"DSK" wrote in message
...
Actually, he's trying to claim that people get brighter with time and
experience. People are either smart or dumb. Time and experience will
not change that.


An interesting viewpoint. So what is your opinion of all the
neo-conservatives who claim they used to be liberals, but got smarter?


NOYB wrote:
They got wiser, not smarter.

Wisdom is intelligence paired with experience.


Good backpedal, with rhythm.
Let's see those judges cards: 9.2 9.4 8.8



Liberals who stay liberal throughout their lives are either dumb or
sheltered.

Hmm. That's certainly a reasonable, rational, assessment, not name-calling
at all nosirree!

... That is why all of those liberal college professors remain as
liberals throughout their lives...because they've never held a real job
in the real world. They're not dumb...but certainly sheltered.


And the conservative college professors?

Most have held a job in the business world...or lived an equally sheltered
life but were raised in a Republican household.



Let's just suppose that since you owe your current (claimed, but I'm not
disputing you just making sure the facts are on the board) profession to a
college education, the people who made it possible for you don't have
"real jobs"? I suppose their contribution to the economy... macro or on
the NOYB micro scale... is totally negligible?

The best instructors at the dental school also held part-time faculty
practices.

Teaching is a noble profession. But at the college level, a good teacher
needs real world experience to truly be effective.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Actually, he's trying to claim that people get brighter with time and
experience. People are either smart or dumb. Time and experience
will
not change that.


An interesting viewpoint. So what is your opinion of all the
neo-conservatives who claim they used to be liberals, but got smarter?


NOYB wrote:
They got wiser, not smarter.

Wisdom is intelligence paired with experience.


Good backpedal, with rhythm.
Let's see those judges cards: 9.2 9.4 8.8



Liberals who stay liberal throughout their lives are either dumb or
sheltered.

Hmm. That's certainly a reasonable, rational, assessment, not
name-calling
at all nosirree!

... That is why all of those liberal college professors remain as
liberals throughout their lives...because they've never held a real job
in the real world. They're not dumb...but certainly sheltered.


And the conservative college professors?

Most have held a job in the business world...or lived an equally sheltered
life but were raised in a Republican household.



Let's just suppose that since you owe your current (claimed, but I'm not
disputing you just making sure the facts are on the board) profession to
a
college education, the people who made it possible for you don't have
"real jobs"? I suppose their contribution to the economy... macro or on
the NOYB micro scale... is totally negligible?

The best instructors at the dental school also held part-time faculty
practices.

Teaching is a noble profession. But at the college level, a good teacher
needs real world experience to truly be effective.

Exactly......the best preof I had were the part timers that were "in" the
profession.......the worst were the ones that had never worked a day in
their lives......having gone straight from graduation to teaching........and
many of them are still there.

And the conservative college professors?


NOBBY wrote:
Most have held a job in the business world...or lived an equally sheltered
life but were raised in a Republican household.


I see... in NOBBY-World, only conservative college professors have ever
held jobs outside academia, and children of Republicans always grow up
to be conservatives...

Wait a minute, wasn't it you that pointed out something about Darwin and
pangenesis?



The best instructors at the dental school also held part-time faculty
practices.


I think that's true in any field. Certainly in engineering & medicine.
And yet, somehow about 99% of the engineering profs I currently know are
pretty strongly anti-Bush/Cheney. Does that make them "sheltered liberals"?




Teaching is a noble profession. But at the college level, a good teacher
needs real world experience to truly be effective.


Agreed, and IMHO experience in the field is necessary for anything above
the grammar school level.

BTW please read the current Jane Bryan Quinn column about the housing
market. She's right on the money.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

And the conservative college professors?


NOBBY wrote:
Most have held a job in the business world...or lived an equally
sheltered life but were raised in a Republican household.


I see... in NOBBY-World, only conservative college professors have ever
held jobs outside academia, and children of Republicans always grow up to
be conservatives...

Wait a minute, wasn't it you that pointed out something about Darwin and
pangenesis?



The best instructors at the dental school also held part-time faculty
practices.


I think that's true in any field. Certainly in engineering & medicine. And
yet, somehow about 99% of the engineering profs I currently know are
pretty strongly anti-Bush/Cheney. Does that make them "sheltered
liberals"?

That is more a matter of demographics than anything else. The engineering
profs that I knew were almost all Republican conservatives. Of course, my
school (Purdue) was in the reddest of towns in the reddest of states.





Teaching is a noble profession. But at the college level, a good teacher
needs real world experience to truly be effective.


Agreed, and IMHO experience in the field is necessary for anything above
the grammar school level.

BTW please read the current Jane Bryan Quinn column about the housing
market. She's right on the money.

Send me a link.

BTW please read the current Jane Bryan Quinn column about the housing
market. She's right on the money.


Send me a link.



I gotta do everything around here (grumble grumble)
Is your Google broken this morning?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9555157/site/newsweek/

You'll like much of what she says, but will definitely not like other
things. Overall I've found her to be a good source

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
BTW please read the current Jane Bryan Quinn column about the housing
market. She's right on the money.


Send me a link.



I gotta do everything around here (grumble grumble)
Is your Google broken this morning?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9555157/site/newsweek/

You'll like much of what she says, but will definitely not like other
things. Overall I've found her to be a good source

Good article. She's pretty much on the money.

NOYB wrote:
Good article. She's pretty much on the money.


Did you read the part about how houses are not good investments, and the
risks of 'decline in relative value' is the way she put it, I believe.
Florida is also one of the places identified with over-inflated house
values. I'm a little curious why you so amiably agree with an article
that flat-out contradicts almost everything you were claiming a while back.

** * ** quote ** * **
Most homeowners imagine that their properties will make them rich. But
except in unusual periods, homes aren't terrific investments. Since
1980, the price on the median house has risen only 1.46 percent a year,
adjusted for inflation, compared with 9.2 percent for stocks. Homes are
even less profitable if you deduct the cost of taxes, insurance, upkeep,
remodeling and repair.
** * ** end quote ** * **

I don't know where she got those figures, I've gotten returns in the low
teens from my stock investments, although there were a few flat periods
in there.

** * ** quote ** * **
What will happen to your life if the value of your home flattens or falls?

Nothing, if you stay in the house and keep making mortgage payments. The
only change is that you'll go back to building equity the old-fashioned
way—by paying down your mortgage loan.

It's a bad time to borrow the equity out of your house or to buy a house
with no money down. If you had to resell—because you changed your job,
lost it or divorced—you might find yourself with no money left (or owing
money to the bank). Once prices soften, they tend to stay soft for a
long time, Zandi says.
** * ** end quote ** * **

Another way of putting that is to say 'prices are sticky' and it tends
to hold for both ends of the spectrum. We all know examples of people
trying to sell cars, boats, etc etc, for what they think it's worth, and
holding it for a long long time trying to attract offers.

Here's the advice for your brother:
** * ** quote ** * **
But don't sit in a rental waiting for prices to drop so you can buy
something cheap. Prices might not drop. What's more, you'd be losing
your chance to stabilize your long-term homeowning costs, Sinai says. If
you expect to keep the home for at least four or five years, there's
more risk to staying out of the market than getting in.

Get in with a plain-vanilla fixed-rate or adjustable-rate loan.
Mortgages that let you pay only the interest (or less) each month are
bull-market dreams. A few years from now, payments on those loans will
jump—a problem you may be expecting to solve by refinancing or selling
out. But if prices flatten, you'll get trapped. I'm not saying they
will—only that it's a good time to shore up your finances, just in case.
** * ** end quote ** * **

Notice that she talks about prices flattening, not crashing.

You might want to take a look at what the projected median income in
your town will be in ten years, and think about whether or not it's a
good time to take your gains and go find something you can really
afford. Just a little friendly advice.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Good article. She's pretty much on the money.


Did you read the part about how houses are not good investments, and the
risks of 'decline in relative value' is the way she put it, I believe.
Florida is also one of the places identified with over-inflated house
values. I'm a little curious why you so amiably agree with an article that
flat-out contradicts almost everything you were claiming a while back.

"But except in unusual periods, homes aren't terrific investments. "

(We're in an unusual period, and Naples is a unique place.)

" In Zandi's forecast, a handful of markets face declines of 10 percent or
more (southeast Florida, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas and coastal New
Jersey), with another two dozen falling by 5 percent. "

(I'm in Southwest Florida, not southeast Florida. But right now my house
appraises for 65.7% more than when I bought it 18 months ago. If prices
drop 10%, my house is still up 50% from where I bought it. In 18 months!)


"What will happen to your life if the value of your home flattens or falls?

Nothing, if you stay in the house and keep making mortgage payments."

(This is exactly why I was arguing that your home is very safe investment.)



** * ** quote ** * **
Most homeowners imagine that their properties will make them rich. But
except in unusual periods, homes aren't terrific investments. Since 1980,
the price on the median house has risen only 1.46 percent a year, adjusted
for inflation, compared with 9.2 percent for stocks. Homes are even less
profitable if you deduct the cost of taxes, insurance, upkeep, remodeling
and repair.
** * ** end quote ** * **

I don't know where she got those figures, I've gotten returns in the low
teens from my stock investments, although there were a few flat periods in
there.

** * ** quote ** * **
What will happen to your life if the value of your home flattens or falls?

Nothing, if you stay in the house and keep making mortgage payments. The
only change is that you'll go back to building equity the old-fashioned
way—by paying down your mortgage loan.

It's a bad time to borrow the equity out of your house or to buy a house
with no money down. If you had to resell—because you changed your job,
lost it or divorced—you might find yourself with no money left (or owing
money to the bank). Once prices soften, they tend to stay soft for a long
time, Zandi says.
** * ** end quote ** * **

Another way of putting that is to say 'prices are sticky' and it tends to
hold for both ends of the spectrum. We all know examples of people trying
to sell cars, boats, etc etc, for what they think it's worth, and holding
it for a long long time trying to attract offers.

Here's the advice for your brother:
** * ** quote ** * **
But don't sit in a rental waiting for prices to drop so you can buy
something cheap. Prices might not drop. What's more, you'd be losing your
chance to stabilize your long-term homeowning costs, Sinai says. If you
expect to keep the home for at least four or five years, there's more risk
to staying out of the market than getting in.

Get in with a plain-vanilla fixed-rate or adjustable-rate loan. Mortgages
that let you pay only the interest (or less) each month are bull-market
dreams. A few years from now, payments on those loans will jump—a problem
you may be expecting to solve by refinancing or selling out. But if prices
flatten, you'll get trapped. I'm not saying they will—only that it's a
good time to shore up your finances, just in case.
** * ** end quote ** * **

My brother is getting a 7-year fixed interest only mortgage. In 7 years, he
should be earning quite a bit more than he currently earns. If not, he will
sell the place and look for a new job before then. Even if prices correct,
they should rebound to present levels by then.





Notice that she talks about prices flattening, not crashing.

That's the biggest part of her article that I agree with.



You might want to take a look at what the projected median income in your
town will be in ten years, and think about whether or not it's a good time
to take your gains and go find something you can really afford. Just a
little friendly advice.

I can afford this house just fine. I have an additional $1100/mo. in
disposable income right now if I pay interest only. I could apply that
money towards the principle...or sock it away to save for the day 5 years
from now when my rate increases.

Of course, in less than 4 years my business loan is paid off and I should
have an additional $50k/year in disposable income at that point.


You worry too much.

The best instructors at the dental school also held part-time faculty
practices.


I think that's true in any field. Certainly in engineering & medicine. And
yet, somehow about 99% of the engineering profs I currently know are
pretty strongly anti-Bush/Cheney. Does that make them "sheltered
liberals"?


NOYB wrote:
That is more a matter of demographics than anything else. The engineering
profs that I knew were almost all Republican conservatives. Of course, my
school (Purdue) was in the reddest of towns in the reddest of states.


Engineers in general tend to be pretty conservative. But that doesn't
make them flaming right-wing dumbasses.

DSK