principa

I do not see it as an extreme view, but an existential argument. Philosophical. However, it is aimed at the wrong audience and I can that it is liable to cause - so sorry to those reading it who were personally offended!

yeah - should have used "I" rather than "you" ...

ha ha. I love this forum ! to other lurkers - drop in once in a while to get abused! Love the "We" in your post by the way and how you think you can read my intentions. The great thing is, being the internet, your bullying and personal insult doesn't really work. Time to sign off I think. To all those thinking about children and are unsure ... just do it :-)

Yes I get your argument: It's what you do with your life, not life itself. (dropping the brick analogy) And you are saying that our ability to create new life is not the most significant thing we can do. It's certainly not a unique or rare power, for sure. But, creating life has the capability to fundamentally change the way you see the world and your purpose/existence. So I don't think we are in disagreement, just speaking on entirely different levels here (I am in the clouds, sadly!) It usually leaves them sad and feeling a little empty in my experience, which is why many do the next

Extend your horizon by more than a few decades and your argument doesn't really hold, does it?

Well, Yes. By far. All else is conditioned on reproduction. The most significant thing that Einstein's parents did was to give birth. Non-reproducers may of course do other significant things, but only within their finite lifespan. They are a dead end.

BS. Having children is hard-wired into us and transgresses all of the modern preoccupations which arise from our current 21st century mindset and culture. Having children "validates someone's existence" just as much as being born or dying does. In fact I would say it is the most significant thing someone can do in their life and that until you have had them you do not fully exist.

Exactly. My situation: 2007 - considering a move. Put off by these forums. The FTSE was at 6600 and I had some of my moving fund in it. If I bought then I would have paid more but be on a lower interest rate. I would have also found it easier to sell my existing house. In 2010 I moved. Difficult to sell house. The FTSE was at 5000-ish so my moving fund was depleted. The move cost me 25-30% less than in 2007, but I could not get as good a mortgage deal as in 2007 so in the long run it will cost me more in interest if not capital repayment. In 2013 house prices may well have fallen, but if s

-you should factor in inflation over a 20 year period - rent increases and mortgage decrease and (cough) capital appreciation on house. -that mortgage repayments/offsets effectively earn interest at your mortgage rate - higher than savings rates. -factor in forced moves due to landlord over time (multiple deposits? more legal fees?) -your maintenance may be a little high (no way do I spend £5Kpa)

All depends on whether you'll want/need to borrow against your (future)house. If unsure, I would buy outright and not concern myself with products the financial services industry (boo hiss) until necessary. I chose a (relatively) large offset mortgage with the benefit of a `cash cushion' over a smaller conventional mortgage. Psychologically it works well for me (and more importantly my wife) as it serves as a daily reminder that until the mortgage is paid off, everything spent requires an interest payment to the bank - making everything 50% dearer.

so what is the downside of this action? Is it simply money being devalued?

Either rent the money to own the property eventually. Or rent the property to own the money immediately. Can't say I would want to own much money at the moment given the QE. But either-way, ownership of capital is the ultimate aim. The question is whether you want to own capital in the land you live on, or invest it elsewhere. Whether it is cheaper to rent or buy is a mute point as they have different outcomes.

I am genuinely considering gold as an inflation hedge, but can't help thinking that other hard assets offer better value if the objective is to diversify out of sterling. Buying tinned food in bulk for example over a 5 year period could be a good hedge against currency inflation and energy increases. I'm sure there are other things too (cleaning products etc.).

Weak maybe (that deflation is avoided because it reduces velocity of money and undervalues today's labour compared to yesterday's) but the argument is still valid. But I do accept the point that the real issue at the moment is over-leveraged banks and efforts to maintain the status quo. Is there an historical precedent for deflation other than Japan ?

thanks - I hadn't considered debt default - but thinking about it we see it being avoided in a myriad of ways by our lords and masters for the reason you give. because yesterday's labour has to be worth less than today's to keep you working... (your grandad and you are one and the same to your master)