Superman Comic Saves Family Home From Foreclosure

A couple's home was saved from foreclosure after they found a copy of Action Comics #1 in a box in the basement. From the article: "In a statement released through ComicConnect, the owner of the prized comic book said the family was still 'a little shell shocked' after the unexpected find. 'I was so nervous when I realized what it was worth,' the owner said. 'I know I am very fortunate but I will be greatly relieved when this book finds a new home.'"

Comments

Obligatory

[Pojut]

"I don't think it's for usin'...I think it's just for lookin' through." -Cartman

Worth

[gatzby3jr]

From the article:

It could fetch upwards of $250,000

Re:Worth

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally! Thank you! I _never_ read TFA's, so here I sat, furiously reloading this page & quickly skimming it whilst screaming "what's it worth?! what's it fscking worth?! ARRRRRRRRG!" But everything is ok now

Re:Worth

[liquiddark]

You seem to be using sarcasm there. You must be new here.

Re:Worth

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, like I would totally use sarcasm.

Re:Worth

[SpongeBob Hitler]

Oh, like I would totally use sarcasm.

Oh yeah, like we really care if you use sarcasm!

Re:Worth

[Kilrah_il]

Well, at least the home owner RTFA! That's how he knew how much it's worth and thus was able to be nervous.
"You see kids? This is why you should always read the articles!!!"

Re:Worth

[azalin]

RTFA? You must be new here...

The sad truth is that a vast number of slashdot users will go to great lengths to defend a point that would be invalidated the second they clicked on the link and maybe (I know, I'm asking a lot here...) read more then the headline. *sigh*

Faster than a speeding

[Jarkov]

Now where was Superman when all my stocks nosedived?

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully he was nowhere...

A roof over one's head is a necessity but stocks are tantamount to gambling by people who are just far too greedy in the first place...

Re:Faster than a speeding

[maxwell demon]

At the stock exchange, selling his stock.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully he was nowhere...

A roof over one's head is a necessity but stocks are tantamount to gambling by people who are just far too greedy in the first place...

Not this bs again...

Go read "Security Analysis", "The Ascent of Money" and "The Intelligent Investor". The only people who think like you are those who little or no understanding of economics and it's history.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[alphax45]

Wouldn't it be better to BUY when they are low?

Re:Faster than a speeding

[LordKronos]

stocks are tantamount to gambling by people who are just far too greedy in the first place

WTF? Excuse me for wanting to have a decent retirement and not having to work until my dying day or depend on social security to keep food on the table. The stock market is integral to the retirement plans of almost everyone who is not putting all their hope into social security (or is independently wealthy). Whether your retirement is coming from a 401k, IRA. pension, etc, chances are you are highly invested in the stock market for retirement.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[mcvos]

Note that the home in question had been in the family for 50 years. How is it possibly it still had a mortgage after all that time? Apparently the family had taken a mortgage to start a new business that failed, effectively gambling away their home. (It was a second mortgage even. TFA doesn't say why they still had a first mortgage.)

Re:Faster than a speeding

[WrongSizeGlass]

A roof over one's head is a necessity but stocks are tantamount to gambling by people who are just far too greedy in the first place...

Hey, if no one invested in Apple how would I ever get the opportunity to give them all my money for their shiny new stuff? Huh? Do you think that was just gonna happen with magic?

Re:Faster than a speeding

[maxwell demon]

It's better to buy after they nosedived, instead of when they do.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Surt]

stocks are tantamount to gambling by people who are just far too greedy in the first place

WTF? Excuse me for wanting to have a decent retirement and not having to work until my dying day or depend on social security to keep food on the table. The stock market is integral to the retirement plans of almost everyone who is not putting all their hope into social security (or is independently wealthy). Whether your retirement is coming from a 401k, IRA. pension, etc, chances are you are highly invested in the stock market for retirement.

But that's a proven risky retirement plan. It's a huge gamble to make with your quality of life during the years when you will have the greatest need to be comfortable.
Retirement money in the stock market is just crazy. You should invest in assets with more guaranteed returns.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Anonymous Coward]

Having your retirement accounts dependent on the performance of the stock market is incredibly scary. I would much rather have my money in accounts that are safer: Savings accounts and Certificates of Deposit. Sure the banks are playing the stock market as well, but at least some of the interest that accrues comes from the interest they earn on the loans they issue (the money from which comes from the deposit accounts at the bank)

Of course, I don't have any of this, since the economy has me living paycheck to paycheck, but the only debt I have is two car loans.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Anonymous Coward]

You should invest in assets with more guaranteed returns. Say... how about Real Estate? I see how well that worked out.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Surt]

Real estate was and is a great investment, even at the top of the bubble. If you bought a house (outright, for investment, not financed), even at the peak of the market, you can rent it out right now, and have a nice and steady income stream. Demand for rentals is THROUGH THE ROOF right now due to the downturn.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[patiodragon]

"Demand for rentals is THROUGH THE ROOF right now..."

in some places this is true. In other places, like the Detroit area, they are thinking of turning city space into fields and meadows. Kinda overly simplistic, dontcha think?

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Surt]

Yeah but detroit has been in decline for far longer than the housing bubble. If you thought detroit was a good investment market, you probably got what you deserved.

And OTOH, if you bought up a lot of cheap stuff in detroit, you may be in for a big win with ford/gm/chevrolet surging.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[babyrat]

Demand for rentals is THROUGH THE ROOF right now due to the downturn

Not it's not - in most places anyways. There was just a thing on npr about this - lots of people are moving back with parents or renting a room in a house, as opposed to getting their own apartment. There is a rental glut due to inmvestors buying houses cheap and renting them out.

I have a rental and am not looking forward to finding new renters when my current renters leave in a few months.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[JWSmythe]

That's just a bit scary that people still run around believing that gambling is the solution to their hardships.

    "Investing" is gambling on other people's pyramid schemes. They have little reflection on real world performance of a company. The best illustration of this is the "pump and dump" scams.

    I watched people think they were so well off because of their investments. As you say, look at history. How many times have large numbers of people come out of their investments with a small fraction of what they put in?

    If, rather than gambling, they put the money "under their mattress", while all the gamblers (err, investors) are crying about their losses, the smart person still has every penny that they saved.

    Sure, it comes out better sometimes. Sometimes people win in Vegas too. Once every week or so, someone wins big on your states lottery (assuming your state has one). There are always winners and losers. Otherwise, you're not dealing with real currency. Casinos, the lottery, and the stock market are designed for the house to win. If you feel lucky and have money to lose, good for you. For the rest of us, it's better to actually save what we earn.

    It doesn't matter what books or articles are written on the subject. If I were a successful stock trader, I would obviously write about the wonders of investing, and encourage as many people as I could to invest too. That way I could win. Who cares who else loses, right? It's easy to take money from faceless people. If you do well, fine. Robbing houses when people aren't home is ok too, as long as you don't have to face them, and see them cry when they find out that you've just taken everything they ever saved.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[CeruleanDragon]

"Been in the family" doesn't mean owned by the same person. Son could've bought it from dad. No matter how much you love your kids, I'm sure there's some pause before you decide to simply give them a $300K house that you spent the last 20-30yrs paying off. (I didn't read TFA, so maybe that's not the case, but it's a reasonable possibility, I think).

Re:Faster than a speeding

[JWSmythe]

I think what you're failing to see is that your "retirement investments" are a gamble. You may have invested $10,000 per year for 20 years (total investment: $200,000). If you had put your money in a safe and not touched it, you would have exactly that amount. By putting it in a retirement fund, it is being gambled with every day. You may have $1,000,000, or you may have $1.

    I was recently reviewing someone's 401k. They were laid off about a year ago, and that 401k is all they have left. They have about $40,000 invested into it. Not too long ago, it was worth $115,000. Today, it's worth about $30,000, and still dropping daily. When they cash out, they'll come out with something in the ballpark of $25,000.

    They will be cashing out soon, haven't found a job and it doesn't look hopeful to happen before their other savings have been completely depleted,

    I'm sure plenty of people will argue with me, but taking a $40,000 investment and only getting $25,000 is not a a good plan. For those who do, I'll be more than happy to start up a retirement fund for you. I'll take your money, and give you 65% of it back when you need it most. Sounds stupid when it's put into those terms, doesn't it? That's because it was, no matter how it was decorated for you when you bought into it.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[mhajicek]

The stock market is integral to the retirement plans of almost everyone...

Just goes to show, most people are gullible. How many of those people would have been better off investing in their mattress?

Re:Faster than a speeding

[mcvos]

I'm assuming that after 50 years, kids or grandkids would have inherited the house.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[stonewallred]

You must be not bright. I use a proven and successful strategy for my retirement funds. I watch the talking heads, do huge amounts of research and investigate everything a company does. Then I take my money and buy lottery tickets. That way I will have a well funded portfolio when I retire.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[SpongeBob Hitler]

Just goes to show, most people are gullible. How many of those people would have been better off investing in their mattress?

Yes, prostitution does pretty much have a guaranteed rate of return, but then you have to worry about all those nasty diseases you could catch. Or, where you talking about something else related to mattresses?

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Anonymous Coward]

And thus would owe about 60% of it's value to the IRS for the death tax.

Heck, the first mortgage mentioned by mcvos was probably take out to pay the taxes since very few people happen to have $200k laying around in a liquid form to pay the tax that would be due in the quarter when the inheritance was legally finalized..

Re:Faster than a speeding

[nomorecwrd]

I beg to differ... a tiny little piece of information:

On crisis like this, the smart move is to buy while the stocks are down and NOT SELL anything.
I have some stocks, that where losing 25%, but actually you don't lose any money until you sell below the buying price.

Today, my stocks are doing very well, doing 10% over the buying price.
Gambling?, not so much. Strategy?, yes, all the time.

On the other hand, there is no "house" here to take the money you lose. Prices, ups and downs, are set depending on someone selling and another one buying. So someones lose is others win. Suppose I have an item to sell at $100, I could agree to sell it at $80, so now the price of the item is $80 or I can wait until the opportunity arrives to sell it to someone offering $120. (yes, depending on the item, that time may never come, but if you choose your investments right, this is granted).

At least this is the reality of the minor investors like me, that put PART of savings in stocks, and part on fixed rate like savings account. (mattress is always a no-no, Do you know something called "inflation").

Also, stocks receive once or twice a year some extra money (the shares) if the company is actually making money.

Just my 2 pesos.

Sorry if I'm not versed in trade and stock lingo, as Spanish is my mother tongue.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Golddess]

Until I read your reply, I thought GP said socks.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[LordKronos]

But that's a proven risky retirement plan. It's a huge gamble to make with your quality of life during the years when you will have the greatest need to be comfortable.
Retirement money in the stock market is just crazy. You should invest in assets with more guaranteed returns.

You have it totally wrong. Retirement money in the stock market is not crazy. In fact, the entire history of the stock market proves that wrong. Over a span of 30 or more years, you always do pretty good. There are only a few times in history when you could have invested and over the course of the following 30 years done poorly overall. Yes, you are susceptible to everything tanking at the very end, but that's why any sensible investment strategy advocates gradually moving out of stocks and into safer investments as you get closer to your retirement date.

And as far as "huge gamble to make with your quality of life", it's not really a gamble. With the type of interest rates you get on safe investments, there's no gamble because you are ensuring up front you will have little money to retire on. The power of compounding in great, but only really amazing when you have a great rate of return, and you really only get that in non-safe investments.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[LordKronos]

I would much rather have my money in accounts that are safer: Savings accounts and Certificates of Deposit.

LOL. The people who build their retirement on CoDs are the ones who need social security to pay their retirement. You are talking about the difference between a $50K/year vs $10K/year when you compare stocks vs CoDs. CoDs don't earn you enough to make a solid retirement fund unless you make a lot of money or can set aside a very sizable portion of your income.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[LordKronos]

Yes, I will definitely argue with you. You are talking about a retirement fund they isn't going to be used as a retirement fund. They are going to cash it out at the low point, YEARS before their actual retirement. The proper approach is to keep investing the same (or more) money at the low points. The market, as a whole, will inevitably go up. It may take a few years but it will happen. When it does, all those purchases in the low years will really help your fund grow much more.

The trick to properly managing a retirement account is 1) making sure your portfolio is diversified enough that you can't be wiped out by a few bad picks, and 2) shifting more and more of your investments to less risky options as you get closer to retirement.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[LordKronos]

You must be not bright. I use a proven and successful strategy for my retirement funds. I watch the talking heads, do huge amounts of research and investigate everything a company does. Then I take my money and buy lottery tickets. That way I will have a well funded portfolio when I retire.

Nice use of sarcasm there. But to be serious, if you don't have the time/interest/inclination/whatever to do the sort of research to which you refer to, there is a much simpler fix. Either let
the experts do it for you by buying mutual funds from a highly regarded firm like Fidelity, or invest in index funds. As you get closer to retirement, you shift more of your funds from riskier stocks to safer investments (bonds, CDs, etc).

Many firms even have target-year funds that will do this for you. You pick there year you plan to retire and they will manage the portfolio, shifting from riskier investments early on for maximizing growth, and then gradually shifting more and more money to safer investments (with lower rates of return) as you approach your target year.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[JWSmythe]

    It all depends on your view of retirement. It could be argued that at the age of 65, you will retire. You can plan for your 65th birthday to be your retirement date, and then take the funds out at that time. As you said, you should shift your funds to "less risky" options. That in itself says it's without risk.

    These days, we don't get the luxury of deciding that we are retiring at 65. Sometimes we get a few months notice when they cut you loose for early retirement. These days, you are lucky to have two weeks notice, and it's rarely at retirement age. You'll find your department is closing, your job is being outsourced, or any of hundreds of kind ways they can say "you no longer have work." About half the people I've known to be cut loose in the last couple years have only had the luxury of being called in to talk to the boss, followed by a less than friendly escort to the door, and a company wide email saying "To all staff, Kronos does not work here any more. He is not allowed access to any company resources, and staff are not permitted to have contact with him." Regardless of how insensitive that sounds, I've read that email more times than I care to.

    So, when are you going to retire? I guarantee it won't be on your schedule. If your schedule and the stock market don't coincide, then you are SOL. If you retired in the last couple years, did you really have a choice of when to dip into the retirement fund? I guess if you were making mad money, and had a bunch of money in the bank, then you're ok. For the rest of the world, you take what's in the retirement funds and cry about it until it's gone.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[LordKronos]

So, when are you going to retire? I guarantee it won't be on your schedule. If your schedule and the stock market don't coincide, then you are SOL. If you retired in the last couple years, did you really have a choice of when to dip into the retirement fund? I guess if you were making mad money, and had a bunch of money in the bank, then you're ok. For the rest of the world, you take what's in the retirement funds and cry about it until it's gone.

First, if you get cut loose from your job unexpectedly, that isn't your cue to retire early. A retirement fund is a retirement fund, and you don't touch it until then. You need a secondary fund...the good old emergency fund takes care of this. The idea is that you should have a MINIMUM of 6 months of expenses covered, and you should work towards 12 months. That means if you lose your job, you can pay your mortgage, utilities, taxes, groceries, etc for 6-12 months even if you have no other income. If you get unemployment, that will help you extend your fund out longer. The advantages of an emergency fund are that 1) you aren't dependent on timing your emergency to when the market is good, and 2) you don't pay the 10% penalty that the IRS will assess on your for cashing out your 401K early.

See how the concept works? Money you might need in the near future gets put into safe investments in your emergency fund. Money you won't need for years goes into your retirement account some percentage of that gets invested in the stock market, the percentage dependent upon how close you are to retirement.

Now I know you'd like to say that it's difficult to save up such a fund, but we are talking about personal responsibility here. If you've been working long enough to build up any decently sizable retirement fund, you should have been able to do the same with your emergency fund. If you live responsibly there should not be a problem. That means not buying a home so close to your income limits that you have no money to save for emergency and retirement. And it means when you lose your job and have no other income (or just unemployment), you recognize that you are actually in an emergency and LIVE LIKE IT. Don't use your "emergency fund" to go out to dinner regularly at restaurants and stuff like that.

You don't need to be making "mad money" to make all of this happen. Our family makes less than the national median income. Despite that, our 30 year mortgage is just a few years from being paid off in 15 years. We were able to do that because we decided to buy a home that was significantly less than our finances would have allowed, and we never used it as an ATM. We've been able to save up a good retirement fund and enough cash to cover a year of expenses. We've been able to let my wife quit work (meaning were now even further under the median income), have a baby, and continue putting my wife through college without grants or loans. We even managed to buy a new vehicle every 5 years. At one point, I even lost my job, had 3 months of no employment and 6 months of part time employment. We did alright through that because our mortgage payment was less than my unemployment checks so we only had to use our fund for bills and living expenses.

I'm not trying to brag about how good we are at saving or anything...just showing that what you claim requires "mad money" can actually be done at less than the median income, and we didn't even have to live like we were poor to do it.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Deefburger]

He was counting the future holdings of properties after foreclosure. Tank the stock market, foreclose on the properties, win! Being a banker with a super-suit that makes money is great!

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Joce640k]

"the smart move is to buy while...."

Experiments have shown that chimpanzees can do as well as the "smartest" humans in the stock market. Throwing darts at a copy of the Wall St Journal works just as well, or even a chimp throwing darts

The only winners in the stock market are people with inside information and the stockbrokers who take a percentage of every trade (and they're the ones who are advertising stocks as a good way to make money).

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Abreu]

"The sucker is always long" -Every professional stockbroker

Re:Faster than a speeding

[nomorecwrd]

Well.. I guess I'm just another happy chimpanzee!! :-D

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Lumpy]

On crisis like this, the smart move is to buy while the stocks are down and NOT SELL anything.

Um yeah... I'm still waiting for my PANAM stock to bounce back. Let's see...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_American_World_Airways oh yeah they collapsed.

No. you do NOT wait it out. I followed the exact advice you gave in the late 80's,m early 90's and lost my shirt.. "they are too big to fail" bla bla bla.

Stock trading is nothing more than gambling. Anyone that tells you otherwise is a big fat liar. Treat it like gambling and get out when you can to minimize losses, if you are smart and keep watching you will take that cash and buy other stocks that are recovering when they are low. you get a greater return on investment and minimize your loss potential.

Sticking with a sinking ship is like staying at the poker table because you're gonna win it all back!

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Lumpy]

How about simply saving money? If you were not dumb and started saving when you were 18 you would have enough to live a rock and roll lifestyle by 60. Just because you prefer a get rich quicker scheme does not make it right.

Note: if you really care about retirement money then why did you buy a house more than you can afford? (house+insurance_taxes should not exceed 1/4 your monthly take home pay) Why did you marry and have kids? Those suck down more money than anything else.

Retirement is only for the rich. Most have to work until they die because the lie that is you can retire and play for the last 20 years of your life is only for the wealthy or those that are smart with their money and save it in the highest yeld low to zero risk accounts. Stock market is not for retirement, it's for getting rich quicker than a savings account at a far higher risk. Those that lost everything and complained simply were undereducated as to what they were doing.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Lumpy]

in what planet? Most people that lost their homes will not rent your $2500 a month home. if they can afford that they can afford to buy one of the houses that are selling for $60K-$120K and pay less than 1/3rd your asking rent.

Plus have you ever done property management? Renting is not a free ride. water heater breaks, your ass replaces it. Furnace dies, you get up at 4am to deal with it. Your renters own your ass. if the home's mortgage payment is $1500.00 add another $1000 for insurance, taxes and maintainer costs. If you hire a managing company add in 15-20% of the rent to them as well.

Renting is good for slumlords that can get away with renting a $35,000 shithole in the slums for $650 a month.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[Surt]

If you bought outright (note, I specified that), rather than with a mortgage, you can ask a rent that is cheaper than mortgage. Or more than equivalent mortgage because of the massive numbers of people who are trying to rent right now because they got foreclosed, and won't be able to get a mortgage for the next 3 years.

All you have to cover with your rent is property tax, insurance, and maintenance. There's a reason landlords go into the rental business, and its not because its impossible to make money at it.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[cayenne8]

"We did alright through that because our mortgage payment was less than my unemployment checks so we only had to use our fund for bills and living expenses."

Just curious..where do you live?

Around here...the max unemployment wouldn't even cover my rent?!?!

Ok, it would..but there would only be about $100-$200 left over a month from it maybe, and that leftover wouldn't cover power, car payment, insurance...the necessities of life.

Re:Faster than a speeding

[LordKronos]

Just curious..where do you live?

Around here...the max unemployment wouldn't even cover my rent?!?!

Ok, it would..but there would only be about $100-$200 left over a month from it maybe, and that leftover wouldn't cover power, car payment, insurance...the necessities of life.

Michigan. And I didn't say my unemployment covered all of that. I said it covered my mortgage. Utilities, food, etc all had to come out of our emergency fund. That's what the emergency fund is there for. So you don't have to touch your retirement account or hope you have enough equity to cash out of your house

Re:Faster than a speeding

[petermgreen]

If you buy outright and manage to get tenants you will almost certainly make some income. How much income you will make and what will happen to the value of your capital will of course depend on where you buy.

However normally people don't have that kind of money to invest all at one go and even if they did probablly wouldn't want to put all thier eggs in one basket. So people buy property on mortgages and let it out. There ARE places where you can do this and make money but you really have to pick your locations carefully and even then you can be hit by unforseen events.

There's a reason landlords go into the rental business, and its not because its impossible to make money at it.
Afaict a lot of people went into the property business because they had been convinced (or convinced themselves) that property prices would never go down and so even if they didn't get any rent they would still be winning.

Superman saves a home...

[Drakkenmensch]

... FOR REAL!

Superman, Saved By the Bell, and Signs from God...

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard about this! I just saw an article about the other crazy things people have done to try and stay out of foreclosure. Did you know that Octomom leased her front yard to PETA? Insane. http://www.houselogic.com/articles/superman-save-our-house-top-5-craziest-foreclosure-rescue-attempts/

Superman saves family ...

[perpenso]

I'm surprised the article has the more accurate title:

"Superman Comic Saves Family Home From Foreclosure"

rather than the more sensationalist:

"Superman Saves Family"

;-)

Re:Superman saves family ...

[oodaloop]

How is "Superman Saves Family" sensationalist? He does that so much it's not even newsworthy, like the shuttle launch or another year that' s not the year of the Linux desktop.

Re:Superman saves family ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Superman bites dog", now there's sensationalist.

Re:Superman saves family ...

[camperdave]

How is "Superman Saves Family" sensationalist? He does that so much it's not even newsworthy

For the Daily Planet, it's not newsworthy. For Slashdot, it's sensationalist.

Re:Superman saves family ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"everybody gets one."

Re:Superman saves family ...

[sesshomaru]

I would never count on Superman to save anybody.

Re:Superman saves family ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is "Superman Saves Family" sensationalist? He does that so much it's not even newsworthy, like the shuttle launch or another year that' s not the year of the Linux desktop.

Damn, I think I missed all the times this year the shuttle launch saved a family.

I think the Tax man will want his share too.

[ciderbrew]

They may not be mortgage free; but everything helps. Well done.

Re:I think the Tax man will want his share too.

[Black Parrot]

They may not be mortgage free; but everything helps. Well done.

OTOH, if not for the mortgage crisis they'd have been able to cash it in for $250K in fun money.

Re:I think the Tax man will want his share too.

[ciderbrew]

That's a good weekend. I like TOH.

Re:I think the Tax man will want his share too.

[Bing Tsher E]

$250K would pay off our mortgage and leave $140K for fun money. We could use a bit of that 'fun money' to buy a tractor and start better using our pasture. And fix the roof on the garage.

Re:I think the Tax man will want his share too.

[toastar]

We could use a bit of that 'fun money' to buy a tractor and start better using our pasture. And fix the roof on the garage.

You sure know how to have a good time...

Re:I think the Tax man will want his share too.

[Chih]

If you have a daughter that knows how to churn butter, I'm there!

they have owned the home since the 50's

[alen]

article says they have owned the home since the 1950's. means they probably refinanced a few years ago to "liberate the equity" or "put the equity to work". i bet they will lose the home some day.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[ptbarnett]

means they probably refinanced a few years ago to "liberate the equity" or "put the equity to work".

An article I read yesterday said that they took out a home equity loan to finance a small business startup -- which subsequently failed.

I don't know any of the details about the failed business, but even in the best of economic climates, the odds are against you.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[geekoid]

yes, because no one has any legitimate need to do that, like sending someone to college, or stating a business.

Twit.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[netsavior]

sending someone to college?? Student loans are one of the cheapest forms of debt, although if you plan on bankruptcy or default, then it is best to avoid student loans because they are protected from bankruptcy, but that is a pretty unethical, but mostly legal way to go about stealing money if your plan is to default.

Starting a business, on the other hand, nobody has a "need" to do. And it is not for the faint of heart or wallet. If you can't afford to lose it, then you should not risk it.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[mcvos]

Sending someone to college or starting a business is perfectly fine, but it is really a good idea to gamble away your home for that?

If you've got a house in the family for 50 years, it should be completely paid by now. Why risk something like that by getting a mortgage you can't afford?

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[timeOday]

The article says the home had been "in the family" since the 1950's. In other words, the equity they took out wasn't anything they put in the first place.

Their parents probably bought the home for a few $K, leaving a windfall for their kids due to housing inflation and inheritance, which they lost - but fortunately they received another windfall from not having thrown away a 5 cent comic book that now happens to be worth a quarter million.

We talk about people "earning" money, but really, they system is so arbitrary.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[Anonymous Coward]

Sending someone to college or starting a business is worth losing your home? No. It's stupid. Maybe it's ultimately a good thing that there are people stupid enough to sell off all their earthly possession to try some harebrained business idea. But it doesn't make it any less stupid, or any less likely to be a failure.

And to top it off, you have to be a trollish asshole about it too?

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[Infonaut]

I don't know any of the details about the failed business, but even in the best of economic climates, the odds are against you.

The odds are against you when you start a small business. Therefore nobody should start a small business, and these people are venal and stupid for having done so, and deserve a fiery death, rather than a comic book savior.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[Jhon]

The odds are against you when you start a small business. Therefore nobody should start a small business

I'm sorry, but my head is about to explode. Either you are not in the US or you've no idea HOW our economy works.

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html

Most jobs in the US are supplied by small businesses.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[h4rr4r]

You need to replace the batteries in your sarcasm detector.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[Archangel Michael]

"I don't know any of the details about the failed business, but even in the best of economic climates, the odds are against you."

So is the government.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[BitZtream]

Actually, over extending yourself and losing your home pretty much shows that you are the twit.

They lived beyond what they could support and it came back to bite them. Sucks. It happens. It still their fault, not the economy. Having owned a home for 60 years they could have paid it off twice by now under any normal circumstances OTHER than willingly risking their home with something that didn't pay off.

No, there is no legitimate need to do that, none. College is free in America if you bother to find the grants (not even getting loans!), starting a business with collateral and a SB loan was trivial up until about a year and a half ago ...

So having paid for college myself, and having started my own business before I turned 21 with the help of the Small Business Association, a bank, and the title to my car forgive me if I don't feel sympathy for some people that risked more than they should have and almost lost it. At most they should have lost some far less valuable bits of collateral. You aren't going to have a business with no home, but you can have a home without a business. You do not put one up as the collateral for the other.

I'm glad they found a way out of losing their home though, I don't wish that on anyone, but I don't feel sorry for those who bring it on themselves.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[Chih]

I read the end of that link as shortbus, whoops! I almost yelled at you for singling me out :P

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[daeley]

At the Mensa society meeting

Lisa: Now next week is our "state of the city" address. Has everyone finished their proposals?

Comic Book Guy: Well first of all I've a plan to eliminate obesity in women.

Lyndsey Nagle: Oh please, for a nickel-a-person tax increase we could build a theatre for shadow puppets.

Dr. Hibbert: Balinese or Thai?

Lyndsey Nagle: Why not both, then everybody's happy.

CBG: Oh yeah, everyone's real happy then.

Lyndsey Nagle: Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

Frink: (With sarcasm detector) Are you kidding? This baby is off the charts mm-hai.

CBG: A sarcasm detector, that's a real useful invention.

(Sarcasm detector explodes)

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[retchdog]

College is free in America if you bother to find the grants ... having paid for college myself...

Didn't bother finding the grants?

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[tepples]

Starting a business, on the other hand, nobody has a "need" to do.

If you don't have something to sell, then you don't have something to eat.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[tepples]

I tried to find grants when I was headed for college, but I got turned down because most of these grants include financial need as a criterion, and my parents made too much.

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[tepples]

starting a business with collateral

If not a home, then what collateral?

and a SB loan was trivial up until about a year and a half ago

It's not a year and a half ago. What kind of loan would you recommend for someone wanting to start a business in the United States sometime in the next 12 months?

Re:they have owned the home since the 50's

[Infonaut]

Hey, at least one person got the joke!

They still have a mortgage?

[1000101]

FTFA: "painful task of packing up a home that had been in the family since at least the 1950s"

What kind of mortgage do these people have where they are still paying it off after ~60 years?

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[kalirion]

Second mortgage? Fifth? Tenth?

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[The MAZZTer]

You can take out a mortgage on your home... for some quick cash.

Doesn't make sense to me though since it's still a loan you need to pay back. You don't even get anything from the loan like a new car or house.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[makomk]

Read the first page of TFA. "The couple had recently taken out a second mortgage on their home to start a new business, which failed in the uncertain economy."

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[Anonymous Coward]

A second or third one?

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[netsuhi.com]

They might have re-mortgaged sometime since for a number of reasons. To build an extension, buy a second house for a child, or could have had other debts that were paid of by remotrgaging

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[ptbarnett]

What kind of mortgage do these people have where they are still paying it off after ~60 years?

I replied below, but it's worth restating: they reportedly used a home equity loan to finance a small business startup, which subsequently failed.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[FinchWorld]

They may have needed to remortgage for any number reasons, failed family company to medical bills.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Home equity loan for education/medical expenses/anything else they wanted?

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, loans are normally for buying things. In your example, the things that were bought were a car and a house. In this example, it was a small business startup that didn't pan out.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[Eponymous Coward]

If you are going to borrow to buy a car, using home equity may be the best way to do it. In the US, mortgage interest is often tax deductible.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably bought the house from the estate when someone passed. Had to get a mortgage to do it.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the first page of TFA. "The couple had recently taken out a second mortgage on their home to start a new business, which failed in the uncertain economy."

That's why OP mentioned a 60+ yr mortgage.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[Scaba]

They should have watched this video first.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[petermgreen]

Afaict provided they aren't for too high a percentage of the houses value mortgages are generally regarded by the banks as low risk so even in places where they don't have tax relief for mortgage interest they are still generally the cheapest way for an individiaul to borrow.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[Bing Tsher E]

They probably needed some time away in Vegas.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[VGPowerlord]

FTFA, on the same page as your quote no less: "The couple had recently taken out a second mortgage on their home to start a new business, which failed in the uncertain economy."

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[puppetman]

The home has been in the family since the 50's. It doesn't mean that the current owners have owned it since the 50's.

My wife and I bought her family home from her parents three years ago. It's been in the family since the 80's. We still have a mortgage that will take decades to pay off, as we started from scratch.

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still no answer to the question: What kind of FIRST mortgage do these people have where they are still paying it off after INHERITING the house?

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[Lumpy]

What kind of car are you buying???

Honey I really want a new BMW 725i, let's mortgage the house.

How about saving the money for about 13-16months and buying a 3-4 year old car for less than $13,000.00 or if you cant afford that a smaller or older car for less?

Careless spending is never a reason to take out another mortgage. And what kind of fool buys a car they cant afford?

Re:They still have a mortgage?

[tepples]

I didn't watch the video, but I did read the transcript immediately below it. It appears to recommend running the business out of your home for several months before leasing office or retail space. That works in some industries but not all of them, especially those where a supplier won't deal with you without an address and photos of your office or retail space.

Superman would have linked to page 1

[Anonymous Coward]

Just sayin.

Proof of the Law of Large Numbers

[rand.srand()]

As the number of people foreclosed on increases, the probability of find just about anything increases as well. If there's an Action Comics #1 out there, that makes me suspect (1) we've foreclosed on a hell of alot of people, and (2) I can only imagine what other improbable forgotten items are being found. We could very easily be approaching Hoffa odds.

Re:Proof of the Law of Large Numbers

[ArhcAngel]

I hear Godwin is looking for Nazis in some of them.

Re:Proof of the Law of Large Numbers

[nurb432]

I can only imagine what other improbable forgotten items are being found.

Or what items are being lost/destroyed as people walk away and leave things behind, just to be tossed in the garbage during the cleanup for the sheriff sale by city workers or people the bank hires.

I'm sure they're glad

[Culture20]

they didn't try to sell it to Thadeus Venture.

Re:I'm sure they're glad

[geekoid]

hahaha! Awesome.

Inspiration - I need to finish digging my basement

[Anonymous Coward]

To see if there is something worth selling down there!

Heat vision

[MECC]

My first thought was that it was a comic featuring superman melting a bankster with his heat vision....

Mom's basement

[macraig]

Wait, so there might be something profitable down here with me in Mom's basement? *rummage*

Re:Mom's basement

[Thundarr Trollgrim]

I had a good rummage around your mom's basement the other day, and I didn't find any comics, sorry.

This is a commentary...

[bi$hop]

...on wealth and the disparity between classes in our society. I'm glad this family will be "saved" from foreclosure, but it never ceases to amaze me that someone could drop a quarter of a million dollars on something that doesn't carry much *real* value--like a comic book.

Re:This is a commentary...

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. Some fools think that canvas with oil daubed on it and chunks of rock are worth a lot of money.

I want some of what they're smoking.

Re:This is a commentary...

[Lunix Nutcase]

Nothing intrinsically holds any value. That something carries any value is purely in the eye of the beholder.

Re:This is a commentary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is worth whatever people will pay for it. A comic book does in fact have real value as long as someone, somewhere will pay for it.

Let me repeat, this is true of everything. Whether it's your TV set, the business you work at, the gold bar you found in the attic, or the cash in your wallet. None of it has any worth other than what someone, somewhere will trade for it.

If someone buys that comic it's because they either think it's worth that much "work" (whatever they did to collect the money) or because they think it is a good investment that they can sell later to someone for more value than they put into it.

Think of the comic as a 250k dollar bill and someone wants to trade 250k government treasury notes for it. It's just another trade like buying bread.

Nothing has any real value in the context of you're thinking of because your understanding of "real value" is fundamentally flawed.

Re:This is a commentary...

[onkelonkel]

WTF? Is there another measure of "value" besides "what someone is willing to pay for it"?

Re:This is a commentary...

[Surt]

Yes, there is real value in things that directly affect your survival: food, clothing, shelter, health care. Pretty much everything else is operating on a more imaginary level.

Re:This is a commentary...

[onkelonkel]

I see. So this comic book clearly has "real value" since the family was able to trade it for shelter.

Re:This is a commentary...

[Surt]

Seems pretty clearly to be operating on the imaginary level. Yes, you can often trade things with imagined value for things with real value. But imagine it like a game of musical chairs. When the music stops (no further trades are possible), would you rather have a house, or a superman comic?

Re:This is a commentary...

[onkelonkel]

Hypothetically, I'd rather have a house, unless of course I already have a house. In that case what value would a second house have? I can only sleep under one roof at a time. Then I'd take the comic.

Are you saying things have "real value" only if that value still exists when you can no longer trade that thing for some other thing? In that case the idea of "value" is almost meaningless, since you have now replaced it with "utility". If I have no need or use for something it has no value.

Re:This is a commentary...

[Aboroth]

I think of intrinsic value as equivalent to how much human effort would go into making it, with of course the condition that people actually want it for something. For a comic book that is easily reproducible since it is only made of paper, that has a very low intrinsic value. For a big gold bar, that takes a lot of human effort to mine the ore and refine it, so that has a lot higher intrinsic value.
That's just the way I look at it, anyway.

Re:This is a commentary...

[shutdown -p now]

WTF? Is there another measure of "value" besides "what someone is willing to pay for it"?

Yes, there are quite a few, in fact.

Re:This is a commentary...

[Jedi Alec]

I can only sleep under one roof at a time. Then I'd take the comic.

There's worse investments than owning a second house and renting it out for a steady stream of income ;-)

Superman lives in a basement?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

I thought only nerds did that . . . ?

Re:Superman lives in a basement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I live in my basement and my mom and friends on IRC say I'm not a nerd.

Re:Superman lives in a basement?

[delinear]

He has to maintain his alter ego to protect his secret identity.

Re:Superman lives in a basement?

[antdude]

Well, Clark Kent looks like a nerd with that eye glasses and stuff. ;)

Where did you get your information?

[Just_Say_Duhhh]

Watching Wall Street? Hanging out with Bernie Madoff?

Sure, there are people who abuse the stock market. There are also people who abuse drugs, so should we call aspirin therapy "tantamount to shooting heroin in an alley?"

The stock market allows corporations to raise capital by selling equity in the company. It lets small investors own a piece of a company (and share in any profits and losses of that company) without requiring enough cash to buy the whole company. Without these markets, companies wouldn't be able to raise enough cash to build infrastructure, and we'd all have to do without a lot of things we consider "necessities" today. If you believe in the products a company produces, and trust the management, why would you not want to own a piece of it?

Re:Where did you get your information?

[tverbeek]

The vast majority of stock trading does nothing whatsoever to raise capital for businesses. Most of it is a form of legal gambling.

Re:Where did you get your information?

[mcvos]

It's not purely gambling. It's also a bit of pyramid scheme. As long as people keep putting more money into the stock market, stocks go up (to unreasonable heights), and when they get out because they need the money for something else, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. First one to get in and the first one to get out win. Others lose.

Re:Where did you get your information?

[Rude Turnip]

It helps indirectly. Stock trading on the secondary market (ie, anything that isn't an IPO) gives the original investors liquidity and allows them to make new investments.

Re:Where did you get your information?

[russotto]

The vast majority of stock trading does nothing whatsoever to raise capital for businesses.

Not directly, but without the secondary market, the primary market would be very small indeed.

Re:Where did you get your information?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be true only if stocks have no inherent value than their ability to be traded for a higher value (or sold short, mutatis mutandis). This is often how the average investor (and others) treat stock trading, which is a problem.

The truth is that stocks do have value outside their ability to be resold. A stock is a portion of ownership of the company. This becomes clearest with stocks that pay dividends, which is to say that each owner gets a portion of the profit the company generated. The pyramid scheme largely goes away when people remember this fact and trade like they are owning part of a company, not just an abstraction unrelated to anything other than the ability to sell to someone for more than it cost you.

Re:Where did you get your information?

[operagost]

So in other words, it's just like buying one of these comics-- or toys, or stamps, or Avon fragrance bottles-- and hoping it goes up in value.

Re:Where did you get your information?

[SnapShot]

"A stock is a portion of ownership of the company."

While that may be technically true, if there's no dividend the value of their ownership is your yearly vote in your various shareholder meetings (you do vote, don't you?). Stocks are at the bottom of the barrel if the company goes belly up -- behind bonds, creditors and just about everyone else.

And, there is no inherent problem with this on face value. Stocks are stocks. More volatile and therefore more risk but also more potential rewards than bonds or your FDIC-insured savings account.

The problem comes from how this statement has distorted politics. Politicians have convinced the masses that we are all part of an ownership society, to own a stock is to be as good as a CEO and that the rules that are good for Murdoch or Fuld or Paulson are also good for factory workers, computer programmers and waiters. That's how we got a country where taxes on income from useful, productive work are higher than taxes on idle non-productive wealth. We have an entire political party organized around protecting millionaires estates and dividends and a second political party that is afraid to stand up to them.

let me see....

[tverbeek]

I have a copy of the "Death of Superman" comic from 1992 around here somewhere. I'm gonna buy a house with it!

Re:let me see....

[LiENUS]

Me too, iirc its worth about 12.50 in mint condition.

Re:let me see....

[delinear]

What do you plan to do with the $5 change?

Re:let me see....

[misexistentialist]

You can probably get two in Detroit.

Re:let me see....

[elrous0]

Lol, my little brother used to say stuff like that seriously. I tried to explain to him that the value in old comics was that everyone WASN'T collecting them at the time, to no avail. He was convinced that his 80's comic books were going to be worth a fortune in 50 years.

Re:let me see....

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a hundred copies of "Death of Superman" because I knew someday they'd be rare and valuable.

Most people I tell this to don't believe it....

[mark-t]

... you probably won't either. That's okay, I'm used to it.

When I was a lot younger... I think I was around 7, I had come to acquire an absolutely huge pile of old comic books that a friend of my dad's gave to me. One of these comics turned out to be an Action #1 comic. It was dog-eared, definitely a very used comic book, but still intact and very readable. The only character in the comic that I recognized was Superman... the others were completely unknown to me (I can't even remember who they were). Owing to the fact that the superman story in it ended in a cliffhanger (superman apparently couldn't yet fly in the story, and was falling from a great height while carrying some guy), and the fact that I didn't know any of the other characters in the comic, I had thought relatively little of this comic, other than to notice that it was #1 issue, which with my limited knowledge of comics at the time I knew could be worth a bit more than the cover price (10c, if I remember correctly).

Being the young entrepreneur that I was, I held a miniature yard sale at the back of my parents' place, unloading the comics that I did not want. As I said, I saw that this comic was a #1, so I priced it higher than the cover price - at 50 cents, five times the cover price.

It sold, along with quite a few of the other comics that I had, and I never thought of it again until I was in my teens, when I saw a reprint of a portion of the comic (just the superman story) and an article that explained how rare the original actually was. Seeing this triggered my memory of the comic that I had let go for only half a dollar in the early 1970's, and I've had to live with knowing what an imbecile I was ever since. I can easily say I didn't know better at the time, but in actuality, I always think that I _should_ have. I wasn't a stupid kid... well, maybe I was, but I was bright enough to know that I probably should have talked to an adult before selling those comics.

Anyways... that's my anecdote about this comic... and one of those "if I had only known then what I know now" type of regrets.

Re:Most people I tell this to don't believe it....

[RajivSLK]

You shouldn't feel too bad. Your friend's Dad was an adult and still didn't know any better. And from a child's point of view it would make sense to assume that an adult wouldn't give up something of significant value.

Re:Most people I tell this to don't believe it....

[mcvos]

I don't blame you for failing to imagine the ridiculous prices collectors pay for it nowadays.

I recently found an original Transformer toy from the '80s. I thought it might sell for as much as EUR 50, which is quite a bit more than it cost at the time. Turns out people were fighting each other to be allowed to pay me EUR 300 for it. Not a house, but certainly a nice weekend out in exchange for some childhood nostalgia. But I bet I'll regret it in a couple of decades.

Re:Most people I tell this to don't believe it....

[CaseM]

There's a silver lining in all this: that $.50 in 1970 is worth $2.73 now!

Re:Most people I tell this to don't believe it....

[istartedi]

Talking to an adult probably wouldn't have helped. Wasn't this about the same time a lot of moms were throwing out boxes full of baseball cards?

Re:Most people I tell this to don't believe it....

[taxman_10m]

On the topic of stupid kid things, I inherited a bunch of indian head pennies from my father. I was probably no more than 12. You'd see ads on tv all the time advertising these shiny coin collections for easy payments of $19.95. My indian heads didn't look shiny at all, so I cleaned them all so that they were. Thought this was a good thing.

Now that I'm older, and wiser about coin collecting, I really hate how stupid I was to do that. It's a collection I wasn't going to sell anyways (pass it on, keep it in the family), but still.

Re:Most people I tell this to don't believe it....

[ejasons]

My indian heads didn't look shiny at all, so I cleaned them all so that they were. Thought this was a good thing.

Probably a stupid question, but why wasn't that a good thing (to clean the coins)?

Re:Most people I tell this to don't believe it....

[taxman_10m]

As I understand it when you clean the coins it removes most of the collector value. If you do clean them, there is a certain way to do it. I just used the eraser on a number 2 pencil and rubbed until it was shiny. Who knows, maybe I'm still mistaken and I didn't do all that bad a thing.
http://coins.about.com/od/caringforcoins/ht/cleancoins.htm

Re:Most people I tell this to don't believe it....

[ChefInnocent]

An erasure isn't really that bad; although, one really shouldn't handle the coins to begin with. The problem with cleaning coins is when people do it using chemicals. The chemicals eat at the coin, and ultimately may remove some of the finer details. The more the finer details are present, the better grade the coin is. Most of your Indian Head pennies aren't really worth all that much anyway, but there are a couple in there you may treasure if it is a complete set.

Re:Most people I tell this to don't believe it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere, someone is posting about the Action #1 they bought for 50 cents.

Would you hear such a story in 2040?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I mean, someone finding the original download of some book in a forgotten corner of the hard disk of some e-book reader and selling it for hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Re:Would you hear such a story in 2040?

[Albert Sandberg]

I mean, someone finding the original download of some book in a forgotten corner of the hard disk of some e-book reader and selling it for hundreds of thousands of dollars?

No, but the superman #1 comic will be worth ten times as much.

Re:Would you hear such a story in 2040?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, we should stop progress so you can one day fulfill your dream of finding a rare comic?

Re:Would you hear such a story in 2040?

[delinear]

Because we don't have real books or comics in the space year 2010?

Re:Would you hear such a story in 2040?

[EnsilZah]

Personally I'd rather see pristine copies available online for anyone who's interested than someone dropping a quarter mill on a bunch of pages stapled together because they're old and scarce.

Re:Would you hear such a story in 2040?

[Hierarch]

1 April, 2040:

Three-digit Slashdot ID sells at auction for $240,000!

Cape Rear

[Bemopolis]

This should help Supes with all of that bad press he's been getting.

Well then.

[Spewns]

I figured someone should point out how messed up the world is that a family's house not being foreclosed rests on some extremely bored rich guy with way too much money flushing $250,000+ down the toilet on trite, stupid shit like a comic book. I think this whole capitalism thing is being filmed. It's like The Truman Show. Except it's a very black comedy.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, brother.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of Capitalism, the US has an economy. Once that is gone (and it will), then comic books like foreclosed homes will be used as firewood. Thers's your choice mr. liberal.

Re:Well then.

[FakeStreet123]

That "extremely bored rich guy" is not flushing money down the drain. He's investing it. In a decade or two, that comic's value might double for all we know. I'd say it's a pretty sound investment, considering the state of the current economy.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think this problem is limited to capitalism then you've obviously never experienced other systems.

I'll clue you in from someone who knows: It's everywhere. At least in a capitalism you can have a real go at it on your own without having to bow to the powers that be.

Re:Well then.

[gad_zuki!]

Except the alternatives to capitalism have been horribly oppressive, dehumanizing, and found not to really work at all.

I can handle that rich guys buy rare comics. No biggie. I also get to eat, sleep in my own bed, and buy trite shit myself.

Please go start your super society on some island somewhere. I'll give you 6 months before it becomes a new Jonestown or at best a new Cuba.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

I figured someone should point out how messed up the world is that a family's house not being foreclosed rests on some extremely bored rich guy with way too much money flushing $250,000+ down the toilet on trite, stupid shit like a comic book. I think this whole capitalism thing is being filmed. It's like The Truman Show. Except it's a very black comedy.

I fail to understand what your outrage actually is. If this extremely rich guy didn't feel like dropping $250,000 on "stupid shit like a comic book" this family would lose their house. Seems to me like if you have a whole lot of money, spending it on things you enjoy, even if you in particular don't see the value of it, puts a whole lot of money back out in circulation. In this case, it helps this family. Would it better if this rich guy didn't spend this money on what you consider frivolous things, and instead hoarded it all? Since you've been ranting against capitalism, maybe the better solution is to take the money from all these people by force and distribute it equally among the population?

What the hell do you think should be done?

Re:Well then.

[AutoReg]

I agree. We should have the Government take that bored rich guy's $250,000 and give it to the poor guy. After all, it wasn't that poor guy's fault that he mortgaged his home to start a business and failed. It would only be fair, that rich guy obviously has way too much.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not quite sure what you're bent out of shape over.

The fact someone can spend 250,000 on something he wants?
The fact it will be something you don't value?
The fact that someone can earn "too much money"?

While I agree on some level with you. It looks more like you're just pissed off you don't have 250,000 dollars to spend.

Re:Well then.

[2names]

"At least in a capitalism you can have a real go at it on your own without having to bow to the powers that be."

And just where exactly might this magical land be, because it sure as fuck isn't the United States.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the alternatives to capitalism have been horribly oppressive, dehumanizing, and found not to really work at all.

I can handle that rich guys buy rare comics. No biggie. I also get to eat, sleep in my own bed, and buy trite shit myself.

Please go start your super society on some island somewhere. I'll give you 6 months before it becomes a new Jonestown or at best a new Cuba.

Thank you!

Seriously. I wonder why anyone who lives in America and likens capitalism to something so awful wants to change it? Please move to a non-capitalist society, and let us work hard and earn our keep -- for ourselves, thankyouverymuch.

No system is perfect, but I will be much happier in a "free" society, and take my chances. At least I have choices, and can actually get ahead in my own way.

Re:Well then.

[elrous0]

Hey, Nicholas Cage is NOT bored!

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and look, all these billionaires are giving away half of their wealth. Aren't we lucky. We can all wait and beg rich people. Thanks Capitalism !

Re:Well then.

[JM78]

The hell it isn't asshat. I quit my job and started a graphic design and web development company on the very day in 9/2008 that the stock market fell 600+ points.

I have a family and a mortgage, am self-educated with a high-school diploma and a recovering alcoholic with 11 years sobriety. Although its been super tough, my business is still here, about to celebrate 2 years, and is growing.

Those who can't/don't make it are victims of life being life in a dog-eat-dog world. The fact that I am making it against all odds and statistics is a testament to the greatness of the US and the reality of the American Dream (which absolutely still exists).

Just because an individual (you or anyone else) in this country doesn't make it doesn't mean the system doesn't work - it means that individual was either in the wrong place at the wrong time and should try, try and try again until they make it, or they simply don't have what it takes to be competitive. Our society gives equal opportunity but that doesn't mean we're all capable.

Complaints about US capitalism shine brilliant light on an individual's inability, not the system's. It's called hard work and not giving up and it works out for the majority that play the game well. The alternatives (such as socialism) are worse in reality than in real life, thanks.

Social programs are good, Socialist Government experiments fail to provide the opportunity and innovation a system like ours creates. It may not be perfect, but it sure as hell is better than pretty much any other system out there so far.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

That "trite, stupid shit" is an artifact of cultural history, much like a first-run copy of Huckleberry Finn. The fact that it's Superman doesn't change that one bit. Try to learn the difference between "flushing money down the toilet" and "buying something I personally wouldn't buy".

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on, it's not like this is Soul Plane or anything...

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. How dare someone have something that someone else doesn't.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can see it as capitalism saving the house. Without the free ability to buy/sell and the ability to accumulate sufficient wealth to value a comic so much (you can only inflate the value of something if you have the wealth to raise the price), then this scenario couldn't occur. The comic would be valueless, or at it's original value and so the family needing the money wouldn't have the highly valuable resource to sell. The rich individual wouldn't be rich and/or wouldn't be able to spend the money on the comic he desires (maybe he'd be forced to use his money on something deemed more valuable by the state, like arms defense?).

This isn't a problem with capitalism, it's a problem with humanity (and not even between this buyer and seller, they are both doing something good for the other). Which is, incidentally, the same problem with democracy. Lots of people who participate but really aren't qualified to (either intellectually or ethically).

Re:Well then.

[Aboroth]

Investing in it? More like gambling on the hope that another extremely bored rich guy will waste even more money on it later.

Re:Well then.

[2names]

Well how great it must be for the recovering alcoholic to finally make it big. I'm so happy that you've never had to bow to the powers that be in your entrepreneurial endeavors. You should write a book to share your knowledge with the several million other people who also worked hard, had great ideas, and tried and tried again and again only to be foiled by some government interference. But, of course, you are the rule and not the exception. Or are you something "extra special" because you are successful in a dog-eat-dog world? You basically state on one hand that anyone who doesn't make it on their own doesn't have what it takes, but then you state that you have made it against all odds and statistics.

Make up your mind, Jimbo, your little amusing but heart-felt anecdote aside, are you special or not?

Re:Well then.

[mgscheue]

An extremely rich guy who probably made his money in business and could very well be helping other people buy homes, too, by employing them.

Re:Well then.

[monkeythug]

Funny thing ... it is possible to imagine a society that is both free and non-capitalist. It's not a straight up choice between capitalism and communism y'know.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are idiot. With respect for private property rights. How would you make the world fairer? Would you simple take the rich guys money and hand it out to the poor. What if he made his money coming up with a new better chemo-therapy drug which doctors credit with saving many lifes. The only reason one should take his money is if he had come to it unfairly or by dishonist means.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an asshole. Here we have a success story and you scoff? FUCK YOU IN THE ASS.

You must be a real disgruntled little bitch. Go suck a dick and feel sorry for yourself.

Re:Well then.

[kaatochacha]

Perhaps my sarcasm detector is on the fritz, but I'm not sure if you're serious or not. I'm hoping your not.

Re:Well then.

[shutdown -p now]

That "extremely bored rich guy" is not flushing money down the drain. He's investing it. In a decade or two, that comic's value might double for all we know

The only reason why the price might double eventually (and it just might, unfortunately) is because another extremely bored rich guy will be willing to pay that much for it by then.

It's a pyramid scheme, a self-sustained delusion. Well, actually, same applies to most of modern "art" - people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that's absolute crap as far as art go, because everyone else "in the know" agrees that it's how much the thing worth. It's subjective theory of value taken to extremes that I couldn't believe to be possible... but, apparently, Einstein was spot on about the lack of limits to human stupidity.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, supply and demand is stupid.

Re:Well then.

[Anonymous Coward]

You got called on your bullshit and all you could do is mock the poster who proved you wrong. You're a cunt and a shitball. The reason you probably get nowhere in life is because you're a royal asshole and everyone hates your bitch ass. Probably a Tea Party Racist too.

Re:Well then.

[2names]

I don't feel sorry for myself, and I don't feel sorrow nor joy for Jimbo's supposed success. I am sick of all these recovering addicts' stories. "It's a miracle, I had it so hard, I pulled myself up out of addiction, blah blah blah". It's just another way for them to rationalize how fucked up they are. "I pay my bills and run a business now, just like millions of other people have been doing for years, but it's more special in my case because I am a recovering addict." Bullshit, fuck them, and fuck you. I give credit to the people who have been working their asses off their whole lives, NOT to some drunk who finally decided to get his shit together.

Re:Well then.

[2names]

How very eloquent AC. I suppose your next comment will explain how you are going to mod me into oblivion, and that you fucked my mother last night. I'm glad to know I'm not wrong about the sorry state of this world. Now take your hand off your johnson and type your brilliant reply.

Re:Well then.

[Rod Beauvex]

Shhhh! :p

Just about all countries are capitalist and socialist at the same time anyway. It's all a matter of what degree of either. They're vauge terms anayway.

Re:Well then.

[Reservoir Penguin]

Still, market economy is the only known universal method of determining the price of an item. Soviet Union tried to micromanage prices based on how much labour and raw materials went into it. Sure didn't work.

Re:Well then.

[shutdown -p now]

There is a difference between "price" and "value", however.

Re:Well then.

[sesshomaru]

You obviously have a low opinion of comic books, but provided someone actually buys that comic book they aren't buying a comic book.

I have that particular comic book, I paid considerably less that $250,000 for it even if you count the two Nestle's Quik labels I had to send in. Obviously, mine is a reprint of the original. I read it, it's interesting that they hadn't yet determined all the parameters of the character we know today. The story isn't great but it was ok, I guess. Not as good as a Vault of Horror, obviously. (Of course, Captain Marvel is a better Superhero, anyway, even if he has mostly been sadly lost to history.)

Chances are, who ever bought this original edition will leave it in a mylar bag. (Or, heaven forfend it isn't actually in a Mylar Bag, quickly move it to one and seal it for all eternity.)

What they are buying is a historical artifact, that is likely overvalued due to it's scarcity.

Re:Well then.

[Fibe-Piper]

... some extremely bored rich guy with way too much money flushing $250,000+ down the toilet on trite, stupid shit like a comic book.

Your world view seems to be anti-capitalist and at the same time elitist in terms of what you would deem worthy, yet you are oblivious to the deep history of the creative process of comic book making. To say a piece of history like that found by this family is a waste of money is also short sighted considering that only a handful of copies in the condition mentioned exist.

The comic in question was revolutionary beyond the bounds of what was being published at the time. It ushered in a golden age of creativity (and knock-offs) that lasted decades. It was because of that era that we have flourishing business that thrives on creativity and imagination. What other industry can you say gives artists and writers such a vast and lush medium with which to have their work combined?

Wrong choice

[KiwiCanuck]

They should have dumped the house and kept the comic. The odds are that the comic will appreciate more than the house over the next few years.

Re:Wrong choice

[vlm]

Disagree. Whats in more of a bubble, comic book prices or house prices? Both appeal to the same economic block, that being the boomers. Now that the boomers have been fleeced out of all their money, both prices should collapse, or are collapsing.

Now a couple decades from now, maybe a 1st gen ipod would have some appeal (a zune?)

Re:Wrong choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Do whuh?

The housing bubble has nothing to do with boomers. It has to do with idiots borrowing money to buy houses they can't afford, or second or third houses they can't afford. And builders building houses on spec. Which was all only possible because of banks stupidly funding all of this risky behavior. Essentially the same scenario as the great depression, when people borrowed money to invest in the stock market.

The housing market will take some time to stabilize and recover, let alone appreciate. There is increased demand for comic books every year, especially ones of limited supply. What makes you think "only boomers" like superman? They continue to make superman comics, movies, and tv shows in every generation. There are new comic book nerds in every generation.

Keeping the comic would absolutely be the best idea for appreciation right now. But only if the guy doesn't need somewhere to live, which I suspect isn't the case.

Re:Wrong choice

[natehoy]

Except the bank would then foreclose, and he'd have to sell the comic book to make up the difference in the foreclosure-sale price the bank got for the house and what he owed on his mortgage, or end up in bankruptcy and be forced to liquidate the comic book. In addition to the loss he incurs on the foreclosure, he'd then have a shitty credit rating and nowhere to live.

Might as well sell the comic book now, hopefully pay off or at least pay down the mortgage with it, and at least save the some interest on the mortgage and be under less debt.

Or approach the bank and make the comic book part of the collateral on the mortgage. Banks will be very willing to work with you in preserving a loan if they have a known-good amount of collateral backing that loan. The bank could store the comic book in their vault until the mortgage was paid off, but the guy gets it back once the mortgage is paid down to the net present value of the house (which means he gets the appreciation in value of both the house and the comic book, and the bank has the security of knowing that the loan is solidly backed).

Confusing Title

[businessnerd]

Did anyone else read the title and think that the latest Superman comic involves Superman battling a bank executive who is trying to foreclose on someone's home? I was sitting here thinking, great, now comic books have to pander to the economic crisis, and what a boring story. Preventing foreclosure does not require super human abilities. I'm picturing Superman in a library studying mortgage law. Think of the suspense! Then I read the summary and feel like an idiot. I still think my version is more amusing.

Re:Confusing Title

[enilnomi]

Take a few minutes and read the premiere issue of Action Comics; IIRC the first bad guy encountered is a wife beater. The creators/writers were children of the Depression, chock full of Roosevelt-y post-WWI modernity -- bankers were perfect targets for Superman's shenanigans.

This is the Truman show

[hellfire]

To me, The Truman show WAS a black comedy. Look at how everyone is trying to get their 2 minutes of fame on the latest vapid reality show. The video of thousands of models creating a stampede (in NYC I think?) trying to get on a model reality show and all thinking this was their only chance at decent job and stardom?

We ARE on The Truman Show, and we are all being filmed, if we let the asses do it. The only reason why The Truman show came out so nice is because Truman picked the best out come... and yet the public reached for the TV guide to see what was on immediately after Truman walked out. /rant

speaking of hoffa's corpse

[arcite]

Coincidentally I dug up Hoffa's corpse in my basement a month ago while unclogging the sewer line, any takers?

Most Stock Trades Aren't IPOs

[spun]

How does me selling my stocks to another third party raise capital for the corporation whose stock we are trading in? How often can a company dilute its current stock value by offering new stock, without suffering a shareholder revolt? If I believe in the products a company makes, and trust the management, why would I invest in it? All that 'good company, good management' bullshit is a sure sign that that company is not competitive with the big dogs, who do not suffer the expensive handicap of having trustworthy management and expensive products.

Vegas, Baby! Vegas!

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Capitalism?

[RJBeery]

Viable alternative, please? You aren't lamenting Capitalism, you are lamenting REALITY.

So how do you make your money?

[Picass0]

Spewns -
Unless you live in a schoolbus on a hippie commune I'm guessing you do something to earn cash.

Please suggest a way that this family could grow their money in a way that does not offend your delicate sensibilities. Whether it's buying gold, the stock market, real estate, baseball cards... the one thing every form of investment has in common is one party feels the item in question is more valuable than the money in their pocket, and thus goods are sold and money changes hands.

I'm happy for the family and I hope they have enough left over from the sale to pay the mortgage and build a nestegg. Perhaps they should invest in some of whatever it is you're selling.

To quote Kentucky Fried Movie...

[SpongeBob Hitler]

Yeah but detroit has been in decline for far longer than the housing bubble. If you thought detroit was a good investment market, you probably got what you deserved.

And OTOH, if you bought up a lot of cheap stuff in detroit, you may be in for a big win with ford/gm/chevrolet surging.

Take him to Detroit!

wonder what scientology issue was worth

[greeninternetsociety]

A college roommate of mine had the "Amazing Stories" issue (or was it "Astounding?") where Robert Heinlein and L. Ron Hubbard debate get-rich-quick schemes. Hubbard proposed founding a cult-church and exploiting its tax immunity and first amendment protections. Scientologists have bought these issues up and destroyed them. I wonder what a copy is worth today. Heinlein's scheme was speculating on corner lots that would be valuable for gas stations. I understand he made more money doing that than writing.

whooosh!

[Thud457]

But a sarcasm detector would be a useful invention for somebody with borderline Aspberger's syndrome.

Mortgage to pay estate tax

[tepples]

Still no answer to the question: What kind of FIRST mortgage do these people have where they are still paying it off after INHERITING the house?

It could be a mortgage taken out to pay the estate tax bill. A right-wing radio talk show host this morning sounded pretty ticked off that the Bush-era temporary repeal of the United States estate tax was set to expire in 2011.

Buses do not operate on Sundays

[tepples]

How about saving the money for about 13-16months

This is not always practical, especially if the reason you need a car is that your existing 1995 model car finally wore out. Without a car, you can't get to and from work at hours or days when the city buses don't run.