Short of winning the lottery, which is unlikely, seeing as I perceive the lottery and all its variations such as scratch cards to be no more than a tax on the stupid, there is one thing I can say with certainty.
I am never going to own my own home/house.
Neither am I going to pretend own one by keeping a bank rich by paying a mortgage, for many, many, reasons.
The first reason is basic math, and folks, exponential functions are basic math, if you find exponential functions to be more complex than simple arithmetic, then your basic math (and other) education was sadly lacking, possibly on purpose, and you need to clue yourself in pronto.
Take an hour and a quarter out of you life and watch this now
So.. the quick and dirty trick is this, 70
take your percentage rate, divide it into 70, and the answer is the number of times you have to apply that percentage rate to double.
a percentage rate always has two things, the actual percentage, and the time factor, which makes it a percentage rate.
1% a month, 70 / 1 = 70 “units” and those units are months, so 70 months is the doubling time, 70 / 12 = 5.83 years
2.5% a year, 70 / 2.5 = 28 units, and those units are years, so 28 years.
Now I can go out today to NatWest bank in the UK and apply for a mortgage, 4.99%, call it 5%, fixed for only two years, then it goes variable, so it ain’t going DOWN, 5% deposit with the new guvvmint help to buy scheme, and since I was just talking to a yank and we got talking about the Mayflower etc, here we go in *approximately* that area, eg commuting distance from Plymouth.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44473127.html
Now, £229,950 we can call £300k.
A 5% deposit is £15,000. That is not an inconsiderable sum of money, when you consider a bus driver doing all the overtime he can can pull in a gross before tax of 18k, so we are looking at saving an entire years worth of salary, and not spending one single penny of it on anything, not even council tax etc.
70 / 5 = 35, so we have a doubling time of 35 years, by the time we have paid off this mortgage, in 35 years time, in the year 2048, and I will be 90 then, and better still be working… and this is assuming, which is stupid, that for the repayment rate is going to stay fixed at 5%, it isn’t, basically I’m going to throw £600,000 at that house, not including property taxes and maintenance and light and heat or anything else, just paying off the original loan.
£600,000 / 30 year mortgage = £20,000 a year… so that shit I did to save up for the deposit for one year, I can do that for another 30 to 40 years to pay the fucker off…. and since I can live on air for 30 years, why do I need a fucking house.
But, being in my 50’s, I can remember AFTER the financial crisis of the mid seventies, when things settled down again, my parents went to Nat West bank (which is why I mentioned them) , and borrowed money for a mortgage, they went to Nat West because their bank, Midland, the bank accountant said that the rate of interest Nat west was offering was, and I quote “financial suicide (for Nat West)” in the current economic conditions.
The rate was 8%. 70 / 8 = the doubling time was 8.75 years, and that was considered financial suicide.
Some years before that, at the end of the seventies financial crisis, which is before AFTER it, but after DURING it, things had settled down a lot, I had an argument with my bank, and refused to take a loan to buy a new motorsickle, the interest rate was just too fucking high (even for a three year vehicle loan) at 34.7% APR, call it 35%, 70 / 35 = 2, doubling time of 2 years, that bike would have cost me two and a half times the cash price… my argument was because the mortgage rate at that time had just dropped, to 12%
70 / 12 = doubling time of 5.83 years.
Thing was, back then, banks were more honest about how impossible such loans were, and the rule was the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM you could borrow for a mortgage, and this shit did not apply to first time buyers, but to established people in fixed jobs for years, was 4.5 times your salary, if you were a first time buyer it was nearer to 3.5 times your salary.
Deposits were also usually 10%
So, our £300,000 house.
Either way you would have needed a £30,000 deposit, and if you were a first time buyer 270,000 / 3.5 = £77,142 annual salary, or if you were an established person 270,00 / 4.5 = £60,000 annual salary.
At about this time, petrol was about £1 per imperial gallon, today it is £6.21, which should give you some idea of just how fucking huge a 60k salary would have been back then, never mind today, for yer average working stiff.
Back then, nobody would have been saddled with credit card debt, store card debt, overdrafts and such like either, cos that shit just didn’t exist.
If we work it the other way around….
Take our bus driver working all the overtime he can get, gross before deductions of £18,000, lets say he has been with a company a few years so he can get the steady earner rate, 4.5 x salary.
18,000 x 4.5 = £83,250 – that’s the upper limit.
If we take the gas price inflation, which is 1 to 6.21, and reverse apply that to the house price, 83,250 / 6.21 = £27,945 edit, as pointed out, bad math / typo, 83250 / 6.21 = 13875… point still stands though
Fact is, 25 to 28 thousand pounds is more or less what a house like that was selling for back then, and this is AFTER the crazy mid seventies shit, my folks bought a house for £2,800 pounds in 1972, and sold it for £31,000 in 1979.
So by any SANE metric, our £300,000 house is worth £83,250.
£300,000 – £83,250 = £216,750 over valued.
83,250 / 300,000 = 0.2775 and that x 100 = 27.75, so the house is WORTH 27% of the asking price, so the other 73% of the asking price is nothing more substantial than a bubble, as in south sea bubble, Mississippi bubble, etc etc etc
Let’s say there are 100 houses on that road, and they are all identical, pricing them all correctly, you just wiped 100 x £216,700 off the “value” of that street, which is £21.6 million.
1,000 streets like that in the Plymouth area, you just wiped £21.6 billion off the “value” of that very small city, just a big town really, that is the last place the pilgrims landed on English soil before departing for The Americas aboard the Mayflower.
Start applying that to all the other towns and villages and cities, just in the south west of the country, and now you are talking serious money, and we haven’t even got to the rest of the country yet, much less London itself… this total disparity far exceeds any possible national debt or GDP figures by orders of magnitude.
Bernie Madoff starts looking like a philanthropist.
I will never own a house;
- I don’t have enough to buy one outright
- The sham masquerading as mortgages where you don’t own anything until the last payment is made, coupled with what you will have paid by the time you make that last payment, totally annuls any imputed “value” to the “asset” that is now legally your property.
It’s not necessarily a bad thing, imagine a scenario where my employer says to me hey AfOR, you’re a reliable employee and a single guy so we pay you fuck all which makes you a good and cheap employee, thing is, we’re dumping 25% of the workforce, now your salary means you are one of the ones we would like to keep, but your location, no work there any-more… wanna move?
At least I CAN.
Thing is, and this is where it gets all iniquitous and the mists shall clear for some of you…
Go back and look at that house I linked to.
(as an aside, I who remember houses like that being sold for £3,000, not £300,000, think THAT IS A THIRD OF A FUCKING MILLION POUNDS, FOR A FUCKING HOUSE, WHERE IS THE FUCKING PRIVATE ISLAND IT SITS ON???)
Forget all notions of comparing it to a house in your country, construction methods, square feet, style, forget all that, and look at what it is.
It is a FAMILY home.
No single guy is going to buy it.
It’s not the money, it’s the layout, between 30% and 50% of the construction is wasted, gimme a double garage, a workshop, and a den / games room, don’t need the dining room and two of the bedrooms.
Skank ho single mommy on state benefits ain’t gonna be buying it either, albeit she might rent it from a private landlord if the state picks up the tab.
SO, not only is it vastly overpriced, it is also not the ideal design to sell in 2014, any more than a 1970’s family saloon car is…. now we have “people carriers” for the people with more than one car in the driveway.
In fact, if only single guys are involved, your average house is going to be a steel frame construction box, with a combined garage and workshop as the open plan ground floor, and the living quarters up and over the workshop / garage / storage area.
My current (rented) pad is a place that was once not a million miles away from this in design, it was split horizontally into two separate small flats, and mine I can walk through the kitchen into my double garage / workshop without ever going outside.
Single wimminz and young lesbian wimminz couples and young wimminz and niggerz couples hate it, which makes it hard to rent, because all that garage and workshop space, which is at least 30% of the floor area, is useless to them except for the odd summer party.
Upstairs is suitable for a single niggerz, or wimminz, or a couple with no kids.
So before very long we have established a causal link between the breakdown of marriage and decades long co-habitation and raising families, and the actual stock of the housing market, and the alleged financial “value” of those houses, which is the amount of money floating around in “the economy”.
MGTOW is “bad for business”
Very fucking bad indeed.
Nor can you say, “Ah well AfOR, you are renting anyway, so you are in effect, with your fucking ridiculous rental payments, effectively subsidising the landlord’s mortgage anyway, so you are still paying off a mortgage, it just isn’t yours, lose lose…”
Not so…
Because rental properties tend to be “owned” by landlords that also “own” a bunch of other rental properties, a portfolio of anything from 5 or 6 to 20 is relatively common, as each one was used as collateral for the next “buy to let” interest only mortgage.
The Landlord is NEVER going to own them outright or pay off the capital, the buy to let business model is his “profit” is essentially a 10% take as a handling fee passing the money from the tenant to the bank, if you are renting out 6 properties at 600 quid a month each that is £3,600 a month, if your take is 10% then you are “earning” £360 a month for doing absolutely fuck all, easy money.
Well, easy money as long as you ignore the elephant in the room, the 6 INTEREST ONLY mortgages you took out, with your ONLY possible “plan” to repay the capital when it is due relying on some dumb-ass being willing to buy the property you paid 300k for, for 600k… good luck with that.. still, there is always bankruptcy eh…
The property will still be standing here, and the bank will need someone to pay some rent…
And that someone can stay 100% debt free and able to move at a moment’s notice to wherever the work is.
No captive workforce either… very bad for business.
So, the mists clearing yet? I have had a few guys talk to me about the possibility of the state enforcing marriages.
Marriage was only the vehicle, the cargo was the economic worth of the married working man, enforcing marriage isn’t going to do anything about the £300,000 house that is over valued by £216,700.
That 73% house “value” reset is the problem the state faces, not marriage.
The state itself as we know it cannot survive all property values being cut by three quarters of their existing numerical value.
And yet, the world itself is finite, and so it is inevitable that the exponential function of monetary lending must eventually hit a limit.
There are only two possible outcomes, I don’t care what you want or wish for or hope for or would like, in fact there are literally only two possible outcomes, now we have got ourselves in this mess, because we have long passed the stage where we could have dug ourselves out, however painfully.
- A reset of property “values” downwards by at least 75%, (one fourth) so the 100k house becomes 25k or less
- A reset of currency “values” downwards by at least 400% (four times) so the 250 a week take home becomes 1,000 a week take home or more.
Neither of these is of course acceptable, or re-electable, so all that is left is to do both, badly, at the same time, 125 “old bucks” is worth 10 “new bucks”
Every country in history has done this, repeatedly, first they devalue the existing currency to the point of uselessness, they they introduce a “new” currency, which is a lot less useless, and anyone who held any value that was intrinsically related to the value of the old currency, well, you just got fucked, big time.
The ONLY sums that matter are these.
Can I buy a gallon of gas (or equivalent energy) for half an hour’s wages?
Can I buy a meal for half an hours wages?
Can I rent a place for less than half my weekly wages?
Can I buy a house on a mortgage and pay it off completely (inc capital) in 15 years for less than half my monthly wages?
If THESE numbers shift, watch the fuck out…
it doesn’t matter what numbers you use or what name you give the currency, if these things are not true then you are heading for a world of hurt.
to make these things not true, to implement the greatest piece of indentured servitude and wealth transfer in human history, you need something else to be true, it must be true that most of the population remain entirely ignorant of the fact that interest is an exponential function, and the basic math required to understand what an exponential function is.
MGTOW, your “unmarried” status is not the thing the state is going to worry about, nor should you.
Your free time and mental disposition to cast off the reins and use things like the internet to expand your knowledge and education and cast off the yoke of indentured servitude for life is something the state is going to worry about, and so should you.
Answers?
I haven’t got a single one of em.
I’m not so fucking dumb I can’t see the writing on the wall, is all.