Owning vs Renting (not real estate)

[mottdog]

I have many desires and I usually achieve them, but I quickly tire of them once it's been had. I wanted a Jeep Wrangler and a 69' convertible mustang so I bought them. After a year or two, I grew tired of these objects and sold them. So I like the renting idea and not be tied down to one location or product, especially if your not getting a good ROI. Just look at the expensive purses I've bought my wife, which sit in the closet most of time.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Jonleehacker]

Originally Posted by EastWind
On houses. I like to "own" my house. In US, you really own the house, but rent the land for life, so that kind of sucks.

Huh?

Care to clarify?

Are you talking "owning" in Hawaii, or Manhattan? Or on an Indian reservation? :shruggie:

-Russ H.

I believe he is referring to the fact that you always have to pay taxes, so it is really the "state" that owns the land since if you don't pay your taxes, they can take it back.

 

[Russ H]

Interesting POV.

So I guess I "rent" my food, too? And any income I make, I 'rent', since I have to pay tax on that, too?

This is a bit bizarre for me.

-Russ H.

 

[EastWind]

Interesting POV.

So I guess I "rent" my food, too? And any income I make, I 'rent', since I have to pay tax on that, too?

This is a bit bizarre for me.

-Russ H.

It's bizarre to you, because it's all you know.

There are countries where you can own property and pay ZERO tax. Meaning, you buy land. you build your house, and it's yours. That's what I mean. It's not bizarre to me, because I know of those alternatives. Of course, we do need to pay taxes, the service you get in those places vary.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Jonleehacker]

Interesting POV.

So I guess I "rent" my food, too? And any income I make, I 'rent', since I have to pay tax on that, too?

This is a bit bizarre for me.

-Russ H.

No, it is not the same as food or income.

I believe Rich Dad mentions this in one of his books, but here's a definition that I found online:

the word real (as in real estate) in this sense is descended (like French royal and Spanish real) from the Latin word for 'king'. In the feudal system (which has left many traces in the common law) the king was the owner of all land, and everyone who occupied land paid him rent directly or indirectly (through lords who in turn paid the king), in cash, goods or services (including military service). Property tax, paid to the state, can be seen as a relic of that system, as is the term fee simple.

I believe the difference is that if you don't pay tax on your food then you won't be able to purchase it, but if you do pay the tax, there are no rights of recall by either the seller or the state, but if you don't pay the ongoing taxes on your property (in essence a rent), you'll find out pretty fast who really owns it.

 

[Russ H]

It's bizarre to you, because it's all you know.

There are countries where you can own property and pay ZERO tax. Meaning, you buy land. you build your house, and it's yours. That's what I mean. It's not bizarre to me, because I know of those alternatives. Of course, we do need to pay taxes, the service you get in those places vary.

No offense, EastWind. By the time I was 18, I'd traveled to Soviet Russia (to Armenia, Moscow, Leningrad, Azerbaijan, and Georgia during the iron curtain/cold war days), gone to Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Spain, Germany (both East and West), France, the Netherlands, Scotland, Britain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Japan, Indonesia . . this is just off the top of my head. I haven't thought about this for years. There were lots more places.

I've looked at real estate in New Zealand, Australia, all over the US, and in many parts of Europe.

Wherever I go, I talk to locals. How they like where they live, what they love/hate most, etc.

Thing is: It's hard to live anywhere for "free". There is always a cost.

BTW, I'd love for you to share your knowledge of places that you can live for less, or places where your land is 100% yours. I know this is a popular topic here, so your contributions would be most welcome.

-Russ H.

 

[hatterasguy]

Well you know the old saying; if it fly's, f**ks, or floats its cheaper to rent!

It depends on the situation. In general I view renting as a way for people who can't really afford something to pretend that they can. I remember hearing about a company that rents expensive watchs. Now come on if you want to wear a $20k watch and can't put down the cash for it, your just pretending paying a few bucks a month to rent it.

I look at leasing cars the same way, I can think of 5 people I know off the top of my head that could never pay cash for the high end cars they are renting. Leasing is the only way they can afford say an A4. They want the Audi but in reality without a cheap lease would be driving a Camry.

On the other hand leasing cars does make sense sometimes, ie when your accountant tells you to do it. One of my uncles is a good example of this, he always has 2-3 BMW's on lease because the way his income and write offs work that makes the most sense.


For larger stuff it can start to make a lot of sense. Like MJ's beach house, I'd never buy one because I would get bored going to the same spot all the time. I rather do what he does or a time share so you can enjoy a lot of different locations. Maybe this year he does CA and next year he wants to do NC, or the islands. If you own you can't do that.


Personaly for me I don't like to have a lot of monthly expenses, they just tie you down. If I want a toy I pay cash for it. I don't buy expensive watch's, but if I wanted a $10k Rolex I wouldn't buy that watch until I could write the check. When I buy another Mercedes or boat it will be a cash purchase. I'll only take on payments that are real estate related.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Russ H]

No, it is not the same as food or income.

I believe Rich Dad mentions this in one of his books, but here's a definition that I found online:

I believe the difference is that if you don't pay tax on your food then you won't be able to purchase it, but if you do pay the tax, there are no rights of recall by either the seller or the state, but if you don't pay the ongoing taxes on your property (in essence a rent), you'll find out pretty fast who really owns it.

I understand. By the same token, land has changed hands throughout history when regimes/governments change: The new regime just takes the land. Sometimes they kill the current owners, sometimes they just kick them off the property.

Lots of other ways land changes hands: Lawsuits, Probate, Fraud . . .

Can you think of others?

Apologies to Bio for straying off topic-- but this is relevant, in an "ownership" kind of way--But it's not your original point. I really do appreciate your original thoughts on renting/owning: This has been a core part of my journey in becoming financially free.

-Russ H.

 

[Russ H]

It depends on the situation. In general I view renting as a way for people who can't really afford something to pretend that they can. I remember hearing about a company that rents expensive watchs. Now come on if you want to wear a $20k watch and can't put down the cash for it, your just pretending paying a few bucks a month to rent it.

I look at leasing cars the same way, I can think of 5 people I know off the top of my head that could never pay cash for the high end cars they are renting. Leasing is the only way they can afford say an A4. They want the Audi but in reality without a cheap lease would be driving a Camry.

Hat- some of the richest guys/gals I know leased their cars. All of them. They could have paid cash for their Bentleys, MBZs, and other expensive wheels.

Some of them also lived in leased/rented dwellings. Even though they owned millions in real estate!

For larger stuff it can start to make a lot of sense. Like MJ's beach house, I'd never buy one because I would get bored going to the same spot all the time. I rather do what he does or a time share so you can enjoy a lot of different locations. Maybe this year he does CA and next year he wants to do NC, or the islands. If you own you can't do that.

Sure you can: HomeExchange.comâ„¢

Your choices are more limited than doing vacation rentals, though.

 

[hatterasguy]

Yeah well if you own the freaking thing than you have to take care of it. Having vacation houses thousands of miles away can be a PITA. My family has two in FL, almost had a third one. They are used about 10 weeks a year. Renting it to people is a double edged sword because they can and do sometimes trash them. Than when a freaken hurricane comes through your calling the neighbors to make sure the house is still their.


I understand that leasing can make sense, read what I said after that. I was refering to people that think they have money because they can drive a BMW for $450 a month, when they don't. Not someone with money who really can afford the car and is leasing it because his accountant told him to take the write off.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Russ H]

Yeah well if you own the freaking thing than you have to take care of it. Having vacation houses thousands of miles away can be a PITA. My family has two in FL, almost had a third one. They are used about 10 weeks a year. Renting it to people is a double edged sword because they can and do sometimes trash them. Than when a freaken hurricane comes through your calling the neighbors to make sure the house is still their.


I understand that leasing can make sense, read what I said after that. I was refering to people that think they have money because they can drive a BMW for $450 a month, when they don't. Not someone with money who really can afford the car and is leasing it because his accountant told him to take the write off.

I'm with you-- and I did see the other stuff you wrote.

I guess my point is, I have had clients who could have afforded to pay cash for a lot of stuff, but chose instead to "rent" it.

And they didn't so much do it for the write off (some did)-- many did it b/c it just made more sense.

For instance, I had one client who had a penthouse apt in San Francisco. Beautiful views, etc. Since they'd been there for years, their rent was cheap. But they also owned homes and other RE in San Fran-- it was cheaper for them to RENT their penthouse than get a place like that-- and they had cashflow coming in from their other properties.

This was my first big "aha" w/wealthy folks choosing to rent instead of own. For them, it just made more sense.

-Russ H.

 

[biophase]

If I want a toy I pay cash for it. I don't buy expensive watch's, but if I wanted a $10k Rolex I wouldn't buy that watch until I could write the check.

If your parents had the $10k Rolex and never wore it and said you can wear my watch anytime, would you still want to buy one? You can just wear the Rolex all the time.

This thread originally wasn't about the money or being able to afford something. I probably should have titled it "Owning or Having Access"

Isn't buying (with a loan) and leasing a car the exact same thing when it comes to ownership? But people who lease a car always tell you its leased. People who have a car loan never say that. In both cases you have 100% unlimited access to the car and you pay for that.

 

[EastWind]

Well you know the old saying; if it fly's, f**ks, or floats its cheaper to rent!

It depends on the situation. In general I view renting as a way for people who can't really afford something to pretend that they can. I remember hearing about a company that rents expensive watchs. Now come on if you want to wear a $20k watch and can't put down the cash for it, your just pretending paying a few bucks a month to rent it.

I look at leasing cars the same way, I can think of 5 people I know off the top of my head that could never pay cash for the high end cars they are renting. Leasing is the only way they can afford say an A4. They want the Audi but in reality without a cheap lease would be driving a Camry.

On the other hand leasing cars does make sense sometimes, ie when your accountant tells you to do it. One of my uncles is a good example of this, he always has 2-3 BMW's on lease because the way his income and write offs work that makes the most sense.


For larger stuff it can start to make a lot of sense. Like MJ's beach house, I'd never buy one because I would get bored going to the same spot all the time. I rather do what he does or a time share so you can enjoy a lot of different locations. Maybe this year he does CA and next year he wants to do NC, or the islands. If you own you can't do that.


Personaly for me I don't like to have a lot of monthly expenses, they just tie you down. If I want a toy I pay cash for it. I don't buy expensive watch's, but if I wanted a $10k Rolex I wouldn't buy that watch until I could write the check. When I buy another Mercedes or boat it will be a cash purchase. I'll only take on payments that are real estate related.

I feel you. I believe in renting if you don't use it much. It's all about the Utility Function. The more I use it, the more I'm most likely going to rent it. The next variable is on the Depreciation/Longevity issue. If the product is going to last for a long time, then I will most likely buy. I can understand why people lease cars, because they want newer cars, don't want to deal with repairs and such. But I like to keep cars for years, I can keep a car for 10yrs no problem. So I rather buy, but then I focus on the most reliable. So if I wanted to go buy a car today, I do go buy a Lexus LS, if I wanted a sports car, and Acura NSX. Low maintenance, I will come out ahead than anyone who leased. On the other hand, a lambo? that i will drive 30 days in a year? I will rent.

On $20k watches. What's wrong with knock offs, replicas? I think people who want $20k watches need to examine themselves. I care less if you are a billionaire. What value does a $20k watch offer that a $500-$1,000 watch doesn't? I can understand that the value of a porsche over a mazda miata. But a $20k watch is just for looks and to stand out. No buy, No rent!

I believe that people that rent in most cases, not all, but most cases can't afford it. The rich that rent, rent because they consider utility/longevity. There are plenty of people that appear rich or are rich that rent and end up losing it all. All those NBA, NFL players, Nicolas Cage. These folks had no business renting. They could all buy two houses, a luxury, exotic car pay it off and live great. But everything is being rented, then what happens? they lose everything!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[EastWind]

If your parents had the $10k Rolex and never wore it and said you can wear my watch anytime, would you still want to buy one? You can just wear the Rolex all the time.

This thread originally wasn't about the money or being able to afford something. I probably should have titled it "Owning or Having Access"

Isn't buying (with a loan) and leasing a car the exact same thing when it comes to ownership? But people who lease a car always tell you its leased. People who have a car loan never say that. In both cases you have 100% unlimited access to the car and you pay for that.

You can't say this thread is not about the money. It is. It takes money to buy or to rent. and it's the difference in the money that affects the choice you make.

If it was all about access, who will buy? If the access was free, would you ever buy anything you have access to?

If there is a product, and the price to buy or to price to rent is the same. Will you buy or will you rent? Well, it's going to depend. You are going to look at the usage of the product, and how long it lasts. If you have to pay X amount to buy and to rent, and it's going to cost Y amount of months to pay it off. If you are going to be using it for more than > Y amount of months, you are most likely going to want to buy. You will look at the depreciation value x which will be less than X after Y is up. at worst case, if you don't want to use it, you will sell it. You will also look at how long it will last. If the product is used in a short while, then it may not make sense to buy, since you can rent and rent an up to date one.

Imagine that the cost of buying a computer is $10 a month or $10 a month to rent. will you buy or rent? it will make sense to rent. everyone uses computer, they keep changing, really fast. by renting you keep getting the newer systems, but if you buy, your system will be outdated really fast. However, if it is $10 a month to rent a watch or $10 a month to buy it. and you own the watch after a year. you definitely will buy. watches don't change much, and since you are most likely going to be wearing your watch. After a year, you own it outright, and may be able to sell it if you decide to stop wearing watch.

All things being equal, money wise, usage wise, longevity, anyone will buy instead of rent. the real deal break is the money, it's all about the money. this forum is a financial forum. we use the difference in money to get ahead.

 

[Russ H]

I feel you. I believe in renting if you don't use it much. It's all about the Utility Function. The more I use it, the more I'm most likely going to rent it. The next variable is on the Depreciation/Longevity issue. If the product is going to last for a long time, then I will most likely buy. I can understand why people lease cars, because they want newer cars, don't want to deal with repairs and such. But I like to keep cars for years, I can keep a car for 10yrs no problem. So I rather buy, but then I focus on the most reliable. So if I wanted to go buy a car today, I do go buy a Lexus LS, if I wanted a sports car, and Acura NSX. Low maintenance, I will come out ahead than anyone who leased. On the other hand, a lambo? that i will drive 30 days in a year? I will rent.

On $20k watches. What's wrong with knock offs, replicas? I think people who want $20k watches need to examine themselves. I care less if you are a billionaire. What value does a $20k watch offer that a $500-$1,000 watch doesn't? I can understand that the value of a porsche over a mazda miata. But a $20k watch is just for looks and to stand out. No buy, No rent!

I believe that people that rent in most cases, not all, but most cases can't afford it. The rich that rent, rent because they consider utility/longevity. There are plenty of people that appear rich or are rich that rent and end up losing it all. All those NBA, NFL players, Nicolas Cage. These folks had no business renting. They could all buy two houses, a luxury, exotic car pay it off and live great. But everything is being rented, then what happens? they lose everything!

I appreciate that you feel this way, EastWind.

But we're not really trying to examine 30K millionaires and celebs on this thread.

The fact remains that many wealthy people-- who have more cash than they ever will spend in their lifetimes-- still choose to lease or rent things. They do this in part b/c they *are* smart w/their money, and can get the utility out of the item without ownership.

As my tagline says: Control, don't own.

-Russ H.

PS A few interesting factoids: You may love cars, or like what a Porsche does (I've owned 2 Porsches, and can appreciate your points). But I've driven a Miata, and can agree w/a set of clients I had who owned a Miata and a 911 at the same time: For speeds under 50 mph, they told me they much preferred the Miata. Said it was more fun than the Porsche.

And as for watches: Like cars, some folks just LIKE them. I didn't buy my solid gold Rolex to show it off-- I bought it to mark being in business for 15 years. It sits in a drawer now (got tired of spending $300 every year to fix some little thing). But it remains a symbol, for me, of my achievement.

Cars may be that to some. So might houses, boats, etc.

But that's very different from USE. I never really bought the rolex to "use". Sure, at fancy dinners, etc. But as a contractor, wearing it all the time never made sense.

And to answer Bio's question: If my parents had that Rolex and said, "Here, use it whenever you want. I never put it on", I would still have bought it. Because for me, it was a symbol-- it was not a "use" thing.

 

[biophase]

If it was all about access, who will buy? If the access was free, would you ever buy anything you have access to?

My point exactly. People will still buy because they need to feel that they "own" it.

And to answer Bio's question: If my parents had that Rolex and said, "Here, use it whenever you want. I never put it on", I would still have bought it. Because for me, it was a symbol-- it was not a "use" thing.

See? Thanks Russ.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[randallg99]

I am in the middle of selling my personal residence and have an opportunity to move into a property that most people die for.... we're talking acres of rolling hill views close to the city. But I'll rent and not buy.

If you bought this comprable house, you would have to put down a lot of cash resources just to qualify for the mortgage.

And then the mortgage payment would be almost identical to the market rent.... and that's the "asking" rent. But see, you'll negotiate an absolutely phenomenal deal by paying 12 months rent in one lump sum upfront.

You can stash the cash that you would have used for the down payment. Or put it to good use by purchasing cash flow properties while having a similar monthly payment.

I personally believe as long as lenders continue to maintain stricter requirements that rents will be very appealing.

 

[hatterasguy]

If your parents had the $10k Rolex and never wore it and said you can wear my watch anytime, would you still want to buy one? You can just wear the Rolex all the time.

This thread originally wasn't about the money or being able to afford something. I probably should have titled it "Owning or Having Access"

Isn't buying (with a loan) and leasing a car the exact same thing when it comes to ownership? But people who lease a car always tell you its leased. People who have a car loan never say that. In both cases you have 100% unlimited access to the car and you pay for that.

If access is all thats important than fine, get it the cheapest way possible.

To answer your question access isn't always all that important to me. I wouldn't wear a Rolex even if it was given to me until I feel that I have paid enough dues to earn it. Its a symbol for me.

 

[AroundTheWorld]

Just realized I didn't answer the original question.

Rolex - - own or rent (or otherwise get access to).

What about the third choice.... pass on the whole thing. I'll take that one. I don't like to pay attention to the time anyway.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Russ H]

Just realized I didn't answer the original question.

Rolex - - own or rent (or otherwise get access to).

What about the third choice.... pass on the whole thing. I'll take that one. I don't like to pay attention to the time anyway.

I realize you're joking. A bit.

But you have your "rolexes", too.

IIRC, you have some things in your life that are "rewards" for achieving goals you have set for you/your marriage/your family.

One of them is travel. You have this, and other things, on your vision board.

Think of that Rolex (and my first and second Porsches) as part of my Vision board: Things that I had wanted for more than 10 years, that were emblematic of my success/ability to buy (outright, no loan) these cars and a watch.

Mind you, I got these things at different times-- not all at the same time!

These were some of the things on my "vision board" as a single guy.

And the Rolex was something special-- not only did it recognize my success, but it celebrated the fact that I'd run a successful business for 15 years. When I got it, I had, as clients, several celebrities, and was working daily w/Lucasfilm and Dolby Laboratories. ALL of these things had been "dreams" for me.

Here's the thing: When you own your own business, ain't nobody gonna give you a gold watch except the boss (ie, you).

So that's what I did.

I did wear the watch, occasionally. But most of the time I just had it on my nightstand (or someplace similar), where I could see it.

To me, it was a symbol of time, and success. It was a symbol of what I'd accomplished.

That's partly why, after 6 years, I no longer had it repaired when it broke. I was past having it as a symbol-- since I'd gone on to other things.

Lots of successful entrepreneurs celebrate milestones in their careers/businesses.

From what I recall, MJ very much considered his first Lambo a symbol of his success-- his "I did it". I'm sure he could explain his reasons better than me.

And as a married man/family guy, my "symbols" of achievement have shifted: A healthy, happy family, w/a roof over their heads, joyfully doing things together-- that's what my "symbols/visions/achievements" are these days.

***************

I think your vision changes as you grow.

When I was 20, my icons of success were hot women, hot cars, and being the envy of all those at the party. Oh, and getting laid. A lot. So that's what I went after.

By the time I was 30, that had changed. I already had the hot cars, hot women, etc. My symbols/icons were the people I'd hang out with: The trendsetters, mentors and "heroes" of my childhood.

By 40, I'd met a lot of incredible people, and was ready for a new vision/challenge. My new vision was the most ambitious, and challenging I'd ever set for myself: Finding a soulmate, and having a family. I knew this was the most long-term commitment I'd ever made, to that point.

As I near 50 ( ), I find myself living the vision I set for myself at 40.

And loving it.

Will my vision change? Hopefully, it will grow. And I want my family to be an integral part of my new horizons/vision.

That requires more planning, more teamwork, and can be a lot more challenging.

But it's so worth it. :banana: :banana: :banana:

-Russ H.

 

[AroundTheWorld]

I realize you're joking. A bit.

But you have your "rolexes", too.

IIRC, you have some things in your life that are "rewards" for achieving goals you have set for you/your marriage/your family.

One of them is travel. You have this, and other things, on your vision board.

How can I say I don't have "rewards (the rolex)" and still have travel as a part of my lifestyle? It is in how I define the word reward, and how I fit rolex into that definition:


There are the HAVE rewards, which will consist of material possessions.... those things that can be purchased (or rented) and there are the BE rewards, which are very different in nature. They don't have anything to do with ownership. They have to do with living your life they way you truly want to live it. They have to do with BEING the person that you know you really are.

How do you own travel? Or rent it? You can't. Travel is a lifestyle choice.

Back to material items:

When I say pass on the rolex, I mean.... abandon it all together. Maybe not forever, but do it for a while. Forget about all those material dreams. Focus instead on who you want to be, the life you want to live, how you want to spend your days. You just might learn some things about yourself.

Maybe you put those things back on your wrist, your vision board, or in your dreams again - - but maybe you won't.

I guess, when I say pass on it... I'm saying KNOW THYSELF.... and one great way to do that is to shed the possessions and the ego that goes along with them.

 

[AroundTheWorld]

moved foreclosure discussion to new thread:

http://www.thefastlanetomillions.com/real-estate-residential/25510-foreclosure-tenants.html

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[mtnman]

This is one of the best threads I've seen in a while... very timely, and thanks to all who contributed.

...think I'll reread before commenting.

 

[unicon]

You can put a number on anything and most frequently should to bring heaven down to earth. The words naturally elicit emotion and valuation.

Life is both an art and a science, you choose where your home is and your home is your home because it is a priority to you. You spend most of your time there, it is a place of shelter from the world. A second, third, forth, etc will not be your priority. This is the start of the Art with which you design your world.

Ownership is just simply the left side of the balance sheet and the numbers can measure this with a certain REALITY. You can measure tangibles and intangibles, including leases and value them. Everyone has a balance sheet whether they know it or not, in fact if you are fastlane you will size up everyone you meet with a photo of their balance sheet in your head. If you get good at it you can further understand their CAPACITY, and everyone has certain capacities at different timing in their life. Even the US government has a capacity, the problem is when these capacities are distorted or unrealistic.

The balance sheet lists assets or ownership in terms of liquidity or short term flexibility from cash, inventory, rolling stock, equipment, and real estate. The usage of these assets produce profitability on the income statement coming full circle back to increase that ownership (or decreasing it on a loss).

Probably the most important tool for evaluating operations or your income producing ability on your balance sheet is a working capital measurement which changes daily. It is similiar to excess cash over and above operation needs. I guarantee you that MJ's decision to rent a Laguna pad for a month is with excess cash (his business needs are already taken care of).

Excess cash thrown off is equal to freedom, however if you expand your operation whatever that may be it may actually include a write off on a Laguna Beach visit. So I would maintain that the efficient use of cash is always on the fastlane mind. Leasing may give you all of the ownership you need in a particular asset at a particular time. If the need increases you may buy in the future if you have the capacity.

Success in deal making or your existing operations has a competitive component. Therefore you evaluate your own capacity to take on new risks at current timing. In fact a trip to Laguna may be necessary for one's own peace of mind in preparation for the next big deal. Its kind of like how tax law is set up encouraging you to keep investing when your depreciation runs out on your existing operations, you have to reinvest or pay more tax. So a fastlane investor must put a certain percentage to work in the celestial boot camp whether he likes it or not.

In summary this is a pursuit of power either political or spiritual. A short term lease on a Lambo driving down Newport Beach might give one a temporary thrill but the driver knows he is selling a false capacity to others who sees it flying down the road. The Lambo parked in MJ's driveway year after year is longterm and spells a larger capacity to get things done.

One who studies one thing his entire life to the point of mastery also spells capacity. The time spent cannot be duplicated by anyone else unless they also spend the time, it must be their calling. This intangible skill could be converted to dollars in service to others in needs and wants and also be measured and valued.

We will all spend our excess cash or capital in shaping the world, however we will first be concerned with our needs utilitarian and otherwise, including eating, and these patterns are somewhat universal.

A fastlane player is never devoid of allocation of any cash or asset, and increases to his capacity to manage more assets. Organization is the only concept that conquers time and increases that capacity.

We played full time in our youth where money was of little consequence. The reason one does not jump or flop from one house to another from friend to friend to travel to Laguna or Europe for a few dollars and now spends 10k for a month is about the capacity to do it with increased quality, comfort, support, and power. A lease of a car or a watch or anything else is just an exercise of lessor power of what is important to you with a limited outlay of cash.

A fastlaner is always conscious of another deal, even the intellectual exercise of it not acted upon.

 

[biophase]

This is one of the best threads I've seen in a while... very timely, and thanks to all who contributed.

...think I'll reread before commenting.

Thanks man, and thanks to all the people who contributed. When I started this thread I really couldn't get a good handle on exactly what I was trying to say. I wrote a long post but it kept going in circles. I still don't have a good handle on it. This is what happens when you take philosophy and then have alot of time to think about things.

I have been pondering a question about whether our memories are a good or bad thing. But I think starting that thread right now would make my head hurt.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[AroundTheWorld]

I have been pondering a question about whether our memories are a good or bad thing. But I think starting that thread right now would make my head hurt.

Ah... I'm all in for that discussion. I've got all kinds of things to say about the topic

 

[Russ H]

When I started this thread I really couldn't get a good handle on exactly what I was trying to say. I wrote a long post but it kept going in circles. This is what happens when you take philosophy and then have alot of time to think about things. .

Yeah, remember the Steve Martin quote?

"Take at least one Philosophy class in college. Seriously. It will be enough to screw you up for the rest of your life!"

(I agree-- loved my philo class-- and it did teach me enough to question everything/look at things differently, from that point on!

-Russ H.

 

[NoMoneyDown]

Yeah, remember the Steve Martin quote?

"Take at least one Philosophy class in college. Seriously. It will be enough to screw you up for the rest of your life!"

(I agree-- loved my philo class-- and it did teach me enough to question everything/look at things differently, from that point on!

-Russ H.

I have to agree. While I had already taken several classes before I took Phil 101, it really opened my eyes in many ways. Of course, having a good instructor always helps, too, no matter what the subject.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[hakrjak]

THE CONUNDRUM!!

As for the psychological implications, I suppose it has to do with "freedom" -- if I owned the place (or any place) I have the freedom to visit ANYTIME, on a whim, with no one to answer. Ownership provides a greater level of FREEDOM, yet, ownership takes time (so it also steals freedom!)

Howz that for a conundrum?

I'm currently feeling this, because I'm considering buying a camping popup trailer to use for our family camping trips. We want to be able to take the thing camping whenever we want, anywhere we want.

The camper I want is about $15,000, but I've found a guy who rents them locally for $69 per day with a 1 week minimum.

Renting sounds like less of a commitment, but when I think of having to load all of my stuff up into a rental, and then completely clean it out at the end of a week -- it's not really something I want to do. Also I don't know how I feel about sharing a bed with a bunch of other people who have rented the thing... I'd rather have my own unit that I can leave all of my gear in, and just fill up the cooler and go. Problem is, then I have to pay for storage, registration, etc. -- There is just something about that freedom though, having it standing by and ready to use anytime you want, with all of your stuff in it & ready to go! (Even though you know most people never do this... With a vacation home, camper, boat, or whatever the toy is...)

So I've been holding off on the purchase for now... Think I'll rent one for a week this summer first, and go from there.

- Hakrjak

 

[EastWind]

Yeah, remember the Steve Martin quote?

"Take at least one Philosophy class in college. Seriously. It will be enough to screw you up for the rest of your life!"

(I agree-- loved my philo class-- and it did teach me enough to question everything/look at things differently, from that point on!

-Russ H.

So true! The first philosophy class I took was on an early saturday morning. One morning after class, I just went home and laid in my bed till Monday afternoon. Still got the book, need to read it all over again one of these days.