No, I read the whole post. I guess I didn't understand it. I thought you were saying what GTA was doing was wrong. You know, cause you said "they are very much at fault for their game's problem."
Besides, undercutting the competition using that competition's service, without paying for the rights to do so isn't a fair thing to do, as I noted above, it's actually being parasitic.
I disagree. What is unfair is selling a service and trying to convince your customers not to compete with you.
The "spend less than you make" approach results in the accumulation of savings rather than debt. Both grow exponentially. Which would you rather have?
I like it the way it is. Spend more than I make, and accumulate both savings and debt (though savings at a faster rate, of course).
The problem is that most people who borrow money aren't doing it as any kind of strategic investment. They are just used to living beyond their means and a spiraling accumulation of debt is the medium-term method to accomplish this.
That may very well be true. But saying that "carrying $25K in credit-card debt" is "stupid" is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Carrying $25K in credit card debt can be perfectly OK. It depends on a lot of factors, one of which is the interest rate. At 3.25%, in my opinion it'd be stupid not to take it.
In order to make a tower site cost-effective, "overselling" the bandwidth is the only way to go at low cost consumer prices.
Or you could just limit the bandwidth per day/week/month.
The internet was designed to be an ad-hoc peer-to-peer network. ISPs need to keep this in mind when they try to restrict reselling. It won't work, because the network wasn't designed to allow it.
Isn't it great that we live in a society based on free market capitalism yet when someone tries to compete with an ISP immediately someone worries about whether or not they're doing something wrong?
I certainly don't recommend this, but at that point you could start borrowing into the $25K of credit that you have and start paying interest at that point instead of all along.
Sure, but by then interest rates have gone way up.
Or, if you didn't live hand-to-mouth, then you could have some actual savings that weren't financed by an equal and opposite debt and you could live off that while it lasted and receive positive interset payments on the amount left.
I was comparing Apples to Apples, though. Either you have the money or you don't.
Personally, I have the equivalent of US$280K in liquid investments and no debt.
That's great, but I seriously doubt that you got that money all on your own without borrowing anything. You either had help from someone, or you borrowed money from someone at some point.
I recommend that people don't live beyond their means. If you can't save at least 10% and have enough of a stockpile to live off of for at least a few months, then you are living beyond your means, because, guess what, most jobs aren't all that secure.
As long as you've been working for a year and a half there's always unemployment insurance. Sure, that only pays 50% or so, but it means you have a lot less to worry about as far as losing your job.
And hey, some of us don't want to have to work for someone else the rest of our lives. We'd rather start our own business and work for ourselves. Unless you've got rich parents the best way to do that is to take out a loan. Easy access to loans is one of the things that makes America the land of opportunity.
I realize that people don't do this and they deserve every bit of misery they receive.
I'd rather see someone take a few risks in life rather than perform far below his potential just because he has some irrational fear of debt. Debt can be used properly and improperly. You're missing out on a lot of potential, both for yourself and for others, if you refuse to use it at all.
Let me clarify that, since obviously the time that the Metro runs is related to the time of the day. But those times should be chosen based on when there are enough people demanding service to make it necessary. If that means starting service at 4 AM in the summer and 5 AM in the winter, fine. You don't have to change the clocks to change the time that the subway runs.
Same thing with noise pollution and disturbing the peace, only more so. This doesn't need to be based on the time of the day in the first place.
Sure rates are low, but do they translate to the $500k+ median home prices in Cali right now? Where are these people working to pay 2000-3000/month mortgages (if they've taken a standard loan)? Where are they getting the 20% to put down?
Great, that's one state down (assuming the state-wide median home price in California is $500K, which I doubt, San Francisco maybe, California, no way). There are 49 left.
And where do you think the PMI company gets the money?
From the rich people who invest in them.
A neg-am loan is the credit card of mortgages.
So credit cards should be illegal?
It allows people to buy a home and not even pay all the interest each month.
The US government offers student loans where you don't have to pay any of the interest each month. I guess that should be illegal too.
Some people are in special situations where such a mortgage might make sense. Most people aren't, but I don't see the harm in offering people more choices.
If house prices don't keep pace with how much you owe you end up upside down. So you may start the loan with a ~800/month payment. Within 3 years you could be up to 2000/month if interest rates move only 2%-3% upwards.
That's certainly the risk, and someone who isn't going to have $2000/month to spare in 3 years shouldn't be taking it. Doesn't mean there aren't people who might benefit from such a deal.
Getting a variable-rate interest rate on a loan you can barely afford sounds almost as stupid as getting a 30-year mortgage which sounds about at stupid as carrying $25K in credit-card debt. You can expect financial ruin from any of these things.
LMAO. Whatever you say. How exactly is one to expect financial ruin from a 30-year mortgage? Sure, they might lose their job, not be able to get a new one, and not be able to afford the payments, but if that happened they'd be financially ruined anyway, because they wouldn't be able to pay the rent.
As for carrying $25K in credit card debt causing financial ruin, that all depends on what your liquid net assets are. If you've got the money to pay off the debt whenever you want, you're actually in a safer financial position. For instance, if you have $25K in debt and $25K in EE bonds, then if interest rates go through the roof and you lose your job you can cash in the bonds and have enough money to live off during your time of unemployment. If instead you have $0 in debt and $0 in savings, you've gotta go crawling to the bank or to the welfare line just to survive.
Simply moving a balance from card to card because you can't pay it off is a big negative on a credit score.
Did you read any of what I said? The fact that you do this isn't even mentioned on your credit report, so it can't possibly be included in your credit score.
Applying for a new card every 90 days to get a better rate shows up as excessive credit inqueries which is also a negative.
That's two completely different things. I've had 3 cards for over 5 years. I haven't applied for a new card in years. I transfer balances between the 3 cards. I don't sign up for new ones.
And I could pay it off. I just choose not to, because 3.25% fixed interest rate for the life of the loan is a damn good deal.
If you're paying your card off every month the rate shouldn't matter.
Not everyone pays their card off every month. I sure don't.
Look at current housing prices, now look at current wages. Where are all these people getting the money to pay these prices for houses?
Same place they always do, from loans. Interest rates are really low now, and that's why home prices are high. People can afford to pay more for the house, because they don't have to pay as much in interest.
Downpayments, rofl. I'd love to find some stats on how many people are putting 20% down right now. Heck, I'd love to know how many people are putting anything down right now.
I'm sure the vast majority of people are putting something down. You can't even get a government sponsored loan without putting down 3%. If you're not putting down 20%, then you're paying for PMI.
If housing prices stagnate and/or interest rates go up people are going to be stuck. This will lead to people who have to sell because they couldn't ever afford the house they were in to begin with.
The majority of loans are fixed interest rate. The fact that the price of the house goes down isn't going to change the monthly payment. Yes, some people with adjustible rate mortgages are going to get screwed over. I feel like I'm repeating myself here.
As more people get caught in this situation prices will fall and then people end up owing more than the house is worth. Then you have people just walking away, and lender take it in the gut.
Unless the house drops by more than 20%, the difference is going to be paid by either the down payment or the PMI company. If the price drops more than that, and the home buyers didn't have PMI because they put more than 20% down, the lender might initially have to cough it up, but they can then sue the home buyer for the difference.
IMHO, some lenders need to take a good hit on the head with the aweful loans they are pushing on people.
The only really major risk for the lenders other than fraud is an upside down yield curve. These awful loans almost universally require PMI.
Look up the Freedom Loan for an example of something that should be illegal, and I'm usually one who's all for personal responsibility!
Why should it be illegal to borrow more money than the value of your collateral? Would you also suggest that we make it illegal to borrow money without any collateral at all?
It's not like Google created Google Earth. They bought it. And most likely Microsoft was already working on their product long before Google bought Google Earth.
If housing prices stagnate then these people are stuck. They can't afford the monthly payment and they can't sell because they owe more than the house is worth. As this starts to happen something will have to give.
If housing prices stagnate then they won't owe more than the house is worth. Even if it prices go down a little most of the deficit will be covered by the down payment in most cases. Sucks for those people, but it won't have much of an impact on the rest of the economy.
Sure, there will be some exceptions, but I don't think it'll be as widespread as you're suggesting. And as long as it isn't too widespread, the PMI companies will have no problem swallowing the difference and passing it on to future homebuyers of houses they can't afford.
So basically what you're saying is that the stock market is for suckers that think they all know what the future will be, right?
The stock market is primarily for investors who realize they have no clue what the future will be, but also realize that on average they'll make a better return than fixed income investments just throwing darts at the stockboard.
I suppose what you're missing from what I said is that it can be smart for one person to buy and dumb for another person to buy, even if we're talking about the same stock. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea with regard to the stock market, especially with regard to such a highly volatile stock as Google, and even moreso when you're an employee of the company. Volatility means the stock might go way up as well as way down, but these insiders can afford to sell a lot and still make a killing if the stock goes up, and if the stock goes down they'll at least have something to fall back on.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I read the whole post. I guess I didn't understand it. I thought you were saying what GTA was doing was wrong. You know, cause you said "they are very much at fault for their game's problem."
Anyone know how to get this to work? I have GPS in my phone, but I can't access it. Even when I go to the debug screen it's all gobbledygook.
Besides, undercutting the competition using that competition's service, without paying for the rights to do so isn't a fair thing to do, as I noted above, it's actually being parasitic.
I disagree. What is unfair is selling a service and trying to convince your customers not to compete with you.
Spend more than I make, and accumulate both savings and debt (though savings at a faster rate, of course).
Heh...I am stupid...I mean make more than I spend, of course. OK, I retire from this thread.
The "spend less than you make" approach results in the accumulation of savings rather than debt. Both grow exponentially. Which would you rather have?
I like it the way it is. Spend more than I make, and accumulate both savings and debt (though savings at a faster rate, of course).
The problem is that most people who borrow money aren't doing it as any kind of strategic investment. They are just used to living beyond their means and a spiraling accumulation of debt is the medium-term method to accomplish this.
That may very well be true. But saying that "carrying $25K in credit-card debt" is "stupid" is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Carrying $25K in credit card debt can be perfectly OK. It depends on a lot of factors, one of which is the interest rate. At 3.25%, in my opinion it'd be stupid not to take it.
typed in binary on your custom two key keyboard
Bah, two key keyboards are for amateurs. I use a one key keyboard with synchronous communications at 16Mhz.
In order to make a tower site cost-effective, "overselling" the bandwidth is the only way to go at low cost consumer prices.
Or you could just limit the bandwidth per day/week/month.
The internet was designed to be an ad-hoc peer-to-peer network. ISPs need to keep this in mind when they try to restrict reselling. It won't work, because the network wasn't designed to allow it.
Isn't it great that we live in a society based on free market capitalism yet when someone tries to compete with an ISP immediately someone worries about whether or not they're doing something wrong?
So running a weedeater or lawnmower is the same at 2AM as it is at 2PM?
It's not the same, but it makes no sense to arbitrarily pick a cutoff point, what is reasonable depends on the specifics of the situation.
I certainly don't recommend this, but at that point you could start borrowing into the $25K of credit that you have and start paying interest at that point instead of all along.
Sure, but by then interest rates have gone way up.
Or, if you didn't live hand-to-mouth, then you could have some actual savings that weren't financed by an equal and opposite debt and you could live off that while it lasted and receive positive interset payments on the amount left.
I was comparing Apples to Apples, though. Either you have the money or you don't.
Personally, I have the equivalent of US$280K in liquid investments and no debt.
That's great, but I seriously doubt that you got that money all on your own without borrowing anything. You either had help from someone, or you borrowed money from someone at some point.
I recommend that people don't live beyond their means. If you can't save at least 10% and have enough of a stockpile to live off of for at least a few months, then you are living beyond your means, because, guess what, most jobs aren't all that secure.
As long as you've been working for a year and a half there's always unemployment insurance. Sure, that only pays 50% or so, but it means you have a lot less to worry about as far as losing your job.
And hey, some of us don't want to have to work for someone else the rest of our lives. We'd rather start our own business and work for ourselves. Unless you've got rich parents the best way to do that is to take out a loan. Easy access to loans is one of the things that makes America the land of opportunity.
I realize that people don't do this and they deserve every bit of misery they receive.
I'd rather see someone take a few risks in life rather than perform far below his potential just because he has some irrational fear of debt. Debt can be used properly and improperly. You're missing out on a lot of potential, both for yourself and for others, if you refuse to use it at all.
Let me clarify that, since obviously the time that the Metro runs is related to the time of the day. But those times should be chosen based on when there are enough people demanding service to make it necessary. If that means starting service at 4 AM in the summer and 5 AM in the winter, fine. You don't have to change the clocks to change the time that the subway runs.
Same thing with noise pollution and disturbing the peace, only more so. This doesn't need to be based on the time of the day in the first place.
Are you going to finance extended Metro hours? Do you really want to eliminate noise pollution and disturbing the peace laws?
No, but none of these things should be based on the time of the day.
Along with Daylight Saving Time get rid of those stupid laws about when you can buy beer, play the radio, or ride the subway. Problem solved.
While they're at it they should officially change the name to "Daylight Savings Time", since that's what everyone already calls it anyway.
Sure rates are low, but do they translate to the $500k+ median home prices in Cali right now? Where are these people working to pay 2000-3000/month mortgages (if they've taken a standard loan)? Where are they getting the 20% to put down?
Great, that's one state down (assuming the state-wide median home price in California is $500K, which I doubt, San Francisco maybe, California, no way). There are 49 left.
And where do you think the PMI company gets the money?
From the rich people who invest in them.
A neg-am loan is the credit card of mortgages.
So credit cards should be illegal?
It allows people to buy a home and not even pay all the interest each month.
The US government offers student loans where you don't have to pay any of the interest each month. I guess that should be illegal too.
Some people are in special situations where such a mortgage might make sense. Most people aren't, but I don't see the harm in offering people more choices.
If house prices don't keep pace with how much you owe you end up upside down. So you may start the loan with a ~800/month payment. Within 3 years you could be up to 2000/month if interest rates move only 2%-3% upwards.
That's certainly the risk, and someone who isn't going to have $2000/month to spare in 3 years shouldn't be taking it. Doesn't mean there aren't people who might benefit from such a deal.
Getting a variable-rate interest rate on a loan you can barely afford sounds almost as stupid as getting a 30-year mortgage which sounds about at stupid as carrying $25K in credit-card debt. You can expect financial ruin from any of these things.
LMAO. Whatever you say. How exactly is one to expect financial ruin from a 30-year mortgage? Sure, they might lose their job, not be able to get a new one, and not be able to afford the payments, but if that happened they'd be financially ruined anyway, because they wouldn't be able to pay the rent.
As for carrying $25K in credit card debt causing financial ruin, that all depends on what your liquid net assets are. If you've got the money to pay off the debt whenever you want, you're actually in a safer financial position. For instance, if you have $25K in debt and $25K in EE bonds, then if interest rates go through the roof and you lose your job you can cash in the bonds and have enough money to live off during your time of unemployment. If instead you have $0 in debt and $0 in savings, you've gotta go crawling to the bank or to the welfare line just to survive.
Simply moving a balance from card to card because you can't pay it off is a big negative on a credit score.
Did you read any of what I said? The fact that you do this isn't even mentioned on your credit report, so it can't possibly be included in your credit score.
Applying for a new card every 90 days to get a better rate shows up as excessive credit inqueries which is also a negative.
That's two completely different things. I've had 3 cards for over 5 years. I haven't applied for a new card in years. I transfer balances between the 3 cards. I don't sign up for new ones.
And I could pay it off. I just choose not to, because 3.25% fixed interest rate for the life of the loan is a damn good deal.
If you're paying your card off every month the rate shouldn't matter.
Not everyone pays their card off every month. I sure don't.
Look at current housing prices, now look at current wages. Where are all these people getting the money to pay these prices for houses?
Same place they always do, from loans. Interest rates are really low now, and that's why home prices are high. People can afford to pay more for the house, because they don't have to pay as much in interest.
Downpayments, rofl. I'd love to find some stats on how many people are putting 20% down right now. Heck, I'd love to know how many people are putting anything down right now.
I'm sure the vast majority of people are putting something down. You can't even get a government sponsored loan without putting down 3%. If you're not putting down 20%, then you're paying for PMI.
If housing prices stagnate and/or interest rates go up people are going to be stuck. This will lead to people who have to sell because they couldn't ever afford the house they were in to begin with.
The majority of loans are fixed interest rate. The fact that the price of the house goes down isn't going to change the monthly payment. Yes, some people with adjustible rate mortgages are going to get screwed over. I feel like I'm repeating myself here.
As more people get caught in this situation prices will fall and then people end up owing more than the house is worth. Then you have people just walking away, and lender take it in the gut.
Unless the house drops by more than 20%, the difference is going to be paid by either the down payment or the PMI company. If the price drops more than that, and the home buyers didn't have PMI because they put more than 20% down, the lender might initially have to cough it up, but they can then sue the home buyer for the difference.
IMHO, some lenders need to take a good hit on the head with the aweful loans they are pushing on people.
The only really major risk for the lenders other than fraud is an upside down yield curve. These awful loans almost universally require PMI.
Look up the Freedom Loan for an example of something that should be illegal, and I'm usually one who's all for personal responsibility!
Why should it be illegal to borrow more money than the value of your collateral? Would you also suggest that we make it illegal to borrow money without any collateral at all?
IS there a way to put latitude and longitude into Virtual Earth? I was trying to bring up this and/or this, but I couldn't figure it out.
The satellite images for the Tampa Bay area are much much better (about 3x the resolution).
It's not like Google created Google Earth. They bought it. And most likely Microsoft was already working on their product long before Google bought Google Earth.
C'mon, it's Sunday. Taco is just following his religious belief in not working on Sundays.
You certainly see there are advantages of taking that call. I hope it works for you and the 5000 loss is converted into a nice profit. :)
Me too. Then I can buy some more. :)
If housing prices stagnate then these people are stuck. They can't afford the monthly payment and they can't sell because they owe more than the house is worth. As this starts to happen something will have to give.
If housing prices stagnate then they won't owe more than the house is worth. Even if it prices go down a little most of the deficit will be covered by the down payment in most cases. Sucks for those people, but it won't have much of an impact on the rest of the economy.
Sure, there will be some exceptions, but I don't think it'll be as widespread as you're suggesting. And as long as it isn't too widespread, the PMI companies will have no problem swallowing the difference and passing it on to future homebuyers of houses they can't afford.
So basically what you're saying is that the stock market is for suckers that think they all know what the future will be, right?
The stock market is primarily for investors who realize they have no clue what the future will be, but also realize that on average they'll make a better return than fixed income investments just throwing darts at the stockboard.
I suppose what you're missing from what I said is that it can be smart for one person to buy and dumb for another person to buy, even if we're talking about the same stock. Putting all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea with regard to the stock market, especially with regard to such a highly volatile stock as Google, and even moreso when you're an employee of the company. Volatility means the stock might go way up as well as way down, but these insiders can afford to sell a lot and still make a killing if the stock goes up, and if the stock goes down they'll at least have something to fall back on.