-0.5% interest mortgages
-
@remi said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
for the rental tax part, are you sure it's not just that the land tax that everyone pays is indexed on the rental value?
Pretty sure it's not, yes; as far as I can tell it's based on (what the tax authority thinks would be) the rent you could expect to collect if you rented the place out.
-
@ixvedeusi said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
The only major difference is the end result
Yes, though I'm still a little bit doubtful about how much difference that really makes, at least as things stand here. It all depends on how much of the total sum you'd have paid in rents is really left over after subtracting the total cost of ownership of the house (which is the amount of money you could put into repaying your debt)
The right formula is TCO of house minus the value of house itself (at the end of loan). Unless by the end of 30 year period of renting, you have enough cash to buy yourself a house, then taking a mortgage 30 years ago to buy a house would've been a financially better decision.
-
@remi said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
I know, interests-only mortgages are a thing in some parts of the world, but this is definitely not the rule for normal buyers
There are two variations on the theme of "interest-only" mortgages in the UK. The "traditional" type is the so-called "endowment mortgage", where the monthly payments are, indeed interest-only (and consequently have no effect on the remaining principal), but it is accompanied by an "endowment policy", which is a sort of variation on the theme of what's sometimes called a "term life insurance" policy - you hold it for N years (the life of the mortgage contract) and in theory it pays off the principal at the end.
That "in theory" is important, because it's an investment policy, and there is the usual risk that you won't get back enough from it to pay off the mortgage principal.
A more recent variation is the so-called "interest-only" mortgage, so-called because unlike the endowment mortgage, the only way to pay off the mortgage (if you don't have the necessary money lying around) is to sell the house.
Both are based on, or at least linked to, the idea that people don't actually live in a house / flat / etc. long enough to reach the end of a mortgage contract, so the debt is always paid off (early) by selling the house rather than by paying it down / off at the end.
It's worth noting that the other type of mortgage, the so-called "repayment mortgage" is considered a bit strange in the UK, even though it is several thousand million billion percent more sane than either of the others. (You'll eventually dig your way out of a negative equity situation by the simple expedient of having paid down the principal enough, for example.)
-
There are other reasons for owning a house rather than renting. Having a yard for pets, gardening, etc... Having a garage that you can utilize for your preferred hobby. Being able to grill on your patio (never had an apartment that allowed a proper grill).
When I switched from renting to a house it was about an additional $200, for something with 3x the space and all the benefits of home ownership (it was a brand new home, so the maintenance costs are less). When I last checked (almost 3 years ago now) the rent for my last apartment is now more than my mortgage payment. So at least for me, financially alone I was money ahead to get a mortgage.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Both are based on, or at least linked to, the idea that people don't actually live in a house / flat / etc. long enough to reach the end of a mortgage contract, so the debt is always paid off (early) by selling the house rather than by paying it down / off at the end.
I've only ever heard of those mentioned for investors, i.e. when you buy (and rent) a house just to make some money, not to live in it. The idea then is that after some years you sell the house, repay the debt in full (plus, hopefully, some additional cash for you), and that in between the rent has covered the interests (and other costs), while being lower (and thus more attractive to tenants) than what would be needed for a traditional arrangement where you'd pay interest+capital (although since you don't decrease the capital, you also don't decrease the amount of interest it generates so you end up paying more in interests overall).
On paper, it's no worse than many other types of investment, you need to know what you're doing and be ready to take the risk. But I think it's indeed not very wise for the house you intend to live in (i.e. something that would hurt you very much if you lost it, and not just some money-in-another-form).
It's worth noting that the other type of mortgage, the so-called "repayment mortgage" is considered a bit strange in the UK
Uh, what? If you mean a "normal" mortgage where you pay interests + capital each month, I think we're not referring to the same UK. What's unusual is not remortgaging every few years, but this type of mortgage is by far the most common one?
-
@Dragoon said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
When I switched from renting to a house
You're mixing renting vs. owning and flat vs. house.
In many places there is no correlation between the two (you can rent a house or own a flat (edit: of course you "can" do that everywhere, it's just that it's more or less common)). Indeed in many (most?) big European cities, if you want to live in the city itself you're going to live in a flat whether you own or rent it, because that's all that's available (unless you have millions to buy a mansion).
-
@Dragoon said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@ixvedeusi
There are other reasons for owning a house rather than renting. Having a yard for pets, gardening, etc... Having a garage that you can utilize for your preferred hobby. Being able to grill on your patio (never had an apartment that allowed a proper grill).Which was my basic point: there are plenty of good reasons to own a house as a home. Owning a house as an investment--which is something very different--is just plain stupid.
-
Why is it stupid? As of right now I can turn around and sell my house for twice what I got my mortgage for.
-
@ixvedeusi said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Of course in theory, you could pay down the mortgage and end up actually owning the house eventually;
August! 2 more payments!
-
@Dragoon ...which would leave you without a house. So you'd be reasonably expected to buy another one, which has also doubled in price, so how much are you really coming out ahead?
-
@remi said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Dragoon said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
When I switched from renting to a house
You're mixing renting vs. owning and flat vs. house.
In many places there is no correlation between the two (you can rent a house or own a flat (edit: of course you "can" do that everywhere, it's just that it's more or less common)). Indeed in many (most?) big European cities, if you want to live in the city itself you're going to live in a flat whether you own or rent it, because that's all that's available (unless you have millions to buy a mansion).
I think this might be a US vs Europe terminology thing. In the US, an apartment (flat) is rented. If you live in a building that resembles an apartment building but you own your unit, it's a condominium (condo). An exception seems to be New York City where I think apartment can mean rented or owned.
-
@remi said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Both are based on, or at least linked to, the idea that people don't actually live in a house / flat / etc. long enough to reach the end of a mortgage contract, so the debt is always paid off (early) by selling the house rather than by paying it down / off at the end.
I've only ever heard of those mentioned for investors, i.e. when you buy (and rent) a house just to make some money, not to live in it.
No, endowment mortgages are quite common for owner-occupiers as well. (Er, precisely because people move around enough to make it interesting.) "Pure" interest-only mortgages for owner-occupiers are more recent, as I understand it.
It's worth noting that the other type of mortgage, the so-called "repayment mortgage" is considered a bit strange in the UK
Uh, what? If you mean a "normal" mortgage where you pay interests + capital each month, I think we're not referring to the same UK. What's unusual is not remortgaging every few years, but this type of mortgage is by far the most common one?
Hard to say, but when I've heard people discussing mortgages, I always got the impression that endowment mortgages were considered more "normal" than repayment mortgages, but nothing on Earth could persuade me to take any kind of loan where I'm not paying off at least some of the principal each month. (That said, I've never had any kind of mortgage.)
-
You are assuming I am staying in the same place doing the same thing. Which is not a reasonable assumption if I am treating my house as an investment.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Dragoon ...which would leave you without a house. So you'd be reasonably expected to buy another one, which has also doubled in price, so how much are you really coming out ahead?
Depends. If he wants to move to an area with a lower cost of living (job change or whatever) then he's come out ahead. Or, when he's older, he may want to downsize the house or move to an apartment so he doesn't have to worry about maintenance.
I'm assuming he also realizes that his house having doubled in value is irrelevant until he actually sells it.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Dragoon ...which would leave you without a house. So you'd be reasonably expected to buy another one, which has also doubled in price, so how much are you really coming out ahead?
After I move from Silly Valley, oh, about $1M...
-
@mikehurley said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
I think this might be a US vs Europe terminology thing. In the US, an apartment (flat) is rented. If you live in a building that resembles an apartment building but you own your unit, it's a condominium (condo). An exception seems to be New York City where I think apartment can mean rented or owned.
Good point, I had not thought of that (nor really known that this was more or less how the flat vs. condo distinction went!).
Although in the rest of his post, he was clearly comparing living in a (rented) flat/condo vs. in an (owned) house, which is mixing apple and pears when it comes to comparing renting vs. owning.
-
@remi said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
which is mixing apple and pears when it comes to comparing renting vs. owning.
Sorta, in large parts of the US the default assumption is renting an apartment and owning a house. There are of course exceptions (plenty of people rent actual homes and plenty of people own condos/flats) but in general if you say that you are renting a place people assume you are talking about an apartment unless you specify otherwise, likewise with owning your place.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
No, endowment mortgages are quite common for owner-occupiers as well. (Er, precisely because people move around enough to make it interesting.) "Pure" interest-only mortgages for owner-occupiers are more recent, as I understand it.
Hard to say, but when I've heard people discussing mortgages, I always got the impression that endowment mortgages were considered more "normal" than repayment mortgages
I guess it depends who you talk to or what you read. I do not have this impression, backed by my experience of getting a mortgage (and remortgaging), but I'm definitely not an expert. I tried finding which mortgage is the most common but couldn't find anything in 2 min and I'm not going to spend more than that... The only vaguely relevant bit I found is this page that says "Interest only mortgages do not suit most borrowers." but that's hardly a definitive answer to our question.
I'm pretty sure (but here again, I may be wrong) that in France, interests-only mortgage are almost non-existent (for the general public, I'm pretty sure you could find them if you really wanted). The only exception that I know is what's called "prêt relais" (relay mortgage) that you take before selling your home to buy a new one (and reimburse it when you do sell your previous home, usually a couple of months later), some form of them are interests-only, but they typically run over 1-2 years at the very max, and much less than that in practice.
-
@Dragoon Yes, but that was exactly what I was addressing in my first reply on that. What you described as a reason for buying was actually reasons to live in a house, not really buying. The fact that, where you live, you can only live in a house by buying, doesn't really matter when we're discussing broad ideas of mortgages, investments etc. Because even though that's the case in some markets, broadly speaking the two ideas are independent.
(to be
ic, if you had said "where I live the only way to live in a house is to buy and living in a house is good for reason X and Y, so this is a good reason to buy", I wouldn't have said anything)(I'm going on holidays tonight so I'm less and less motivated to do actual work, so you may expect more and more pointless
ing unless I get bored of it 
)
-
@remi said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
mixing apple and pears
A few years ago we had a Christmas party at work, and someone brought in what I at first thought was the best apple pie I had ever had... until I realized that they weren't apples at all; they were pears! (Apparently they make a better apple pie than apples do. Who knew?)
-
@remi one big advantage of owning (especially a house) is the ability to make changes. Rental housing trends to frown on knocking down walls, changing carpets, running new wiring, etc.
-
@remi recently I learned about one more interesting kind mortgage - a not-even-interest mortgage. It was somewhat popular in Poland in early 90s due to raging inflation. A flexible mortgage - you pay what you want every month - with a minimum amount, but the minimum is below interest. The idea is that since the inflation is so high, accumulating some debt now is good because you'd be paying it back with future, devalued money. And once the inflation stabilized, people started paying back full interest plus some capital.
Apparently there are some people who couldn't do math and are still entrapped in such mortgage over 20 years later, with more to pay back than they originally borrowed because they've always paid the minimum.
-
@remi said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Dragoon Yes, but that was exactly what I was addressing in my first reply on that. What you described as a reason for buying was actually reasons to live in a house, not really buying. The fact that, where you live, you can only live in a house by buying, doesn't really matter when we're discussing broad ideas of mortgages, investments etc. Because even though that's the case in some markets, broadly speaking the two ideas are independent.
(to be
ic, if you had said "where I live the only way to live in a house is to buy and living in a house is good for reason X and Y, so this is a good reason to buy", I wouldn't have said anything)(I'm going on holidays tonight so I'm less and less motivated to do actual work, so you may expect more and more pointless
ing unless I get bored of it )When I was writing it I was not thinking about renting a house, though you are right, that is something that people do. IN some areas of the US that is actually the norm over apartments as there are not many apartments. So in that case you are correct, you can rent (a house) and have those tangential benefits as well.
-
-
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Back in the day, the only projects that took more than seven years were the ones ordered by the king, and by definition he didn't need to borrow, he just took and mandated.
Eh...or the Church. But I think they just kind of paid as best they could as they went, raising funds along the way.
-
@ixvedeusi said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Of course in theory, you could pay down the mortgage and end up actually owning the house eventually; but at least where I live this seems to not be very common, most people just tend to roll them over.
I think few people pay off their houses while living in them. But they often get equity (from paying down that loan and appreciation of the house itself) and use that to buy a nicer house with a new mortgage for a lot less than it would be if they didn't have the capital from the equity.
-
@acrow said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@acrow said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
What I said in that other thread applies here as well: it's not like central banks could set interest rates however they please. If on average over the country businesses get a ROI of 1% a year, there will be few people who'd take a credit at 2% to finance a new one. Or the other way round, before a bank promises you 2% on your deposits, it has to be reasonably confident that it will find someone who pays it 2%+x. Of course it's untenable in the log run, but what can you do? Capitalism is untenable in the long.
On the other hand, if the central banks raise the interest rates, business that lives on borrowed capital will move to more profitable projects. Or fold and release the human resources to do something more profitable. Which is how capitalism is supposed to work.
There is no reason why more profitable projects wouldn't be favored by investors anyway if they were available. Why would I give my money to someone who offers me 1% a year if someone else would give me 5%?
Did you notice that there are a lot of companies (not just Tesla) that are huge, but don't seem to make a profit. Yes, why do they exist? Who the hell gave them money if they're not producing value?
I'm sure you're familiar with speculation?!
Every investment in the capitalist sense is in a way speculative. First you have to throw a whole lot of money at the business and the first few balance sheets are usually negative because in the best case of simply setting up production for a product that's all finished, you still have to buy equipment, hire staff and advertise before money starts coming in. It only gets worse from there when R&D is involved. Tesla and such are not a contradiction to my observation that profitable business is getting more and more scarce, but a confirmation: investors prefer the risky promise of possible future riches because investments that would make them money now are even scarcer than the official growth figures which include speculative gains suggest. Capital is overaccumulated already.It's not like there were heaps of companies with highly profitable business models just waiting for someone to work for them because everybody is busy working for the guys who don't make any money.
My company has trouble recruiting people for software development (embedded). While, AFAIK, there are at least 3 universities pumping out software engineers in this country, at least one of which teaches C and C++. Where are they all hiding at?
If your business is much more profitable than everybody else's, you should be paying much better than everybody else. If that's the case and they're still not coming, there must be something else that's seriously wrong about the place.
If we have a 100% employment rate for software engineers in profitable businesses, and by extension tax-producing ones, then why is the Finnish government still sinking into debt? Why is EU?
Software engineering is but a small sector of the total economy, so the two things are only loosely connected.
Remember that one's debt is another's savings. Now suppose the Finnish government decided to cut all the services it can't provide at current tax revenues without further debts, and then some so pay off the debt. It wouldn't issue any bond any more and pay back all as they become due. What would be the effect on the stock market and its profit rate?
-
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Can you imagine our current society without mortgages? Everyone would have to live
with their parents until 40!like serfs renting from a landlord.What a horrible world that would be.
-
@acrow said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
national debt of interesting size
Debts of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist.
-
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Mason_Wheeler said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC waaaaaay back in the day, there was a good system in place to prevent this kind of mess. In the Law of Moses, it was specifically forbidden to make any loan for a period of longer than 7 years, and every 50 years was a special holiday where all outstanding debts were to be forgiven.
It's not about capitalism; it's about the orthogonal concept of whether your legal system encourages or discourages unlimited and perpetual indebtedness.
Back in the day, the only projects that took more than seven years were the ones ordered by the king, and by definition he didn't need to borrow, he just took and mandated.
Well, maybe in Asia. Here in Europe, it was different. Absolutism didn't really take off until after middle ages, and it lasted relatively short time. Before that, kings very much did borrow money on regular basis. Loans were the main source of income for Knights Templars, for example, which led to their eventual banishment.
Did any of them observe something akin to the Shmita?
Of course not. They hated Jews.
If we're talking about the Shmita as a custom in an exclusively Asian context anyway, I'm not sure what the Knights Templar have to do with it.
-
@LaoC and I'm not sure where the hell did Asia come from. Play pronoun games, win confusing prices.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Why would I give my money to someone who offers me 1% a year if someone else would give me 5%?
That's actually not a hypothetical question. People do it all the time, buying government bonds at extremely low yields when they could be buying high-yield corporate bonds. In fact, the low-yield bonds issued by the US Treasury are some of the most popular financial instruments in the entire world.
When you understand why this is the case, you will have learned something valuable.
I'm talking about actually giving me 5%, not telling me that the 5% may or may not materialize some day.
I.e. I know what risk is.
-
@boomzilla said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Back in the day, the only projects that took more than seven years were the ones ordered by the king, and by definition he didn't need to borrow, he just took and mandated.
Eh...or the Church. But I think they just kind of paid as best they could as they went, raising funds along the way.
Sure, in medieval times they probably came out far ahead for long-running projects. I had more @Mason_Wheeler's "waaaaaay back in the day" in mind, the days of ole Moses & Co.
-
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC and I'm not sure where the hell did Asia come from. Play pronoun games, win confusing prices.
I don't know who else but yourself would be able to explain this. You started talking about Asia
-
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Mason_Wheeler said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC waaaaaay back in the day, there was a good system in place to prevent this kind of mess. In the Law of Moses, it was specifically forbidden to make any loan for a period of longer than 7 years, and every 50 years was a special holiday where all outstanding debts were to be forgiven.
It's not about capitalism; it's about the orthogonal concept of whether your legal system encourages or discourages unlimited and perpetual indebtedness.
Back in the day, the only projects that took more than seven years were the ones ordered by the king, and by definition he didn't need to borrow, he just took and mandated.
Well, maybe in Asia. Here in Europe, it was different. Absolutism didn't really take off until after middle ages, and it lasted relatively short time. Before that, kings very much did borrow money on regular basis. Loans were the main source of income for Knights Templars, for example, which led to their eventual banishment.
Did any of them observe something akin to the Shmita?
Of course not. They hated Jews.
If we're talking about the Shmita as a custom in an exclusively Asian context anyway, I'm not sure what the Knights Templar have to do with it.
Seems like they were active in both finance and Asia. Why not?
-
@LaoC oh, sorry. I forgot for a moment that you might not be as familiar with western culture as us, and might miss what to us is very obvious. You see, when someone starts a reply with "maybe in..." and a name of some place, it means that the speaker doesn't believe that the thing mentioned before is even remotely close to truth at all in any length (in this case, it was your claim that kings don't need money because they own everything that I find completely false), but out of courtesy, gives appearance of the benefit of doubt by noting that they're not familiar with foreign cultures that much and pretends to allow the possibility that outside their homeland, everything is ass-backwards and such a patently false statement might in fact be true. It's nothing but an off-hand remark and a stealth insult - you should always expect the rest of the reply to never mention the place again, and only talk about somewhere else entirely - in this case, Europe.
-
Nice save.
-
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@topspin said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Can you imagine our current society without mortgages? Everyone would have to live with their parents until 40!
Because everyone who moves out of their parents' house goes and buys their own on credit instead of renting?
That would be even worse, as 90% of people would end up on permanent rent. Home owners would be few and far between. Inheritance would be near zero for most people. It would be like Chicago everywhere, except worse.
No, really, you said "live with their parents until they're 40".
That implies people only move out once they can buy a house and no earlier. When of course normally people move out and live on rent first and maybe buy a house later.
Do you still live with your parents? Do you not plan to ever move out before buying a house?
-
@topspin said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@topspin said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Can you imagine our current society without mortgages? Everyone would have to live with their parents until 40!
Because everyone who moves out of their parents' house goes and buys their own on credit instead of renting?
That would be even worse, as 90% of people would end up on permanent rent. Home owners would be few and far between. Inheritance would be near zero for most people. It would be like Chicago everywhere, except worse.
No, really, you said "live with their parents until they're 40".
That implies people only move out once they can buy a house and no earlier.Well, that's how it worked for hundreds of years, until 20th century, when we invented mortgages in the west and social buildings in the east.
-
@topspin said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
No, really, you said "live with their parents until they're 40".
That implies people only move out once they can buy a house and no earlier. When of course normally people move out and live on rent first and maybe buy a house later.They do that now because they can get a mortgage. They wouldn't be able to both rent and save up to buy a house outright. So if they wanted a house, they'd need to stay at home until they had enough saved.
-
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Well, that's how it worked for hundreds of years, until 20th century, when we invented mortgages in the west and social buildings in the east.
Mortgages on homes and other real estate (farms, for example) were around in the USA in the 19th century. Possibly earlier, but the earliest examples I'm familiar with off the top of my head date to the 1830s.
-
@Mason_Wheeler I'm pretty sure you could find examples dating back all the way to 10th century if you looked hard enough. The question is, when did it become widespread? Because in 19th century Poland (I know, not exactly shining example of economical prosperity and social progress), it was still very common for 3-4 generations of a family all living in the same house.
-
@boomzilla said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@Mason_Wheeler said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC waaaaaay back in the day, there was a good system in place to prevent this kind of mess. In the Law of Moses, it was specifically forbidden to make any loan for a period of longer than 7 years, and every 50 years was a special holiday where all outstanding debts were to be forgiven.
It's not about capitalism; it's about the orthogonal concept of whether your legal system encourages or discourages unlimited and perpetual indebtedness.
Back in the day, the only projects that took more than seven years were the ones ordered by the king, and by definition he didn't need to borrow, he just took and mandated.
Well, maybe in Asia. Here in Europe, it was different. Absolutism didn't really take off until after middle ages, and it lasted relatively short time. Before that, kings very much did borrow money on regular basis. Loans were the main source of income for Knights Templars, for example, which led to their eventual banishment.
Did any of them observe something akin to the Shmita?
Of course not. They hated Jews.
If we're talking about the Shmita as a custom in an exclusively Asian context anyway, I'm not sure what the Knights Templar have to do with it.
Seems like they were active in both finance and Asia. Why not?
My argument was that the Shmita wouldn't be compatible with a system where people would want to "invest" in projects taking more than seven years. If the Knights Templar didn't observe such a custom, they're simply not an argument, neither for nor against mine.
-
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC oh, sorry. I forgot for a moment that you might not be as familiar with western culture as us, and might miss what to us is very obvious. You see, when someone starts a reply with "maybe in..." and a name of some place, it means that the speaker doesn't believe that the thing mentioned before is even remotely close to truth at all in any length (in this case, it was your claim that kings don't need money because they own everything that I find completely false), but out of courtesy, gives appearance of the benefit of doubt by noting that they're not familiar with foreign cultures that much and pretends to allow the possibility that outside their homeland, everything is ass-backwards and such a patently false statement might in fact be true. It's nothing but an off-hand remark and a stealth insult - you should always expect the rest of the reply to never mention the place again, and only talk about somewhere else entirely - in this case, Europe.
I was replying to @Mason_Wheeler's argument of the Shmita. The Shmita originated in the land of Israel, several thousand years ago. Israel is a country in Asia. If you want to hallucinate about that custom in a time and place it didn't exist, go ahead, just don't expect me to consider it relevant.
-
@LaoC next time, let's just not include false information in your post and save us both the effort (me writing the post, and you trying and failing to comprehend the idea that when quoting part of your post, I might be replying only to that part and not to the main point you're making outside the quoted part), okay?
-
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC next time, let's just not include false information in your post and save us both the effort (me writing the post, and you trying and failing to comprehend the idea that when quoting part of your post, I might be replying only to that part and not to the main point you're making outside the quoted part), okay?
WTF is that "false information" you're prattling about? You shot yourself in the foot by saying "Maybe in Asia" because you tried so hard to be snarky that you forgot that we were talking precisely about an Asian custom here. Just stop trying to distract from that already.
-
@LaoC well, that particular Asian country you're talking about didn't have a king for the last 2000 years after they crucified their last one, so by your logic, your post makes even less sense than mine.
-
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
@LaoC well, that particular Asian country you're talking about didn't have a king for the last 2000 years after they crucified their last one, so by your logic, your post makes even less sense than mine.
You do know what time frame we're talking about when it's about "Mosaic Law", don't you? So what are you prattling about the "last 2000 years"?
-
-
@Gąska said in -0.5% interest mortgages:
Yes, your moving them over 1000 years has not gone unnoticed.
