born-rich people

working sucks and I'm lazy as fuck so I'd take being born rich any day. fuck character.

  On 7/1/2011 at 10:07 PM, elusive4 said:

chenGod, seriously - how embarrassing to post such commentary and analysis with the 'moderator' status just off to the left.

 

you are tired.

America's wealth was created through massive tarriffs and on the backs of several international conflicts.

Your cute little list from the Small Business Association (wow they're promoting small business?) is easily refuted point by point so here we go except for number 10:

10. Small businesses make up more than 99.7% of all employers.

First off - it's important to note that in America, a small business is generally classified as one which has fewer than 500 employees (which is far more than in just about any other country) and even still, the largets employer in the US is the government - with 2 million employees.

9. Small businesses create more than 50 percent of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).

Not true: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/03/25/like-the-phoenix-u-s-finance-profits-soar/

Additionally, I don't know why they would even bother counting agricultural revenue as a percentage of GDP - it's less than 1% of US GDP

8. Small patenting firms produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

They may produce more patents per employee, but larger firms produce more patents overall.

http://www.patentdocs.org/2011/07/ipo-releases-list-of-top-300-patent-holders-for-2010.html

7. The 22.9 million small businesses in the United States are located in virtually every neighborhood.

Since they are small businesses, of course there are more of them - they still don't account for the majority of America's GDP

6. Small businesses employ about 50 percent of all private sector workers.

50% employment, but again, not 50% of total GDP, so that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

5. Home-based businesses account for 53 percent of all small businesses.

By definition a home based business is a small business so what this is doing on a list extolling the virtues of small business is baffling

4. Small businesses make up 97 percent of exporters and produce 29 percent of all export value.

Again, hardly a ringing endorsement - additionally, due to US MNCs having production in foreign countries, that reduces exports on their part while providing more GDP. If all the large corporations did their manufacturing in the states, you can bet their share of the exports would increase.

3. Small businesses with employees start-up at a rate of over 500,000 per year.

2. Four years after start-up, half of all small businesses with employees remain open.

1. The latest figures show that small businesses create 75 percent of the net new jobs in our economy.

Again - if you count small businesses as having less than 500. The ADP report classifies companies with having between 50-499 employees as medium enterprises, so then small business don't look so good.

As to your horseshit about mortgages - most of the people who got screwed on these mortgages were not purchasing new houses - they were refinancing based on lies told to them by the mortgage brokers, who had NO RISK whatsoever.

You've already outed yourself as a troll in the autechre thread - you want to get stepped on here?

  On 7/1/2011 at 11:50 PM, chenGOD said:

 

As to your horseshit about mortgages - most of the people who got screwed on these mortgages were not purchasing new houses - they were refinancing based on lies told to them by the mortgage brokers, who had NO RISK whatsoever.

You've already outed yourself as a troll in the autechre thread - you want to get stepped on here?

"most" - ha!

refinancing based on "lies" - what lies, exactly? everything should have been in the fine print. you know - the documents they personally signed and all.

you care to step through any of my previous points? or are you not in such a position to save face in front of your watmm peers. try not to squirm so much

hey elusive4 u have no honor

  On 7/2/2011 at 12:05 AM, elusive4 said:

  On 7/1/2011 at 11:50 PM, chenGOD said:

 

As to your horseshit about mortgages - most of the people who got screwed on these mortgages were not purchasing new houses - they were refinancing based on lies told to them by the mortgage brokers, who had NO RISK whatsoever.

You've already outed yourself as a troll in the autechre thread - you want to get stepped on here?

 

"most" - ha!

refinancing based on "lies" - what lies, exactly? everything should have been in the fine print. you know - the documents they personally signed and all.

 

you care to step through any of my previous points? or are you not in such a position to save face in front of your watmm peers. try not to squirm so much

Most were refinancing: From the federal reserve - patterns of lending for 2004-2009

More than 50% of the lending was done to people refinancing (during the time of the mortgage swindle) - most were refinancing.

Lies told by brokers:

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101305/met_20016572.shtml (to lenders in this case)

http://www.ourbroker.com/mortgages/responsibility-but-didnt-the-borrower-sign-the-mortgage/#axzz1QtcKWHW3 (to borrowers here)

Now, I agree that a family should only buy a house if they intend to settle in an area. However, I would venture that most new families do intend to settle - you've just gone through the upheaval of marriage, a kid or two. You want some stability. You expect to be in a neighbourhood for at least five years. It makes sense to purchase. Renting money on a home for a family that expects stability is just like pouring it down the drain - you want to build equity. If you want to buy a house in bubble market - which much of America was during that time, you really don't have much choice.

  On 7/2/2011 at 12:32 AM, sup said:

hey elusive4 u have no honor

:sup: ..

+ cheers chen, i don't know how you have the strength.

+1 chengod

  On 7/1/2011 at 10:59 PM, karmakramer said:

I think because there is so much corruption involved with the very wealthy, it creates an us. vs. them situation. I have zero problem with someone who discovers their passion, pursues them by working hard, and then reaps the rewards (this is fantastic actually). But when you see inconsistencies with overdraft fees from the banks (yet no accountability for them when they caused the recession) and this, it becomes clear where their ethics and morals are... and how selfish you would need to be, to continually behave like this. These sweeping generalizations about people are a bit baseless though. I don't give a crap what kind of personality anyone has that I don't really know. They could be as dreadfully boring as flies fucking /georgecarlin for all I care. I don't have control over that kind of shit and if its shit I don't want much to do with it. But the intent of this whole system, at least from a more romantic perspective, is to provide equality and fairness to everyone. And when the "highly intelligent" wealthy kids, young adults, middle aged old farts push down on fairness for their own gain... thats some satanic cuntyness of the highest order!

well said that man

  On 7/1/2011 at 9:59 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 7/1/2011 at 10:58 AM, Braintree said:

chenGOD gets +1.

 

The end result of good childhood education is that you should be able to think for yourself. And if you don't have that, then you won't be asking the right questions. Also, Google isn't some bastion of unending knowledge. It's a goddamn search engine. If you ask it about a legal issue, it will most likely be in legal jargon. If you ask it a music question, it will be in music jargon. If you ask it a business question....so on and so forth.

 

clearly you've never purhcased real estate because you go over everything at closing with the lawyers, and you have all the time in the world to ask questions regarding EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PAPERWORK YOU SIGN YOUR FUCKING NAME ON. you're making the biggest purchase/liability in your life and you aren't going to do due diligence on what the fuck you are getting yourself into? ha! you deserve it then.

Eh? Way to miss the point entirely. I'm talking about people that are born rich having a leg-up on the poor. The rich have access to better education early on, and therefore will have a greater chance of asking more appropriate questions according to the situation. What you learn as a child has a heavy impact on the way you behave as an adult.

I'm criticizing the notion that you implied that all Americans have access to the internet, and that you can find absolutely anything on Google.

Are you actively trying to change the argument?

  On 7/1/2011 at 9:59 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 7/1/2011 at 10:58 AM, Braintree said:

This thread is about rich peoples' kids. Not rich people.

 

And I find it hard to have sympathy for the wealthy.

 

no, this thread is about generalizing the wealthly and their kids because all the commentary in this forum is about "how every rich kid i see does this and this and this" ... and the class seems to think that just because every rich kid they see is wasting money/fancy cars/etc, that they think every rich kid must do that! huge logical fallicy and i had to step in to this and get cretin all over my shoe and point out that there are shit0tons of "rich kids" out there who do not flaunt anything, who are frugal, who invest wisely, etc. .. but you wouldn't know they're rich by looking at them because they dont waste their money on depreciating assets and look like any other normal or poor kid. for fucks sake!

 

no one asked for your sympathy for shit. you generalize and stereotype; fell into deep logical fallacy and i called you out on it. now i have to go wash off my shoes of this

When the fuck did I generalize anything? I've only offered opinion.

Actually, no. You're not going to pull me astray from the actual argument.

  On 7/1/2011 at 9:59 PM, elusive4 said:

no, this thread is about generalizing the wealthly and their kids because all the commentary in this forum is about "how every rich kid i see does this and this and this" ...

The thread title is called "born-rich people - thoughts?" So yes. Rich people's kids.

By the way, your grammar is atrocious.

well at least we can all agree that elusive is a dick.

just want to say that getting a mortgage is about half as much as you would be charged for rent in a comparable dwelling here in buffalo for a 15 yr fixed rate

thinking about buying....

chatted with a guy at a bar two nights ago, got on the subject of synths & gear..

I was gushing over my modest collection and my pride SH2000 when dude puts me in my place name dropping his fleet of roland sh101/201's, waldorfs, junos, novations, mpc's; all in the past tense. now he just plays the jazz sax.

i hate this man

  On 7/2/2011 at 12:48 AM, chenGOD said:

Now, I agree that a family should only buy a house if they intend to settle in an area. However, I would venture that most new families do intend to settle - you've just gone through the upheaval of marriage, a kid or two. You want some stability. You expect to be in a neighbourhood for at least five years. It makes sense to purchase. Renting money on a home for a family that expects stability is just like pouring it down the drain - you want to build equity.

stability after marriage and kids is nice - but if you do not have stabililty in the workplace then it makes zero sense to purchase.

renting, while not building equity, gives you freedom to relocate - especially with recent unemployment figures. the bread-winner may have to up and relocate his entire familiy across country to find a proper job - and ive seen it here in michigan time and time again. if you do not have financial stability 5-10yrs, then it does not make sense to purchase. who gives a crap about building equity when the bulk of your payment goes to interest during the first many years of a mortgage. you aren't building squat.

  On 7/2/2011 at 12:48 AM, chenGOD said:

If you want to buy a house in bubble market - which much of America was during that time, you really don't have much choice.

the choice was to see condo's that were now pushing 400-500k and think to yourself, well . just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean i think this condo is actually worth 500k.

no one put a gun to anyone's head. that's the point. that's my arguement. people nor families are not entitled to homes. for some people, it does not make sense to purchase. family or not, it depends on risk aversion. just because you are married and have children does not mean that a home is necessarily the next step. equity is important especially in the latter years when reaching retirement, but look how many still continue to take out home equity loans, etc . and what good is building equity when home prices are still falling.

why would someone with a 15/30yr trad mortgage, who is handling the payments just fine and building equity, refinance to an option ARM? who on earth thinks that a more complex mortgage would carry less risk than what they currently had with a traditional mortgage.

  On 7/2/2011 at 9:47 PM, theSun said:

just want to say that getting a mortgage is about half as much as you would be charged for rent in a comparable dwelling here in buffalo for a 15 yr fixed rate

 

thinking about buying....

exactly. a simple look at an amortization table should flat out tell anyone that a 15yr is the way to go, ... that's what i did and plan to pay off very shortly

  On 7/2/2011 at 9:47 PM, theSun said:

thinking about buying....

there are still many factors many ignorant about regarding homes. insurance costs, bigger heating/cooling/electric bills, tools for yardwork/landscaping, anything and everything will break, etc. as long as one is socking away the savings frmo buying vs renting, then it usually makes sense.

but if one plans to up and sell within a few years, closing costs/fees, etc...will eat you alive. that and you will have not yet had time to build equity as of yet.

plenty to think about, but still lots of great opportunities out there. hell, save up and pay cash

There was a nice documentary I watched in a class call, of all things, Born Rich. One of the Johnson & Johnson heirs did it. Good insider pov.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342143/

One of the asshole kids he interviewed ended up suing over his appearance in the movie when clearly he makes himself look that way.

  On 7/1/2011 at 10:13 PM, goDel said:

*combobreaker*do rich kids suck more than non-rich kids though?/nonsense

  On 7/2/2011 at 10:50 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 7/2/2011 at 12:48 AM, chenGOD said:

Now, I agree that a family should only buy a house if they intend to settle in an area. However, I would venture that most new families do intend to settle - you've just gone through the upheaval of marriage, a kid or two. You want some stability. You expect to be in a neighbourhood for at least five years. It makes sense to purchase. Renting money on a home for a family that expects stability is just like pouring it down the drain - you want to build equity.

stability after marriage and kids is nice - but if you do not have stabililty in the workplace then it makes zero sense to purchase.renting, while not building equity, gives you freedom to relocate - especially with recent unemployment figures. the bread-winner may have to up and relocate his entire familiy across country to find a proper job - and ive seen it here in michigan time and time again. if you do not have financial stability 5-10yrs, then it does not make sense to purchase. who gives a crap about building equity when the bulk of your payment goes to interest during the first many years of a mortgage. you aren't building squat.

^I'm with elusive4 on this example. Inching toward a similar situation myself. But that's about all that's caught my eye, just skimming the thread at this point.

elusive - retreading old arguments that we've already covered.

When you're in a bubble and you want stability you don't have a choice. Especially if there is no clear sign that the bubble is going to burst any time soon. For example - two cities where I have lived recently, Seoul and Vancouver have been undergoing various housing bubbles for a long ass time now, and prices are ridiculously inflated. Now I don't have any plans to settle in Vancouver, but some people enjoy 8 months of rain. However our current bubble has been going on for 10 years. Now, if you're a 30 year old, with a family, 10 years is goddamned long time to not be building any equity. And by the way - you should be paying off the principle from the get-go.

Why would people refinance? Because they got lied to. We've gone over this before.

  On 7/3/2011 at 4:02 AM, chenGOD said:

elusive - retreading old arguments that we've already covered.

 

When you're in a bubble and you want stability you don't have a choice.

LOL - this is bullshit. this is the commentary from someone who got burned in either a stock market bubble, asset bubble, sector bubble, etc and had it blow up on their face and trying to justify it. hey, it's 2001, i need to invest! forward price/earnings ratios are crazy on these tech stocks but DAMNIT I DONT HAVE A CHOICE. I NEED TO INVEST. bullshit! absolute hogwash. NO ONE FORCES ANYONE TO PURCHASE HOMES. and if they did? tell me... if they had purchased TRADITIONAL MORTGAGES, then they would have had a standard monthly payment OF WHICH WOULD NOT CHANGE WITH RISING INTEREST RATES. so if they could afford it from the get-go, then why would rising interest rates have any affect on them? vs those option ARMS of which people were paying interest only so that they could wait a year, magically ahve their home price inflate, and then withdraw/refinance on that. BULLSHIT. the worst case scenario from that situation is the person is still making their mortgage payment (as it would have not changed due to a fixed interest rate), and at worst case they are now underwater. but it isn't the same as those option ARMs, whose monthly payment rose significantly as interest rates rose and then the masses could no longer afford the payment.

  On 7/3/2011 at 4:02 AM, chenGOD said:

Especially if there is no clear sign that the bubble is going to burst any time soon.

NO ONE GIVES A SHIT about WHEN the bubble will burst - they only know that home prices have rose ungodly SIGNIFICANTLY over the past ONE, TWO, THREE YEARS. .. and that something wasn't right about that. no one can time the market. any intelligent person would have simply put their foot down and said this is not right; we are in some kind of housing bubble, home prices have doubled over the past so and so years --- which is unheard of... which means something isn't right --- and i am not going to follow everyone else off this bridge. fuck that.

  On 7/3/2011 at 4:02 AM, chenGOD said:

However our current bubble has been going on for 10 years. Now, if you're a 30 year old, with a family, 10 years is goddamned long time to not be building any equity.

so what? if you feel an asset is overvalued, you do not buy - NO MATTER WHAT YOUR TIME HORIZON. stop trying to make me feel pity because of this. so you cannot afford a house in your current state/city/etc. you can use the money you are saving that otherwise WOULD go to your down payment, your home repair emergency fund, etc, - and invest that elsewhere to make the kind of gains that would offset your 'building equity' case. it entirely depends on one's risk aversion, time to retirement, etc.

  On 7/3/2011 at 4:02 AM, chenGOD said:

And by the way - you should be paying off the principle from the get-go.

what? do you want to pull up figures on how many people were taking out option-ARMs, of which your mortgage payment is oging entirely to interest, NOT principal?? have you looked at a basic amoritization table? how many of these people were putting 20%+ down? can you bring up the figures for that?

  On 7/3/2011 at 4:02 AM, chenGOD said:

Why would people refinance? Because they got lied to. We've gone over this before.

bullshit. bullshit bullshit bullshit. normal people who are risk averse --- whose current traditional mortgage and at current interest rate - were doing just fine. rising interest rates were irrelevant. the worst case they are in since 2008 is their home may be underwater. their mortgage payment hasn't changed at all - which is the reason shit went to hell. interest rates rose and people w/ variable rates could no longer afford their mortgage payment.

your graphs proving me wrong about how more people were refinancing vs first time buyers does not have any attitude adjustment regarding the core of this discussion and my debate.

hey, we may or may not be in a gold/commodity bubble right now; but according to you, they have no other choice but to invest, right? lol.

  On 7/2/2011 at 8:51 PM, GORDO said:

well at least we can all agree that elusive is a dick.

Fuck you born rich, rich kids. Seriously, fuck you so hard.

You're not to blame though, you're ancestors are.

You wanna know what the difference is between rich kids and non rich kids?

If you're on the verge of liver failure or already in it and you need a transplant, you can't get one, the waiting list is in excess of years. If you're rich though you can buy one, get it flown in and have it transplanted within 12 hours. That's the difference, life or death.

  On 6/20/2011 at 10:44 PM, KY said:

i wish i had a rich daddy or mommy

Two rich mummies would be uber kool.

  On 7/3/2011 at 7:52 AM, abusivegeorge said:

  On 6/20/2011 at 10:44 PM, KY said:

i wish i had a rich daddy or mommy

 

Two rich mummies would be uber kool.

sugar mummies ??

mo.m

Like a cougar.

Ermm that's good speculation yourself elusive - but I've never invested in the stock market (worse than a casino, at least with poker if you know how to play you can generally make some money), and never been burned in a bubble.

Many people in fact did not get crazy mortgages - they had invested in usual funds, possibly some slightly higher-risk indexes. However, with the ratings agencies bought and paid for, they were giving secure AAA ratings to worthless crap, and when people started defaulting on their mortgages en masse, the private debt went public. That's what fucked your economy.

People will invest or purchase goods on the basis of their utility. Take a goddamn micro class and learn how consumer behaviour works.

Let's say you are a risk averse person - and from the sounds of things you are - and your broker, who you trust, cause he has never screwed you before says "hey I've got these great investment packages, which have been rated AAA by Moodys...they're a surefire thing." You look at them, you do your due diligence - and wow they look pretty good - you know these liabilities. So you go in. What you don't realize is that you're dealing with not just imperfect information, but information that has been highly distorted. You would have no way of knowing this of course, cause those liabilities are a big jumble of debt packages, and there's no way of finding out which ones are solid and which ones aren't. Now you have all those fucknuts who wanted to leverage themselves to the hilt on their house defaulting - and what happens to your investment? up the chimney with santa's big fat ass. you're out 20K, and you have no way to get it back. Did you do anything wrong?

Your info on mortgages is fucking whack - if you take out an Interest-Only ARM then yes - your first 3-5 years of payments are only going to the interest. There are several types of payment-option ARMs, some which are interest only and some which are traditional principal+interest. Since you're so big on everyone having access to google, you could have at least spent 5 minutes using that resource to learn that:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/arms/arms_english.htm

Until you come out with something beyond - "everyone should be rational herp-derp" your arguments are null and void.

"Mummmies" Delet... British way is spelt with a U, and if I were to have said "Mummy's" that would equate to "Mum is". If I were referring to an item that belonged to my Mum, that would be "Mum's".

Perhaps it is the wrong terminology though, and I were supposed to have "Mums'"?

Or have I missed your point entirely and Mo.m is a porn star cougar/milf?

mo

like a fox.