Decline of Functioning Society

[homersheineken]

There are two issues here that you are not taking into account :

-The fact that inflation has been baked into the monetary system since the inception of the Fed, accelerating after Bretton Woods (1971 on), leading to a steady, incremental decline in purchasing power, further compounded by large transfers of wealth from the middle class to the banksters in the "bailouts" of 2008, 2020, with trillions printed out out of thin air funneling through Blackrock and charged by the Fed.

-There were enormous gains in productivity in the last several decades, generating great wealth, which should have resulted in similar wage gains but were almost entirely captured by the top .1% :

We do our best, stay positive, but also be cognizant of the severe flaws in the system that have gotten gradually worse, as they can be sorted out by good leadership, not 50 year mortgages.

See Diversity is a strength - of the ruling/billionaire class.

 

[FrancisK]

In my small home town, and many others, there were many large 4/5 bedroom Victorian houses. The craftsmanship and detail in these homes blow the doors of the modern cookie cutter homes.

Without modern technology, these houses were difficult to heat in the winter, thus they went away from this style of house. But they existed and were beautiful. Modern technology allows for these larger homes, but they cost much more per income v. the homes of 60+ years ago. I still remember a time when no one though "my house is my biggest investment" and I still to this day believe anyone whose home is their biggest investment is both poor and financially illiterate.

I actually agree with that, the home you live in is not an investment it's an expense. It may be a smart expense it may be a necessary expense but it's not an investment.

 

[It_Is_My_Time]

I actually agree with that, the home you live in is not an investment it's an expense. It may be a smart expense it may be a necessary expense but it's not an investment.

Yes, exactly. Or, you can view it as an investment, I wouldn't recommend it, but it certainly should not be your biggest investment.

The reason for the rise in McMansions in the USA is from the brainwashing thoughts put out that "your home is your biggest investment". I hear this all the time. It is a way for the elites to grow more in power, by getting people to make their house their largest investment and give women an excuse to buy a bigger/nicer home than needed. This is a very recent trend in the USA and was not the mindset 50 years ago.

 

[dicknixon72]

Yes, exactly. Or, you can view it as an investment, I wouldn't recommend it, but it certainly should not be your biggest investment.

The reason for the rise in McMansions in the USA is from the brainwashing thoughts put out that "your home is your biggest investment". I hear this all the time. It is a way for the elites to grow more in power, by getting people to make their house their largest investment and give women an excuse to buy a bigger/nicer home than needed. This is a very recent trend in the USA and was not the mindset 50 years ago.

Its based in the concept that owning a home/property is the easiest way to establish generational wealth. Its something you can always come back to, its something of value to pass down to your children, etc.

 

[It_Is_My_Time]

Its based in the concept that owning a home/property is the easiest way to establish generational wealth. Its something you can always come back to, its something of value to pass down to your children, etc.

Yes, of course in the past this was more done through land, which has way more real-world intrinsic value. This is much more expensive today, due to the collapse of the middle class, and now it is done through a house. But making your house your largest investment is still a mistake, due to it not having as much real-world value. If one were to make land their largest investment, that would be a good financial move, if you can pull it off. A house, not at all.

 

[dicknixon72]

Yes, of course in the past this was more done through land, which has way more real-world intrinsic value. This is much more expensive today, due to the collapse of the middle class, and now it is done through a house. But making your house your largest investment is still a mistake, due to it not having as much real-world value. If one were to make land their largest investment, that would be a good financial move, if you can pull it off. A house, not at all.

The problem is people have become accustomed to perpetually 'buying' instead of being satisfied with one they purchased young and expanded as their family has grown. You buy a starter home, then you sell it to buy a larger home, which you then sell to buy a larger home, and the cycle persists until you die still paying a mortgage. Yes, this is attributable largely to consumer-driver women having more say in the purchase of a home - why convert the garage into another bedroom or build an addition when we can just get a larger home? A newer home? In a better neighborhood? Don't I deserve it?

One has to start somewhere and if that start is acquiring a suburban home in a non-deeded/HOA neighborhood and own the deed, then that's a good beginning to acquire more property, even if that property isn't necessarily contiguous with one another, something more challenging to do versus in the homesteading days of the past.

Owning an few acres of land with a tidy manufactured home on it is far 'wealthier' than perpetually paying a mortgage on a faux estate in a deed-restricted tract development. Most men and some of the more intelligent women understand this; the rest clearly do not.

 

[FrancisK]

The problem is people have become accustomed to perpetually 'buying' instead of being satisfied with one they purchased young and expanded as their family has grown. You buy a starter home, then you sell it to buy a larger home, which you then sell to buy a larger home, and the cycle persists until you die still paying a mortgage. Yes, this is attributable largely to consumer-driver women having more say in the purchase of a home - why convert the garage into another bedroom or build an addition when we can just get a larger home? A newer home? In a better neighborhood? Don't I deserve it?

One has to start somewhere and if that start is acquiring a suburban home in a non-deeded/HOA neighborhood and own the deed, then that's a good beginning to acquire more property, even if that property isn't necessarily contiguous with one another, something more challenging to do versus in the homesteading days of the past.

Owning an few acres of land with a tidy manufactured home on it is far 'wealthier' than perpetually paying a mortgage on a faux estate in a deed-restricted tract development. Most men and some of the more intelligent women understand this; the rest clearly do not.

A close family friend someone I consider an older brother who is a hotel magnate lived in a single family modular home in a nice safe clean neighborhood most of his adult life. A sprawling real deal mansion on the lake which looks like it's an extension of the Las Vegas Venetian came up for sale cheap a while back, the house that everyone drives by and points at to say "wow look at that house" probably one of the most exorbitant homes in Michigan. He bought it and it has gone up in value probably 10x....

He is completely miserable there and misses his old home.

 

[InspCallahan]

Well the whole Move to Suburbia thing was a Jewish Operation. I forget the fellas name who was the main suspect in the Suburbanization of America. E Michael Jokes speaks of him.

Remember, we are all drawing conclusions from a Jewish Run and Controlled Economy. When you adapt, unless you go Kazinski mode, you are adapting to the same Economy. Somebody may school me here...and they have a parallel Economy they can make a good living from, but most folks saying they are adapting which is fine and understanable for Survival. But this does not devalue the fact that many back then just worked regular jobs and had the house, vehicle and other amenities. And I'm speaking from a post WW2 Modern Sophisticated Economy not way back when.

If the so-called Service Economy needed slave labor to pen it out as other industries have well then it wasn't viable in the 1st place.

And i don't care what anyone says...Lots of these Paycheck Capitalist like the Endless Growth schemes that ruin wages as well as flooding the Workforce with women and illegals.
Wages are the 1st thing to go when all this Leveraged buyouts happen....wrecked the entire Functioning Viable Midwest America. Ruined the Middle Class....Rich folks going ...."What Happened" ...I love the..."Why don't people want to work?" Boomercon statements..

 

[dicknixon72]

Well the whole Move to Suburbia thing was a Jewish Operation. I forget the fellas name who was the main suspect in the Suburbanization of America. E Michael Jokes speaks of him.

I know the episode you're speaking of. The interviewee's name eludes me, too, but I recall the jist of it - Jews pushed the gentiles out of established, productive, and well-functioning urban cores to the suburbs while simultaneously enticing blacks to leave the Southern land they tended for generations - and in many cases as sharecroppers owned - into Midwestern and Northern factories for work, promising both wealth and riches while simultaneously consigning both to financial drudgery (the whites with rampant consumerism and the blacks with family destruction and government dependence) while they bought up the remnants of vibrant urbans cores and fertile farmland.

Jews won on multiple fronts - the control and subsequent destruction of an independent middle class bloc, increasing a divide by racial lines versus class and economic lines, absorbing valuable properties in both cities and countryside, and ensuring a steady flow of productive worker capital in both blue-collar black and white-collar whites.

A true quadfecta, aka the (((HOLY QUADJEWNITY)))