All Forum Posts by: John Jabson

anyone have thought on this?

Brian, I live in a rural town with a TON of renters. Alot of 20,000-25,000 jobs around here with people who cannot buy houses themselves. Do you think it's a good idea to go door-to-door or basically network around town (the town is only about 14,000 people) to find owners that would want to master lease? I'm talking about SFH's here.

A few of the guys on here mentioned that there's no money in property management. It seems to me though that if I had 5 properties that profited 100 dollars per month that would be 500/month extra income. For some that's not worth the time and effort but I'm thinking that 500/month would be quite helpful for myself. Thoughts?

What did you mean by the symptom of the problem, by the way?

Ok-I actually agree with your analysis. I'm more blaming than I am wanting to understand the foundation of the problem. I am in the process of learning more about it.

Also, I am generalizing about the last 100 years. It wasn't all bust, but the debt is a real issue and both sides have made it what it is. But, isn't it fair to say these progressive ideas, such as stimulation economics, are new and thus have a direct or indirect influence on the rubbage economic world we live in today?

Also-how can we mix the Keynesian model and the supply side model? Obviously we have and it does not work. It seems like mixing water and oil and expecting a good result. It's either one works and the other does not, or vise versa. Isn't that a fair assessment? How can a mixture legitimately work?

A simple person can look at the west over the last 100 years and ask the simple question, has it worked? The answer is no, it has not worked. Ballooning govt debt and dependent populace. You can criticize me for saying that I only know the basics. That's fine and I'm ok with that. But I don't need to be a college professor to understand that radical leftists believe in this Keynesian stuff. And the key word is radical.

The naive voter sometimes knows more than the "enlightened" college professor or the "educated" finance major. Yes, it's true. It is absolutely true. I'm not speaking for myself. I'm speaking in general.

Radical is radical and that's all there is to it.

It makes no sense to me when a Keynesian argues that an economy can only expand to a certain point (which is logical) and government spending needs to "fill the void" left by reduction in spending. Doesn't the Keynesian look at China and realize that production equals wealth? This is where college professors will look at you and say "you just don't understand" when, in fact, the professor is the idiot. It does not take a finance major to realize that production creates wealth, not spending.

JScott-I don't have to be an expert on this stuff to realize that liberal driven ideas are crazy. Always crazy. Never logical. I've read a decent amount of Keynesian economics. I know the basics but that's it. I will read more, but again, I don't have to be an expert to realize the people that support it and then draw the conclusion that it's probably garbage.

But could collapse happen if lenders stop lending? I understand that interest groups make it hard to cut spending but somehow lenders will not lend forever. If the debt gets too far out of hand they will stop. If they stop, all #$# hits the fan, does it not?

Other countries have central banks and are doing the same thing. Makes you wonder if, in the history books 500 years from now, it will say, "Central Banks Collapse Currencies." Am I too radical on this?

Callum-If we're close to 50% debt to GDP right now, do you think 100% would force a currency crisis? Would it take 120%? I guess I'm asking anyone but Callum mentioned that aspect...