This is simply more evidence that some people only post here in the hope of detering others from investing in property.
Their reasons are fairly clear: anyone that invests in property is unethical.
However, it may be argued that the people who are ideologically opposed to property investment do not invest in property themselves, and therefore have very little understanding of the myriad of options that are available to investors, such as the perfectly logical scenario that Warnie outlined.
There are numerous alternative options that are also totally feasible despite the perception that property is over priced, and cannot rise from these levels in the medium to long term. But is there any point illustrating them to people who are ideologically against property investment?
I don't think so.
To the people who are ideologically opposed to property investment and wish to deter others from investing in property: we understand your point of view.
However, there are a plethora of Internet sites that were constructed by or for indivduals that oppose property investment.
So, without being rude, wouldn't you rather occupy your time celebrating the "hyperthical demise" of capitalism on those sites, with like-minded people?
Experienced investors find your posts amusing. But because we really understand the fundamentals of Australian property markets-note the reference to the concept of plural markets here-and the mechanics of property investment, your remarks will not deter us from continuing to invest.
I just thought you should understand our point of view so if that is your objective, you can therefore rethink why you spend so much time in a totally fruitless excercise?
