More so to value I think. I work hard out to be able to afford a sovereign just as people did over 100 years ago for the exact same coin. Some fiat coins aren't even worth bending over for. I'm sure people would feel chuffed finding a gold or silver coin in another 100 years.
If only you could 'own' property. Look on the title deed, you'll be listed as a tenant. Stop paying property tax and find out who really owns it.
With enough gold and silver I can buy as much land as I want. The housing bubble taught us that land can become relatively worthless very quickly. I live in a blue collar town and know people who lost their houses and ended up living in them almost 3 years rent free because the banks couldn't find buyers for the properties and let the people live there rent free in order to keep vandals and scrappers away. Those people have moved on, the properties now have broken windows, graffiti and missing plumbing. In one case they found a family at one property that had bee squatting for almost a year. In the neighborhood I live in people are renting for $200-$300 a month less than my monthly mortgage and they are not responsible for anything the landlord does it all, even cutting the grass. Believe me, I wish I could go back in time, not buy my house, take 1/3 of what my mortgage is and buy gold and silver. I would have come out much further ahead and I could have probably bought my house outright. The America dream of the house with the white picket fence is a lie.
I'm assuming you mean agricultural property and not urban (un)real estate. I understand all property in Australia is "owned" by the Crown, btw, except for the tracts of Native Title that have been granted. The concept of allodial title just doesn't exist and that's why you are obliged to pay taxes and rates and things otherwise the state can reclaim your property and sell it for unpaid rates and taxes.
I think Willrocks is speaking from a different context than a legal one and perhaps speaking metaphorically. Plenty of threads on that subject have been and gone. All in the interpretation.
There is an original title vested in the Crown for all land in Australia but this has been alienated by various title deeds. By Australian law, the Commonwealth government can technically seize your land but must do so with "just compensation". There is no such restriction on State governments, but in all practicality, I don't think they would survive the court challenges that would occur if they just started taking people's land. What willrocks is suggesting however, is not metaphorical. He/she clearly claims you are listed as a "tenant" on a land title which is blatantly false. Lease interests are recorded in the second schedule of a torrens title for land while ownership is denoted in the first schedule.
its funny how mike always uploads his youtube clips whenever silver is on the rise :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
With enough gold you can buy all the land you want, where you want. Besides, gold and silver are more easily transported.
Ok, what's listed on the title deed when there's more than one holder of the property? ... that's right "Tenants in common". What is a tenant in this context: "One who holds or possesses lands or tenements". What is a tenement? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenement_(law) Even when there's only one party they still only "hold" the property, and don't actually own it.
As the late George Carlin said : 'You know why they call it the American dream? Because you have to be asleep, to believe it' [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q[/youtube] I find it quite ironic though that wisdom usually only comes after the event. Australia is still running one of the last remaining bubbles in the world on property and just two minutes of viewing commentary on SS's own Real Estate forum should convince you the common mindset is very much alive and well here too. I blame Mick's association with Robert Kiyosaki over the years for this promotional mindset. His historical knowledge on the subject is enviable and he has (obviously) a vested interest in the outcome, but I don't automatically assume his personal bias taints the truth of what he speaks about either. There's a lot of cynical people out there who judge integrity based on the vested interest in the outcome, often skewed by the fact there's a LOT of shabby sales people pushing product onto people. Being the common business standard now where if you can bullshit someone out of their hard earned to turn a profit it's considered 'smart business', it's not surprising to see any commentator on a market being painted with the same brush. Mick comes across as much a salesman as he does an educator and I think this is what has many people in two minds on what he has to say and how they judge his personal integrity. I personally prefer to base my assumptions on the message and not the delivery and from what I can see, Michael is pretty much bang on the money a large portion of the time. That said, he suffers from the same issues all outspoken market commentators suffer from in that personal integrity is being judged on providing accurate and timely information based on historical trends and logical outcomes - in a controlled and irrational market. I have no doubt Michael, like many anti establishment commentators, will be right in the end... but it will likely only be realised after the fact, when the collective thought it would probably never happen. Have to admit though, I am quite a fan of the US Eagle coin design. I think it's stunning....
