Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You or anyone else saying they don't, certainly doesn't mean they don't either.
You know what I said.
It's what I assumed. It's nonsensical though, so I didn't want to make that assumption. It's not about what anyone says. It's about what the empirical data shows. There's no shortage of empirical data showing that structures generally do depreciate on an inflation-adjusted basis. There is a shortage of empirical data showing that structures generally do appreciation on an inflation-adjusted basis. Your contrarian statement and circular logic are a weak argument to empirical data.
It's what I assumed. It's nonsensical though, so I didn't want to make that assumption. It's not about what anyone says. It's about what the empirical data shows. There's no shortage of empirical data showing that structures generally do depreciate on an inflation-adjusted basis. There is a shortage of empirical data showing that structures generally do appreciation on an inflation-adjusted basis. Your contrarian statement and circular logic are a weak argument to empirical data.
You saying something is there does not make it so. Just like earlier when someone mentioned the majority of economists agree on the percentage that should be used for transportation but the very first link I clicked said something entirely different.
I've found that on the internet saying "Empirical" generally means you are trying to sound authoritative but actually have no clue.
You have no desire to post factual information either. Oh well.
I've mostly stated opinion. I'm not the one posting opinions as fact. If you disagree with my opinion, post a valid rebuttal.
If everyone followed Dave's advice, the economy would collapse. Can I prove this with outside factual information? Of course not but I can provide common sense.
If people waiting until they had a million in assets to buy a new car, the automotive market would collapse and there would be very few used cars for others to purchase as new cars are not being bought.
I'm pushing 67yo & never bought a new car in my life. Just knowing that it would lose about 50% of its value as soon as I drove it off the dealer's lot creeps me out. It's not going to bring me anywhere that my used cars did for only a fraction of that cost.
Put the money you saved into mutual funds to retire earlier or a nice vacation you otherwise wouldn't have taken.
I'm pushing 67yo & never bought a new car in my life. Just knowing that it would lose about 50% of its value as soon as I drove it off the dealer's lot creeps me out. It's not going to bring me anywhere that my used cars did for only a fraction of that cost.
Put the money you saved into mutual funds to retire earlier or a nice vacation you otherwise wouldn't have taken.
What if you prefer a new car as opposed to a vacation? Why is it your place to determine that for others?
Good for you. The idea that "this is what I did, so everyone should" is lame.
My idea was not that they should, but that they could. There's nothing lame about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
