This REALLY is the end of the World.....

tomterm8

lostinrates wrote: »

when we move we'll be getting milk providers. I like goats too much to eat them, I think, though I like the taste of goat too . but they are hard not to fall in love with: quite doggy.

In my experience, sheep die. They are healthy and then a few seconds latter just fall over and die for no reason. Even the vet rarely knows why. I also find that sheep get to know you, and act a bit like big idiotic gormless dogs. A small flock will soon be eating out of your hand, and following you around the field in a great long line.

Rams are little ****** too... they try to butt you for no reason.

lostinrates wrote: »

we've chosen what breed we'll be going with of them.

We've got hebrideans. I would advise a non-primative breed unless you are in the hills. The primative breads have an amazing ability to pretend to be dumb 95% of the time, go into your enclosure, and then absolutly refuse to be caught the second you get a vet in to sort out some illness.

Did you watch that victorian farm program? The primative sheep will outrun you every time.

lostinrates wrote: »

But we'll almost certainly keep few dual purpose cows really. Not an easy decision, cows are also lovely lovely people.

Cows can be very dangerous, every now and again they kill someone. The period where they have young calfs you need to be very careful.

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

In my experience, sheep die. They are healthy and then a few seconds latter just fall over and die for no reason. Even the vet rarely knows why. I also find that sheep get to know you, and act a bit like big idiotic gormless dogs. A small flock will soon be eating out of your hand, and following you around the field in a great long line.

Rams are little ****** too... they try to butt you for no reason.

not only do they die, they commit suicide it seems to me I get on quite well with our neighbours ram, its a bit of a joke that he only tried to butt me once. we have an understanding now, as far as one can have with a sheep. He gives me looks, I give him looks and we respect each other. :cool:

We've got hebrideans. I would advise a non-primative breed unless you are in the hills. The primative breads have an amazing ability to pretend to be dumb 95% of the time, go into your enclosure, and then absolutly refuse to be caught the second you get a vet in to sort out some illness.

we ARE going for a ''park'' breed. Then they'll look a bit goaty and I might like them more. At least with those little scottish sheep you can deal with them: because I'm alone a lot I'm wary of being left with a huge dorset poll or something that I can't phsically manhandle.:D And the primitives taste better, IMHO. BUT I'm also of the opinion that you make life easier for yourself my buying the right breed- and indeed species- for the land your on. Problems, generally, are halved that way.:)

Did you watch that victorian farm program? The primative sheep will outrun you every time.

a tortoise can out run me. I have to use guile and bribery.

Cows can be very dangerous, every now and again they kill someone. The period where they have young calfs you need to be very careful.

Family are dairy farmers, jerseys mainly. I know all about nasty cows Jerseys are beautiful but capricious (er, bovicious? ). but not dual purpose

marklv

The_Eye_Of_Sauron wrote: »

Reader's Digest gone bust.....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8308d946-8b57-11de-9f50-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

I'm amazed it lasted so long. It may have been popular in the 1950s to 1970s, but the entire style of the magazine has become hugely outdated.

bluey890

lostinrates wrote: »

Holidays. Hmm. we go away: but the last actual holiday for holidaying we had, outside the country we were living in, was...........before I was ill....six years ago? When we live in Italy we spent weekends visiting other places, sure. Also, DH's family do not live in UK. We have a certain amount of travel for family responsibilities in the same way some one else might have a two hour train journey for theirs. DH travels a lot for work.

I love to travel but I hate to leave: I have my animal responsibilities, and I'm not very good at delagating them. I'm happy enough to have help, but if I'm not here who'll rub the cats' ears in their favourite places,or know which hen laid which egg or.... I could go on lots of DH's non client related ''jollies'' and often I want too, but I'm not happy to leave my brood until perhaps we are settled, when hopefully, things will work out so that I'm not leaving the animals with someone they and I don't know well and trust.

yes, we do eat and drink well. Because I am frugal through the week we can afford little luxuries at weekends: to eat like that all the time would be wasteful and indulgant and no longer so pleasurable. We drink well too, but I abstain fully from alcohol from New year for three months.

I have in the past taken some pretty big financial risks and been pretty bullish, and as I say, I feel the debt we are prepared to put behind our plans is not inconsiderable: dopester and mewbie would do their best to get me sectioned I guess. I thin the thing is I'm prepared to take calculated risks. As a horserider, for example, one could argue I risk my life often. I used to work a lot with youngstock and starting horses: and my own rides are often not for the meek: but its a risk I balance with insurances: I wear some safety equipement, and not other ''industry standard kit'' based on personal risk evaluation . The risks I can take are different from those my less capable rider of a DH could, but it also means the rewards for me are more obviously great. OTOH I'd take fewer risks in the future than I did at 17/18 because my position and responsibilities have changed.

I don't believe there is one static approach to risk/bullishness: our circumstances, markets, knowledge and understanding of those markets,crucially the proportional costs of getting it wrong are not static: there are times when the same decision is more or less risky than at other times. Betting a hundred on a 20-1 is less risky if you have a million in the bank than if it is your last hundred.

I think of it as extreme moderation the result is an average ''mean'' moderation style, but not a modal or median one

ETA: when we had a IFA we filled in a questionnaireto assess ur approach. DH came out much more even and moderate as a slightly above average risk taker. I had answered positively to a lot of high risk investments: but based on certain circumstances. I can't just say yes I'd take that risk/no Iwouldn't: it depends on everything else not posed in that question: life is a 3d rubix cube, not a 2d sudoku

Another edit: re things like travelling: its too complex to draw conclutions from what I've said, it doesn't really give an accurate picture of the starting point. e.g. both dh and I are not pure british stock, we have had different from average travel experiences our entire lives. Iwas all done and had enough travelling for a while in my late teens just as everyone else was thinking about spreading their wings. Its the same with work and saving, and taking risks etc: one can't really be wholly frank or give a complete picture to how that impacts on where we are now: its too...open...for a forum.

How about you bluey: how have you formed your cuurent perspective: whats the (partial) back ground ?:)

O.K. here it goes.

I produce stochastic economic models for a living. My graphs aren't public domain, so will never (hopefully) appear on here...

I own my own home (I say own, but think of it as being owned by the bank). I much prefer having my own place, I would defo not go back to renting. I think british law complicates the rental market, for both LL and tenant.

I pay very little interest on the mortgage, I took out a good long term product in the knowledge that cheap debt is wealth. Incidentently I think you're the only bear on here that I know of who understands this. Which is an impressive feat.

My grandparents migrated to the UK with plenty of inherited wealth. They lost much of it through a combination of lack of financial knowledge and a bear stance.

I and my siblings have done well, having had a work ethic installed in us by our parents. Some through setting up their own comapny and some through being skilled and having decent jobs. We have all spent to invest in either companies or ourselves.

You are probably bored and / or have fallen asleep by now. So I'll stop.

lostinrates

bluey890 wrote: »

I produce stochastic economic models for a living. My graphs aren't public domain, so will never (hopefully) appear on here...

How very interesting

I think british law complicates the rental market, for both LL and tenant.

I agree: I also think this is a travesty and that overhaul of this would improve countless lives, both financially, and practically, improving life and possibly even society.

I pay very little interest on the mortgage, I took out a good long term product in the knowledge that cheap debt is wealth. Incidentently I think you're the only bear on here that I know of who understands this. Which is an impressive feat.

Hmm. I made money through debt in the past. I think we will probably miss the ''cheap debt'' and the best we can hope for will be a good offset. I'm not sure though how we will structure this: we need a practical broker I think. Our agriculture broker seems quite good, but if we go residential route I'm not sure how we'll do it.

My grandparents migrated to the UK with plenty of inherited wealth. They lost much of it through a combination of lack of financial knowledge and a bear stance.

One of DH's grands was a wealthy immigrant too: lost a hell of a lot through a bullish stance . Shame really. Actually, I think less the bullish stance, more the failure to put the grunt and promotion of the idea behind a huge investment. Its a greater shame because the investment that nearly broke him is now a MASSIVE product :rolleyes: My maternal family had all theirs in property and land really: and yes, thats dwindled from being terribly grand landholding to....a less impressive thing indeed. Its not just the bull bear thing, its the people and the timing and the other things around it.

I and my siblings have done well, having had a work ethic installed in us by our parents. Some through setting up their own comapny and some through being skilled and having decent jobs. We have all spent to invest in either companies or ourselves.

#

Thats tremendous. I'd say, with some blushing, that DH and I are the most practically savvy of our siblings. Which is quite worrying. We both had to have tremendous faith in our selves/ability in previous careers. It makes a difference. I would say all of us lot have a work ethic: just differently.

You are probably bored and / or have fallen asleep by now. So I'll stop.

Not at all, most interesting post for ages. The people behind the funny names really mean something to me. If I understand why they say what they say I understand more of how to view it, how to appreciate it. It makes more sense, even though what the argument is remains the same.

I'm not unfamiliar with dry acedemic discusiion on economics and politics, but sometimes the lack of ''human'' behind people making these decisions has the same imact as the lack of human has here. I'd like to give an example: but find that, once again, the intenet is not the best vehicle for such ''openess'', c'est la vie. :rolleyes::o

Thank you Bluey.

Slinky

Oh dear it looks like RD outlasted my Dad by a month. At least I won't have to bother cancelling his subs.

tomterm8

bluey890 wrote: »

I took out a good long term product in the knowledge that cheap debt is wealth.

I disagree, well invested cheap debt is, eventually, wealth. Cheap debt badly invested is bankruptcy. The problem with both congenital bulls and congenital bears is that they tend to invest badly.

bluey890

lostinrates wrote: »

How very interesting

I agree: I also think this is a travesty and that overhaul of this would improve countless lives, both financially, and practically, improving life and possibly even society.

Hmm. I made money through debt in the past. I think we will probably miss the ''cheap debt'' and the best we can hope for will be a good offset. I'm not sure though how we will structure this: we need a practical broker I think. Our agriculture broker seems quite good, but if we go residential route I'm not sure how we'll do it.

One of DH's grands was a wealthy immigrant too: lost a hell of a lot through a bullish stance . Shame really. Actually, I think less the bullish stance, more the failure to put the grunt and promotion of the idea behind a huge investment. Its a greater shame because the investment that nearly broke him is now a MASSIVE product :rolleyes: My maternal family had all theirs in property and land really: and yes, thats dwindled from being terribly grand landholding to....a less impressive thing indeed. Its not just the bull bear thing, its the people and the timing and the other things around it.

#

Thats tremendous. I'd say, with some blushing, that DH and I are the most practically savvy of our siblings. Which is quite worrying. We both had to have tremendous faith in our selves/ability in previous careers. It makes a difference. I would say all of us lot have a work ethic: just differently.

Not at all, most interesting post for ages. The people behind the funny names really mean something to me. If I understand why they say what they say I understand more of how to view it, how to appreciate it. It makes more sense, even though what the argument is remains the same.

I'm not unfamiliar with dry acedemic discusiion on economics and politics, but sometimes the lack of ''human'' behind people making these decisions has the same imact as the lack of human has here. I'd like to give an example: but find that, once again, the intenet is not the best vehicle for such ''openess'', c'est la vie. :rolleyes::o

Thank you Bluey.

I am not much of a writer, so try to avoid it. It certainly doesn't come naturally to me, probably due to occasionally being lostinthought. I often find writing short pieces of banter more natural.

I agree, people working in law do seem to need to be confident and resilient (owning your own business too). A relative works for the one of the magic circle and has seen people crack under the pressure put on them. I guess foundinrates copes by having the weekends to look forward to.

My grandparents lost money slowly over time, not hedging against inflation being one reason. Having said that they did like their spending too , they owned a lot of cars and went on numerous holidays (when both were relatively far more expensive). Giving my dad a good childhood travelling around the world on holiday.

My DW says I am good at asking challenging questions (joke opportunity?). The pragmatic in me means I'll often question and ask for a posters viewpoint or solution to something they've mentoned. Some posters (not you) don't like being challenged and I think this can inadvertently cause offence when that wasn't the intention.

Phew, finally got to write a response, my DW has me on on spider removal (I place them in the garden) duty tonight, where do they all keep coming from? I thought that keeping the long thin ones around was meant to keep larger one's out. It doesn't however seem to work.

bluey890

tomterm8 wrote: »

I disagree, well invested cheap debt is, eventually, wealth. Cheap debt badly invested is bankruptcy. The problem with both congenital bulls and congenital bears is that they tend to invest badly.

I would argue that Initial indebtedness is not a prerequisite to bad decisions leading to bankruptcy.

I do however think that both of us are right, and yes I know it's a cop-out.

Perception depends on where you're standing (bear, bull or perhaps some other farm yard animal). To a moderate(?) bull like myself, cheap implies the rate of interest is below GILT rates and/or inflation, which I equate to wealth.


disclaimers
1) I use the terms bull and bear are as relative terms to the median poster on this forum.
2) Underlying assumption that GILTS are risk free in the above example.
3) Any link to einsteins theory of relativity is pure coinincidence.

tomterm8

bluey890 wrote: »

I would argue that Initial indebtedness is not a prerequisite to bad decisions leading to bankruptcy.

I agree that many roads lead to bankruptcy.

bluey890 wrote: »

Perception depends on where you're standing (bear, bull or perhaps some other farm yard animal). To a moderate(?) bull like myself, cheap implies the rate of interest is below GILT rates and/or inflation, which I equate to wealth.

Personally, I think of being rich as having sufficient unencumbered assets to produce, given a sensible investment strategy, an income without needing to work. Wealth is the unencumbered asset part of the equation.

The key I think is good investment... that is, you can be poor even with cheap debt if you use the debt foolishly. The key to good investment is, in my view, simply that the asset you purchase should have the characteristics that (a) it produces positive cashflow and (b) that it pays off any debt within its predicted life without need for capital appreciation.

In my case, I haven't invested in property because (a) and (b) have not yet been satisfied... people have been relying on the increase in real cost of the property. I think that's a slightly risky strategy. Any asset class can go up or down in cost, but if you invest in something with characteristics (a) and (b). you will eventually become wealthy.