Get ready for rates to rocket

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

Not with a picture though:)

Women have faces, aswell.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

Women have faces, aswell.

? Can you tell a man or a woman just by their face?

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

? Can you tell a man or a woman just by their face?

Yes, usually, not always. I studies I took part in as a student I also have a pretty good rate of telling sex of cats and horses from faces only too, but lower rate with dogs, interestingly. If I can tell with another species i think most men would cope looking at faces

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

Yes, usually, not always. I studies I took part in as a student I also have a pretty good rate of telling sex of cats and horses from faces only too, but lower rate with dogs, interestingly. If I can tell with another species i think most men would cope looking at faces

I think the point/joke is there are easier and less appropriate (picture) ways to tell with humans.

Not sure what the "women have face aswell" coment is meant to mean.

JanCee

lostinrates wrote: »

Just like to say I've been thinking about dopesters stance over night and it occured to me that while the idea of the two highlighted cases STR seems nuts to me I drew parallel to the person I know living over their budget on benefits, who rents, but has a house full of beautiful antiques. I suggested the clue to there freedom from debt (and more) lay in the furniture and the answer from the party, and others, was ''Oh no, wh should they have to sell those, thats all they have''. If its all you have, you have it, and if you have it you have something: by definition, and so, in this sort of case, when its back against a wall on handouts or freedom, I can see a house is not so different to the antiques. I'm not sying I think that applies to Max or Treliac in the least: but viewing it this way made me sort of reach agreement with dopester for SOME people.

It is completely different. Antiques are just possessions albeit with some value. Once sold they do not have to be replaced. Once you sell your family home you have to find somewhere else to live which you have to pay for, plus the fact that you incur costs in selling that you don't get back. The whole premise of the STR argument is that house prices will fall significantly further but there is absolutely no guarantee of this and it therefore becomes a gamble which may or may not pay off.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

I think the point/joke is there are easier and less appropriate (picture) ways to tell with humans.

Not sure what the "women have face aswell" coment is meant to mean.

Mine also contained a joke really2. I don't usually explain the humour and just let people miss it, but I am concerned you might erroneously take mine as personally directed.

Really2

JanCee wrote: »

The whole premise of the STR argument is that house prices will fall significantly further but there is absolutely no guarantee of this and it therefore becomes a gamble which may or may not pay off.

good point, that is the same as any other asset even antiques. You could sell your antiques now and they could be worth twice what you sold them for in 10 years.

But the point of the added cost is very valid. You are not disposing of an asset as you have to replace by renting.
For some they will be better off sitting still and overpaying their mortgage faster than the drops.

lostinrates

JanCee wrote: »

It is completely different. Antiques are just possessions albeit with some value. Once sold they do not have to be replaced. Once you sell your family home you have to find somewhere else to live which you have to pay for, plus the fact that you incur costs in selling that you don't get back. The whole premise of the STR argument is that house prices will fall significantly further but there is absolutely no guarantee of this and it therefore becomes a gamble which may or may not pay off.

I agree its ''different''[ but I'm beginning to wonder if it is completely different or different on a matter of scale.

As I say, I do not think it corelates to Mx and Treliac (and indeed our welfare system impacts) but I can imagine scenarios where it would make sense.

It also depends on the antiques. You can live pretty well with out furniture, but I'd like a bed (mine is antique) and really, I'd quite like a sofa (mine are antique) and wardrobes/drawers - mine are antique. If I were to use these things and sell my antiques I'd be selling to replace: a scale with not STR but downsizing.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

Mine also contained a joke really2. I don't usually explain the humour and just let people miss it, but I am concerned you might erroneously take mine as personally directed.

Was the joke that I am sexist? I see the smile on the end, just that I struggling with any other way of it being a joke?

Not taking it personal, I just though it a bit odd.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

Was the joke that I am sexist?.....

Not taking it personal,

I think you might be taking it personally from what you write. Again: this is not how it was intended. I hve never met you, I hve no idea where your eyes rest on a woman. It was a joke at a well worn stereotype, just as when I talk about newbuild I do not only (or even) refer to your happy home.

It is my suggestion for your pece of mind you stick me on ignore as I think you might be misinterpreting my posts

(Edit to clarify something that could have been misinterpreted, personally- this could be exhausting)