is a bad use of your time, so you move on.

That said, if the buyer backed out was a super extraordinary level of asshole, The competent broker will still go through with it because he really thinks there was a serious wrong here that needs to be remedied. And while it's hard to tell from a TV interview that couple has a certain suspect stench to them which makes me wonder about the whole thing.

It is true that the entire broke her profession is undisciplined unprofessional and frankly filled with assholes. However I have found over the years there is about 1 to 2% of them who are respectable types, and this may in fact be one of them.
6   WookieMan   2017 Oct 13, 8:10am  

anonymous says

That said, if the buyer backed out was a super extraordinary level of asshole, The competent broker will still go through with it because he really thinks there was a serious wrong here that needs to be remedied. And while it's hard to tell from a TV interview that couple has a certain suspect stench to them which makes me wonder about the whole thing.

Don't disagree with this at all. I didn't get a good vibe from them either. And as JJJ also mentions, it really is hard to lose your deposit on a residential real estate deal. So there's obviously either some stupidity on their end or they're manipulative.

I just think even if they were manipulative, a broker is kind of stupid for going after them. Unless it was legit malicious behavior, but I didn't totally get that from the brokers comments. It more or less sounded like he was upset that people wasted time. Which I get. But the time he's now going to waste going after this could have been put into selling more saps houses. In the time the lawsuit will take, he probably could have made $50-$75k by the sounds of his market.

Got to understand the value of your time. That's why I say just take your lumps and move on. The likely unintended consequence of this all for the broker is it's now a flipping news story. That doesn't help his image as I'd guess 80% of people will side with the couple on this one.
7   Dan8267   2017 Oct 13, 8:15am  

Greedy family decides to not buy house because they realize there are no fools greater than themselves. The house itself did not lose any value, it lost market price. The house is no different than it was before the prices stop rising. The family just realize they would not be able to flip it when they could no longer make the mortgage payment and they would actually have to stay in the house, which was never, ever worth the asking price.

People don't care if a house isn't worth the asking price if they think they can fuck over the next people with an even larger price. When they find out they can no longer do that, they abort the sale or less the house go into default.

The only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate. People do nothing to earn the appreciation of land. People produce no wealth from the appreciation of land. All wealth obtained by one family from land appreciation directly comes from other families. It is a zero-sum game that fucks up the economy and lowers our real economic output by preventing people from relocating and from spending their hard earned income on anything but housing. If all real estate appreciation, which is really only land appreciation, were taxed at 100%, there would be no housing crisis and less crime, and our economy would be better.
8   Goran_K   2017 Oct 13, 8:36am  

Interesting. I'm not well versed enough in contract law to know if this is truly enforceable.

I will say in 2012 I jumped out of a home because of inspection (think I posted a thread about it on PatNet). So that's the time to jump out, not when the deposit is in the escrow account and you're getting cold feet.
9   WookieMan   2017 Oct 13, 8:56am  

I just re-listened to the video to be sure. It was their own broker representing them on the purchase. That's almost unheard of for the broker representing the buyer to go after the buyer. Part of the, and I put it in quotes on purpose, "fiduciary duty" is to protect their clients interest. Make it so they can back out of a contract, so long as the seller agrees to the terms. Mortgage terms are one of the easiest and it looks like this broker didn't do that or want to do that. Most contract have a portion where it says the purchaser will get X interest rate or lower. You should always set that rate at the threshold of realistic, if not unrealistic and hope the seller & their agent misses it. Want out of the deal? Have the lender provide details and data showing the purchaser cannot obtain a loan below X interest rate that was listed on the contract.

We obviously don't know all the details of the contract. But I'd be surprised if this broker gets anything. When I first listened to it I thought they were talking about the listing agent going after his commission because the buyer did go through with it. This would be the more common scenario and even then, I'd tell him to take his lumps, relist and get another buyer for the seller. A good attorney will likely find a multitude of things the buyer's broker did wrong that prevented the buyer from backing out of the contract legally and them being able to keep the deposit. This sounds like a bad broker to me that is desperate for money and all a sudden had $37k disappear one day. He may end up being counter sued for the deposit if he's not careful.

Or the buyers could be fucks and really did fuck around.
10   Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 9:05am  

WookieMan says
zzyzzx says
Yeah, the Empty Wallet Fund...
They should have read the contract before they signed it.

I wouldn't waste the time reading it. I can promise it's in 99% of all contracts realtors use with buyers and sellers. It's just really petty for a broker to actually take action on it.

I supposed they could have red lined that part of the contract to avoid it. They just need to read to find the language, cause it's always there.


The contracts are too complex for the average home buyer. The agent should have explained this clause to them.
11   Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 9:11am  

Dan8267 says
The only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate. People do nothing to earn the appreciation of land. People produce no wealth from the appreciation of land. All wealth obtained by one family from land appreciation directly comes from other families. It is a zero-sum game that fucks up the economy and lowers our real economic output by preventing people from relocating and from spending their hard earned income on anything but housing. If all real estate appreciation, which is really only land appreciation, were taxed at 100%, there would be no housing crisis and less crime, and our economy would be better.


No one would buy property, and no one would build any property. We would end up in a permanent severe depression.
12   WookieMan   2017 Oct 13, 9:14am  

Strategist says
The agent should have explained this clause to them.

Unfortunately the contracts are generally too complex for most agents. Even "good" ones. Most of your "good" agents are just good marketers and good at networking. It really has little to do with selling a house. You can take 4 photos with your iphone, list it in the MLS and if it's priced right people will come to see it and it will sell. Any agents primary goal is closing a deal and then finding the new buyer/seller. The details in between start and finish are generally over most agents heads.
13   Dan8267   2017 Oct 13, 6:49pm  

Strategist says
No one would buy property, and no one would build any property. We would end up in a permanent severe depression.


Let's put that theory to the test. I'll bet your damn wrong.

Everyone will still want to live in a house rather than an apartment. Everyone will rather pay less to own than more to rent. Everyone will still build useful structures to sell or to do business in. There is absolutely no reason to believe you are correct.
14   Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 6:59pm  

Dan8267 says

Let's put that theory to the test. I'll bet your damn wrong.


No thanks. We aren't stupid.
15   Dan8267   2017 Oct 13, 7:08pm  

In other words, you're not man enough to have your ideas tested against the real world.
16   Strategist   2017 Oct 13, 7:36pm  

Dan8267 says
In other words, you're not man enough to have your ideas tested against the real world.


They are not my ideas. They are simply the laws of economics and common sense.
17   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 2:16am  

Strategist says
They are not my ideas. They are simply the laws of economics and common sense.


You are just making shit up. There is no law of economics that says taxing appreciation of land would destroy an economy. That's just plain silly. How can anyone respect any of your opinions when you pull shit like that out of your ass?
18   Strategist   2017 Oct 14, 9:22am  

Dan8267 says
Strategist says
They are not my ideas. They are simply the laws of economics and common sense.


You are just making shit up. There is no law of economics that says taxing appreciation of land would destroy an economy. That's just plain silly. How can anyone respect any of your opinions when you pull shit like that out of your ass?


Allow me to remind you of what you really said:

The only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate.
19   Y   2017 Oct 14, 9:40am  

b...b...but it's the only solution!!
Strategist says
Dan8267 says
The only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate
Strategist says
No one would buy property, and no one would build any property. We would end up in a permanent severe depression.
20   anonymous   2017 Oct 14, 9:51am  

Dan said...."Everyone will still build useful structures to sellor do business in"

While I think the volume of transactions would be way down, but if we could live with that, I guess this would work. Perhaps I am missing something but the one flaw I may see to your theory is if they cannot earn money from selling it, why would they build it?
21   WookieMan   2017 Oct 14, 10:27am  

Dan8267 says
There is no law of economics that says taxing appreciation of land would destroy an economy.

Agreed actually. But there are two problems.

1) There's no way your system could ever be implemented. There's zero political will or ability to do it. Maybe over time. My guess is it would take hundreds of years for it to happen in the US with tiny steps over generations. Maybe bump cap gains 5% every decade or something. You can't just implement this overnight. You'd destroy probably 90% of peoples wealth in one fell swoop. Remember, outside of government workers (pensions), very few people have savings outside their home equity. Your plan would tax that equity at 100% if they sold, and well, they'd be fucked. So while it technically could be done, you're better off trying to win the lottery.

2) Assuming properties would still appreciate, which is suspect, what other tax would you cut? This is again assuming properties continue to appreciate in the same way. That would be a massive windfall for the federal government assuming other tax policies stay. You couldn't just keep current tax policies, you'd have to cut something else to at least appease certain parts of the population. Any net tax increase will be met with resistance. And then any other place you cut, the savvy will figure out the loopholes and then that becomes the new real estate game. You're just moving the chairs around the deck. Money has to come from somewhere to support the basics of what the federal government was set up to do. And anytime the government is asking people for money, they want to find ways to get around it.

Is our system perfect? Obviously not. I personally don't think it works that bad. There are always going to be flaws in any form of government and taxation. I'm open to ideas and think most of yours are good ones. But many would only work in a pre-fabricated society where these rules are set from day one. Say you buy yourself a private island, turn it into a country and invite 100,000 of your closest friends. Otherwise this idea of 100% cap gains tax would require a revolution. And there ain't the numbers here in the US for that to happen.
22   MrMagic   2017 Oct 14, 11:15am  

Dan8267 says
The only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate.


Says the guy who doesn't OWN any property. It's nice when a Bernie Socialist wants other people's money and gains.
23   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 4:10pm  

Strategist says
Allow me to remind you of what you really said:

The only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate.


Yes, and I have not deviated on that. All real estate appreciation is appreciation of land. Buildings themselves only depreciate.

me123 says
Says the guy who doesn't OWN any property.


I own lots of property and my family owns lots of houses. I love my family. I know the idea of your family loving you is so foreign you cannot image what it's like, but my personal self-interest would be the opposite of what I proposed because my family's interests are my own. You are a dumb ass.
24   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 4:13pm  

WookieMan says
There's no way your system could ever be implemented. There's zero political will or ability to do it.


One doesn't argue in favor of change because the change isn't already popular. If you followed that philosophy, you would never argue for change ever because if a change were popular, it would have already happened.

When arguing the pros and cons of any policy, fiat is irrelevant. Argue the merits of the policy itself. Only after most people realize the policy is good try to get the votes. We are still on the first step.

There is no reason to not argue a topic and to find out whether or not a policy is good before the public is convinced to vote for it. The former must be done first.
25   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 4:34pm  

WookieMan says
You'd destroy probably 90% of peoples wealth in one fell swoop


Not a penny of wealth is destroyed by my plan. What is destroyed is the ability of one person to take wealth from another person through economic coercion. The transference of wealth nether creates nor destroys wealth. It just benefits one person by harming another.

Since the population is rising and housing is already the number one expense for Americans, increasing housing costs is a terrible, terrible thing for society as a whole. Again, my family comes out ahead. We own five house and there are only six of us, and I'm making just as much in the stock market, so I'm actually proposing what's better for society even though it's worse for me.

The ability to us your house as a retirement plan comes at the cost of enslaving the next generation.

WookieMan says
Assuming properties would still appreciate


Buildings do not appreciate. Land appreciates because the population increases.

WookieMan says
what other tax would you cut?


My tax plan would only increase taxes enough to end deficit. This is how I would tax land.

1. Call T the total spending by local government.
2. Call L the total value of privately owned land measured in dollars as accessed by the existing tax authorities.
3. Call Sx the total value of land owned by person X.
4. Let E be an easing function which we can decide on later.
5. Your taxes on your land would be t = E(Sx, L, T).

The purpose of the easing function is to tax people gradually as they accumulate more land value. A person owning $100k of land should be taxed, say, four times as much as someone owning $50k of land.

The total tax collected by government is a constant, T, the same as the total spending. People vote for less taxes by voting for less spending. All budgets are balanced by design and the government cannot accrue debt or run out of money. It is completely unnecessary to productive tax income at the local level. Using similar approaches, I can eliminate taxes on productive income from the state and federal level as well. Nothing you do that produces actual wealth would be taxed. Only consumption of scarce natural resources like land, the EM spectrum, the roads, etc. would be taxed.

The result of aligning everyone's personal financial interest in this way would be a far more productive economy and more wealth for everyone except rich parasites who are less than 0.1% of the population. There are a number of reasons for this including elimination of the waste of resources by hoarding and sub-optimal use and the elimination of zero-sum games that generate systemic inter-generational poverty and the need for mass spending on social safety nets. The very welfare the rich bitch about is only necessary because of the parasitic behavior of the rich.

WookieMan says
Any net tax increase will be met with resistance.


My plan isn't an increase in taxes when you factor that government debt is tax with interest. My reform is about how we are taxed, not how much. How is just as important. Mechanism that create conflicts of interest result in waste. Mechanism that align the self-interest of individuals with those of everyone else produce more wealth and well-being.

WookieMan says
Is our system perfect?


"Nothing is perfect" is a cop-out. No one has ever argued that a counter-plan was perfect, only that it is better than the status quo, and that is all that matters.

Self-driving cars won't be perfect, but they will be vastly better than human drivers. Hell, they already are vastly better. That means the number of fatalities will plummet when human drivers are replaced. The technology does not have to be perfect to justify its immediate deployment.

WookieMan says
Say you buy yourself a private island


America is not a private island nation. Your example does not apply.
26   anonymous   2017 Oct 14, 4:39pm  

Dan - a sincere question is asked of you at post no. 22. Regards
27   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 4:53pm  

anonymous says
Dan - a sincere question is asked of you at post no. 22. Regards


Sorry, there are so many trolls on this site, many posting anonymously, that I frequently look over anonymous posts. That was not intentional. I will now address your question.

anonymous says
Dan said...."Everyone will still build useful structures to sellor do business in"

While I think the volume of transactions would be way down, but if we could live with that, I guess this would work. Perhaps I am missing something but the one flaw I may see to your theory is if they cannot earn money from selling it, why would they build it?


You are indeed missing something important. Capital gains is, by definition, the real amount after currency depreciation of the price a good sells for above the cost basis of the previous purchase of the good. That means that new construction isn't subject to capital gains tax. It also means that if you buy a $200,000 house and add $50,000 of improvements and sell it for $260,000, then you are only taxed $10,000 on the transaction because your cost basis is $250,000.

If a house is torn down and replaced by another, then the new house is appraised by tax authorities and compared against the appraisal of the old house to calculate the cost basis of the new house. Thus tearing down a house and replacing it to recapture the appreciation of the land will not work.
28   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 4:56pm  

BlueSardine says
b...b...but it's the only solution!!


The above is an example of one of the trolls I was referring to above. The idiot ads nothing to the conversation and cannot make an intelligent, adult argument. So he childishly mocks his opponent like a toddler throwing a tantrum. This is why PatNet has so few users. If you are going to tolerate trolls, you might as well at least go to a popular site like Reddit.
29   Strategist   2017 Oct 14, 5:38pm  

Dan8267 says
My tax plan would only increase taxes enough to end deficit. This is how I would tax land.

1. Call T the total spending by local government.
2. Call L the total value of privately owned land measured in dollars as accessed by the existing tax authorities.
3. Call Sx the total value of land owned by person X.
4. Let E be an easing function which we can decide on later.
5. Your taxes on your land would be t = E(Sx, L, T).


Does anyone understand you formula?
E(Sx, L, T) = C
C = Communism.
30   Y   2017 Oct 14, 5:47pm  

FIFY, Idiot.
Gawd I love it when the pompous posters self-destruct in the same post they bloviate in...

Dan8267 says
The idiot ads ADDS nothing to the conversation
31   Y   2017 Oct 14, 5:50pm  

I typically respond in kind to the originating post as demonstrated below.
If you are ignorant enough to believe that there is only one solution to the problem then you deserve the kind of response I provided.

Dan8267 says
So he childishly mocks his opponent like a toddler throwing a tantrum.
BlueSardine says


Dan8267 says
The only solution to this problem is 100% capital gains tax on all real estate
32   Strategist   2017 Oct 14, 5:51pm  

Dan8267 says
You are indeed missing something important. Capital gains is, by definition, the real amount after currency depreciation of the price a good sells for above the cost basis of the previous purchase of the good. That means that new construction isn't subject to capital gains tax. It also means that if you buy a $200,000 house and add $50,000 of improvements and sell it for $260,000, then you are only taxed $10,000 on the transaction because your cost basis is $250,000.



Warren Buffet purchased a house somewhere in Laguna Beach for $100,000 decades ago. It was recently put up for sale for $11 million.
Based on your rules, I should be able to buy it for $100,000. It should rent for $40,000 per month. Gosh, I would be rich like hell.
I love you Dan. I'm beginning to love your idea.
33   Y   2017 Oct 14, 5:53pm  

Look, all trolling aside, if you are unable to spell "adds" correctly, you have no reason to even own a computer. This is 3rd grade shit...

BlueSardine says
Dan8267 says
The idiot ads ADDS nothing to the conversation
34   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 6:13pm  

Strategist says
Does anyone understand you formula?
E(Sx, L, T) = C
C = Communism.


That is truly retarded.

BlueSardine says
Look, all trolling aside, if you are unable to spell "adds" correctly, you have no reason to even own a computer. This is 3rd grade shit...

BlueSardine says
Dan8267 says
The idiot ads ADDS nothing to the conversation


You are also truly retarded if you can't tell the difference between the rare typo and not being able to spell adds, a word that I have used and spelled correctly many times on this site. Are you really that petty? If so, then you are also a complete fucking hypocrite as Tim Aurora pointed out.

Tim Aurora says
BlueSardine says
If this is what passes for "masters of science" these days, we might as well sell the whole fucking thing to the chinese...


Well , you again validated my point that those 31000 scientist, unless they are expert, count for nothing.

And if you are criticizing others for grammar, please make sure you are correct, "chinese" should be spelled with a capital "C"

Check. Mate.


Check and mate indeed.
35   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 6:15pm  

Strategist says
Warren Buffet purchased a house somewhere in Laguna Beach for $100,000 decades ago. It was recently put up for sale for $11 million.
Based on your rules, I should be able to buy it for $100,000. It should rent for $40,000 per month. Gosh, I would be rich like hell.
I love you Dan. I'm beginning to love your idea.


You clearly don't understand my idea, but yes, if it cost a mere $100k or less to build that house decades ago then adjusted for currency debasement it would cost even less to build that house today. So it's the land, not the house, that appreciated. Why should Buffet reek in the profits of the appreciation of land he did not create and did not make better? Land is fundamentally a public and fixed resource. Why should anyone profit at the expense of society for the appreciation of a public resource that no one has a legitimate first owner claim on?

Go on, explain that.
36   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 6:16pm  

me123 says
If you truly owned a house like you claim, you would know the building can appreciate also, not just the land.


That's bullshit, but feel free to hang yourself with that rope by explaining exactly how a building, rather than the land, appreciates.
37   Strategist   2017 Oct 14, 6:29pm  

Dan8267 says
You clearly don't understand my idea, but yes, if it cost a mere $100k or less to build that house decades ago then adjusted for currency debasement it would cost even less to build that house today. So it's the land, not the house, that appreciated. Why should Buffet reek in the profits of the appreciation of land he did not create and did not make better? Land is fundamentally a public and fixed resource. Why should anyone profit at the expense of society for the appreciation of a public resource that no one has a legitimate first owner claim on?

Go on, explain that.


Philosophically, I believe all land and natural resources belong to all the people of the world. The first piece of land sold, was stolen property, and as per law it still belongs to the original owner. Even natural resources like oil, gold, copper etc belongs to every human being on the planet, who deserve to be paid every time something is extracted from THEIR LAND. But we don't live in that kind of world. So I just go with the tide, buy residential parcels, and hope to get rich one day. I am just a selfish human being, like all normal human beings. You may call me a Capitalist Peeg.
38   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 6:36pm  

me123 says
the smartest guy (according to you) on the site.


Where did I say that? I will go on the record as stating that you are the dumbest guy on this site.

me123 says

It's probably swamp land in Florida.


Once more you are wrong and clearly jealous.
39   Dan8267   2017 Oct 14, 6:46pm  

Strategist says
The first piece of land sold, was stolen property, and as per law it still belongs to the original owner.


Yes, but just because that's the way things have been for the past ten thousand years does not mean we need to continue doing things the wrong way when there is a far better alternative that can easily be transitioned to and that would vastly improve our economic system in a many ways.

Strategist says
Even natural resources like oil, gold, copper etc belongs to every human being on the planet, who deserve to be paid every time something is extracted from THEIR LAND.


Exactly what Patrick and I have been saying for years. The wealth created by mining should be paid. The public wealth seized by mine owners who make shady deals with politicians to embezzle from the public should not be allowed. The people doing the business work like accounting, surveying, preparing documents, etc. should also be paid according to the work they create. Ownership of former public resources should not.

Strategist says
But we don't live in that kind of world.


Irrelevant. A mere 10 years ago we didn't live in a world with smartphones. A mere 20 years ago, few people had mobile phones. A mere 40 years ago, few people had computers. A mere 60 years ago, few people had televisions. A mere 80 years ago, few people had cars. A mere 100 years ago we had just invented flight.

Have you noticed a pattern? The world changes for the better. If we followed your philosophy, we would never make any progress. "We're not doing that now" is not an argument that we should not start doing that.

Strategist says
So I just go with the tide, buy residential parcels, and hope to get rich one day. I am just a selfish human being, like all normal human beings. You may call me a Capitalist Peeg.


If you are going to be greedy, at least be smart and greedy. You're line of thinking would have kept us literally in the Dark Ages where you would be a peasant. The entire reason Europe got out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance is because the peasants left alive after the Black Death had enough bargaining power over the owner class to demand higher wages. This created the economic boom that brought about every bit of wealth and opportunity you were born into.

Concentrating wealth, especially wealth obtained by zero-sum games and siphoning from other people's productivity, does not create new wealth and does not create a good economy. I really don't understand why this principle is so difficult for you to accept. You would be financially better off if everything I proposed was implemented.
40   Strategist   2017 Oct 14, 7:13pm  

Dan8267 says
Strategist says
But we don't live in that kind of world.


Irrelevant. A mere 10 years ago we didn't live in a world with smartphones. A mere 20 years ago, few people had mobile phones. A mere 40 years ago, few people had computers. A mere 60 years ago, few people had televisions. A mere 80 years ago, few people had cars. A mere 100 years ago we had just invented flight.

Have you noticed a pattern? The world changes for the better. If we followed your philosophy, we would never make any progress. "We're not doing that now" is not an argument that we should not start doing that.

For that nirvana to happen we would need to:
1. Eliminate all kings dictators and non democracies.
2. Political borders would need to fall. Countries would cease to exist.
3. A philosophical change in thinking would need to occur.
All this could easily happen within 200 years, as the rate of change on this planet is accelerating at an accelerating rate.


Dan8267 says
If you are going to be greedy, at least be smart and greedy. You're line of thinking would have kept us literally in the Dark Ages where you would be a peasant. The entire reason Europe got out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance is because the peasants left alive after the Black Death had enough bargaining power over the owner class to demand higher wages. This created the economic boom that brought about every bit of wealth and opportunity you were born into.

I believe it was the industrial revolution in England that set off a sustained economic boom.



Dan8267 says

Concentrating wealth, especially wealth obtained by zero-sum games and siphoning from other people's productivity, does not create new wealth and does not create a good economy. I really don't understand why this principle is so difficult for you to accept. You would be financially better off if everything I proposed was implemented.

This is where I completely disagree. It's a form of communism, and does not help mankind. We need more and more technology, discoveries and inventions to better our lives, and only countries that practice capitalism have been able to deliver it.
Please refer to the 3 points I made above.

You know, this would be an interesting topic to discuss, sadly I leave very earl Monday morning, and return just in time for Halloween.

Comments 1 - 40 of 77       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions