GatewayRedbirds.com

Buying a home can be an investment if you ever get to the point where you own it entirely. Then you pay no mortgage or rent. All you have us upkeep and taxes. That should be the goal. Then if you can keep that house in the family for generations, just think how much money that saved. There was a house in St. Louis that like 4 or 5 generations of my ancestors lived in over the course of like 90 years. Now that was an investment.

But I suspect houses rarely stay in the family like that any more. People move a lot more today than they did back then, so it's harder to keep the same house in the family. Also, people don't want to live in their parents' or grandparents' old house. People would much rather shop around and pick out one more to their liking. There is nothing wrong with that! I would not want to live in my parents' old house, either. But you have to admit that it is a bit of a luxury to turn down a free house because you wanted an extra bathroom or a bigger yard or something.

Socnorb11 wrote:
Yeah, I'm aware of all of that. My point is that money that's easy to move isn't necessarily better than money that's not easy to move. As you said, it's a give and take in most cases.

I agree with most all your post except the bolded part.

Also, since we're on the subject of stocks and no one ever posts in the stock thread except 4 people, has anyone heard of or used http://www.motifinvesting.com

Pioneer's post about hedge fund managers making so much money reminded me I should say something about the place.

Anybody else reading this?

I've just started. It's getting a lot of attention - like the attention someone gets if they are perceived as a threat. From the reviews I've read and just what I've gotten to in the Acknowledgements and Introduction, it seems a non-polemical rational case for fairer wealth distribution. The kind of case that tells the have-mores that it is in their own self-interest to level the playing field somewhat instead of maintaining the current status-quo of widening income inequality.

From the response its getting, I get the impression it is the data for a lot of people who have felt we were on the wrong track without the data to make the case.

Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
I've just started. It's getting a lot of attention - like the attention someone gets if they are perceived as a threat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/2 ... 12386.html

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote:
Yeah, I'm aware of all of that. My point is that money that's easy to move isn't necessarily better than money that's not easy to move. As you said, it's a give and take in most cases.

I agree with most all your post except the bolded part.

I'm not sure why, AW. Back to the 401K example................ If I can put $150 per month into a 401K account, and my company will match 50% of that every month, then that $150 is definitely serving me better than the $150 that I'm putting into my credit union every month that's earning almost no interest at all (but is really really easy to move).

Also, if I have a house with no mortgage, do you really think I'm better off selling the house and putting that money in a coffee can, and paying rent every month? The coffee can is obviously easier to move than a house is, but I can't fathom how that would be a good idea.

No, I am talking solely about what you said in the bolded part. Money you can't get to is better than money you can sometimes. I disagree. Apples to apples, liquidity is preferred.

As I noted, that's not always the case because most things aren't apples to apples. But, if you're doing a pro/con list, inaccessibility should always go on the con side.

OK, that makes more sense. Yeah, apples-to-apples, that's definitely true.

Jocephus wrote:

Pope Francis ✔ @Pontifex
Follow

Inequality is the root of social evil.
3:28 AM - 28 Apr 2014

That Socialist Commie trying to brain wash all the people.