Personally I don't think Ten Hag has been able to improve the Manchester United team. I would say Manchester United's performance has deteriorated further. Manchester United is eighth in the table this season. This is probably the lowest in the last 10 years. In the 2020–21 season Manchester United managed to occupy the second place in the table. So it cannot be said that Manchester United were in complete disarray before Ten Hag took over as coach.
Manchester United should definitely be looking for a new coach. There is no doubt that United played very well against Manchester City. However, the main problem of Manchester United is that this team is not able to maintain the consistency of good performance.
I was a bit surprised when I saw how they played when they beat Manchester City, their performance was very different from what they have shown so far when playing in the EPL. Manchester United has the quality and ability to finish in a better position, but due to their inconsistent performance, they have to settle for finishing in 8th position in the standings. Ten Hag is a great coach, he has the ability to bring Manchester United to beat Manchester City, who appeared dominant throughout the match. Ten Hag still needs to do a lot next season if he remains as Manchester United coach, he must be able to make Manchester United appear consistent like Arteta did at Arsenal and Guardiola at Manchester City to make Manchester United a challenger in the EPL title race. It was also a surprise to me that Manchester City showed a much weaker game than Man United. City had many mistakes in the beginning of the match, Bernardo and Rodri made elementary losses of the ball. United on the contrary pressed very confidently. Guardiola made many mistakes in his team's match strategy. Therefore, it was no surprise that Manchester United scored two goals and won this incredible game. Yes, this was a big surprise. I think it was not for only you & me but for everyone. First of all, I think Manchester City was unlucky in this match. The shot from Haaland that came back of the crossbar could have easily gone in. Of course, the horrible mistake that Manchester City made in the defense when they actually conceded the first goal was unforgivable. they have paid the price for it as well. However, I have to say the second goal that was scored by Manchester United was absolutely incredible. I thought that Manchester United should have kept a clean sheet. they also would have done that unless the goalkeeper that they have made such a mistake. He got beaten to his near post. Which he really shouldn't have. But anyway Manchester United was able to win the FA Cup. and that was also against Manchester City. This is going to give Manchester United some confidence. But obviously, the problems are still there. |
|
|
|
 https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/pakistan-women-in-england-2024-1398242/england-women-vs-pakistan-women-2nd-odi-1398272/match-reportThe second one-day international match between Pakistan women and England women got canceled. England is still leading the series by 1-0. So there is a very big chance for Pakistan to actually level the series by winning the last match. In this second one day international match, Pakistan women were only able to play 6.5 overs. They had collected 29 Runs and did not lose any wickets. Sadly the match had to end there. Now the third ODI is going to be a great chance for Pakistan women to make sure that they do not lose the series. of course, England women's team is actually going to try to win the third match as well and make sure that they win the one international series as well. And there is a very big chance of that happening because they are definitely a better team compared to the Pakistan women’s team. But I hope Pakistan will be able to perform well and it will be a competitive match. |
|
|
|
I don’t think banks are the ones against Bitcoin. It should be the government that is against Bitcoin because they don’t have control over it. The banks actually report to the government and because Bitcoin isn’t doing the same, they don’t like it. Because starting from tax and other things they’d have implemented or rule they’d have set, they can’t. Bitcoin takes out the middle man and the government can’t do nothing about it, no matter much they dislike it.
The question is s, who's the bank and who's the government? They are same set of people under the financial system and their interest, policies and objective are twined. The banks are more like an agents of the government through which the government can use to bar and frustrate any other rising financial system that tend to be of a treat to their power of control and bitcoin is one of such with it's decentralized protocol. Which makes puts me in the right by referring the bank as a middle too. Nonetheless the bank and the government are not the same. Understand the difference that the bank is not owned by the government. There are many private owner and they don’t have any personality in the government. However, the government under policies use the bank to do and get whatever they want. And that’s because banks follow policies which are set by the government. So government may use the bank as a tool but they are not one. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I know, there are many private banks, but in order to operate, they must go through and be managed by the central bank, and the central bank is directly managed by the government. So it can be said that the person behind the bank is the government. To me, banks are one of many tools that governments use to maintain the economy and control their people. Answering OP's question, I never thought that banks or governments were against bitcoin, the role of banks in the world economy is extremely important and no one can replace it, including bitcoins. We don't need to exaggerate bitcoin and there are always hostile thoughts about why banks and governments are against bitcoin. If governments and banks against it, why are more and more countries legalizing bitcoin and bitcoin gradually becoming more popular? |
|
|
|
<snip> OP said he is using coinbase and kraken which means he has no problem with KYC. Yes. I know. For me, trading on an exchange that requires KYC to be able to carry out activities cannot be categorized as good because the purpose of people involving themselves with cryptocurrencies is for privacy even though real privacy is found in Bitcoin. But there is a note that , even though these centralized exchanges are reputable and trustworthy , that doesn't mean they'll never collapse . So use them for what they were created for , which means CEX is only for buying, selling and exchanging . We should not misuse and abuse them such as using them to store our bitcoins or crypto assets .
I think we already know what exchanges were created for. If you don't use exchange as intended, stupid is a reflection of that person. The incident that happened at a well-known exchange can be a lesson that exchanges are not a place to put money. Not everyone is in this market for privacy, most people are in it for profit because what does privacy mean if you are poor? So I don't see anything so bad about us using a centralized exchange. Everyone has different life choices and goals, we don't need to discriminate against each other just because they are different from us. By the way, many people always talk about privacy but I seriously ask, how many people do not use centralized exchanges? Do you use them? Like I said, let's use centralized exchanges for what they were created for, that way we can use them without worrying about anything. |
|
|
|
 source: Foxsports Finally this defender is departing from Hoffenheim as free agent. This season he played 23 matches in bundesliga and dfb pokal, netted 2 ball, got 6 yellow & 1 red. One team I would like to see some improvement from in the Bundesliga is Hoffenheim. For quite a few seasons now they have been either finishing on the mid table or finishing on that bottom-top/lower-top side of the table. I don't think in the last five seasons they have been able to finish in a position from where they have participated in the Champions League. The best they have done is the Europa League. And that was back in the 2019-20 season. After that, this is probably the first time they will be taking part in any European competitions if I am not wrong. it would be great to see some improvement from them finally. Because they have been hovering around the same level for quite a long time. It would be nice to see them push for the top four positions. But I guess as they have finished 12th in the last season, we can say that this season has been a display of better performance from them. But I think the performance from them could be and should be better. |
|
|
|
-.-
PSG and Real Madrid are never respectable clubs, all the players who have come to Real Madrid have improved a lot in the future and their market value has increased a lot, on the other hand PSG has no such record.
In the last season, it at least looked like there was some challenge for PSG. but in this season they did not have any challenges at all. They were able to win pretty easily. I have been saying this for a long time. If PSG actually does not face hard opponents in the Ligue 1 they are actually not going to be able to prepare for the Champions League. It's very simple to understand. If they are only playing against weaker opponents the whole season, they will never be ready to face opponents when the time comes. And that’s what has been happening. With the amount of money they have spent so far and also with the level of players that they had in the squad, it was literally impossible to lose anything. They had almost every great player that was known to all. And they were still unable to win the Champions League. At this point, I do not know who is at fault. Of course, the club is going to try to be better and win domestic trophies. But the other teams have become so weak that they do not present any competition to them and that's why they are also not ready for the big competitions. |
|
|
|
 The decision to sack Xavi and appoint Flick comes after a detailed vetting process by Barcelona’s sports director, Deco, and the club's president, Joan Laporta. Source: https://www.goal.com/en-in/lists/barcelona-unveil-hansi-flick-xavi-to-depart/blt832342acfe703bb6#csadb0ca944a173463With this decision of Xavi not being the coach of Barcelona anymore, I think it is going to make Barcelona perform badly in the next season. and personally, it is not clear to me why they have actually decided to let him go. Because I thought if he was actually with Barcelona for one or two more seasons, she would have been able to bring in better performance. I do not understand what they are asking from him considering the fact that they are not giving him enough money to do anything at all. So I believe they will be able to give more money to the new coach that is actually going to take over the managerial job at Barcelona. At the same time, I hope they do not regret this decision as well. |
|
|
|
speaking of coaches, according to the latest news, Napoli is interested in purchasing Antonio Conte, we need to see if Delaurentis is now willing to come up with the cash to get a top coach, but we know well that Napoli is a difficult place, just think about how they treated a great man like Carletto Ancelotti, someone who has won everything and continues to win (he could do so this evening too) was sent away in the worst possible way in the meantime everything seems to be decided for Thiago Motta at Juvetus and Simone Inzaghi is the best coach in Serie A
At this point, I think the downfall of Napoli is something that has to be studied. I have not seen any club having such a downfall in recent times. They are about to finish at mid-table right after the season that they were able to win the Serie A title. That is definitely not a good look for them. I also believe that the good players that they have right now are not going to stay with the club. Because the club is simply not a very good Future for the players. I am pretty sure that the players also know that it is probably not going to be possible for the club to replicate the success that they had in the last season in the recent future. So of course the good players are going to leave. we all know that a lot of clubs do have the level of money to offer which Napoli will be unable to refuse. So I think the next season might not be any better for them. They might finish a little higher compared to what they will do in this season. But that doesn’t mean direct improvement in my opinion. |
|
|
|
 Atlético Madrid vs Real Sociedad Actually, this match is not going to mean anything on the table. So it is clear the teams are going to give opportunities to the players who generally do not regularly play in the squad. Actually, it does not matter which team wins, they are going to finish in the same position that they are right now on the table. I expect both teams to actually experiment in this match. Of course, both of them are going to get ready for the next season. If you ask me about betting on this match, I will say Atlético Madrid should have a better chance of winning in this match, whatever the odds. They want to finish this season on a high. Of course, no team is going to go into a match thinking that they are going to lose this match. Both of them are obviously going for the win. Even though they might experiment a little bit. I think a better performance was expected from Atlético Madrid this season. I hope they will be able to improve their performance in the next season and actually give competition for the La Liga title. |
|
|
|
I will revise your subject.
Bitcoin is more than a currency or security it'sor scarcity, but are decentralized, secure and private!
If Bitcoin didn't have one of three I mentioned above, I doubt Bitcoin can grow as high as now since there's a weakness in Bitcoin and it would make people to not completely trust in Bitcoin.
Definitely bro I agree with you that if Bitcoin doesn't have any of these things So people will not trust on Bitcoin. Decentralization, Sscarcity are the two important factors, which I think make Bitcoin promising to the world. Scarcity's greatest quality is that it influences the store of value, which also depends on decentralization. Despite these two qualities, they exist within Bitcoin. So I agree with you that if these two factors were not present in Bitcoin, people would not trust it as much as they do because of the lack of a value store and the lack of a decentralized ecosystem, that is, without scarcity and decentralization functions, Bitcoin would be considered a lay coin. That's right , we need a combination of decentralization and scarcity to create value for bitcoin , without one of the two bitcoins would not be as attractive as they are today. But I value bitcoin's decentralization more than any of its advantages because no other asset is as decentralized as bitcoin, and that's what we've been looking for for a long time. Scarcity is important but is useless if not combined with decentralization. Because creating an asset with a scarce supply is not so difficult, but creating a decentralized asset like bitcoin is not easy and so far only bitcoin is unique. |
|
|
|
Just from the title alone… I wanted to ask what possibly the best wallet to hold bitcoin in?
Before anyone says that it depends on what I need specifically then here is what I am here for. I can not decide which one really is the best based on the things I want. First of all I plan on holding some bitcoin (not huge amount) for a foreseeable future. However I also plan on swapping it for usdt from time to time aka when the price is getting high. I need a wallet that has low fees, preferably decentralized, and is secure.
Any recommendations?
You can use Bitpay wallet, it has all you want to do including ability to swap between bitcoin and vice versa. The fee is great and suitable for what you want to achieve except when the memepool is congested which then becomes a general problem. Besides, it is self-custodian meaning you are in full custody of the seed phrase as it is not stored by Bitpay. I would have recommended hardware wallets but from your post, it is obvious you are not holding for long, just buy low sell high kind of stuff. So Bitpay wallet is ideal for all that and from the review so far, I have not seen any bad reputation attached to it. What I see is that people are giving recommendations on Electrum as well as many other wallets and Electrum is a perfect choice for storing bitcoin but that's not what OP is looking for . He was looking for a wallet that could directly exchange between bitcoin and USDT , and Electrum did not offer that feature . I have never seen or used any wallet that features a direct exchange on the wallet, and is open source and non-custodial wallet . Is Bitpay an open source and non-custodial wallet? By the way, I saw the OP said that he is looking for a wallet for mobile version and does bitpay have a version for both iOS and Android operating systems currently? |
|
|
|
Used to be super active but got burned by most of the old closures (Cryptsy, btc-e, Bter, etc), so where is the best place to trade nowadays? I have a Coinbase account already along with Kraken but not sure of other options that may be better. Thanks!
If you come from the same country as me, there are two good exchanges for trading, Indodax and Tokocrypto. All local exchanges require us to complete KYC and for those who don't want KYC exchange, it means the desired exchange is not available. Globally, Binance exchange is well known. But they also require KYC. Binance supports SegWit and Lightning. Use Binance with caution as in many cases they are not registered with the legal regulations [permits] of the country of operation. OP said he is using coinbase and kraken which means he has no problem with KYC. It can be said that among all the centralized exchanges , Binance is the best and most reliable despite recent incidents . Coinbase and kraken are the top 2 exchanges in the US and I think they're not too bad to use , but if the OP wants to find something better I'd still recommend Binance . But there is a note that , even though these centralized exchanges are reputable and trustworthy , that doesn't mean they'll never collapse . So use them for what they were created for , which means CEX is only for buying, selling and exchanging . We should not misuse and abuse them such as using them to store our bitcoins or crypto assets . |
|
|
|
What a wrong title you have, talking about government in the title and now discussing bitcoin investment and movement bla bla bla, I believe you have seen how the thread received no replies because no one want to waste time on threads such as this, be aware that bitcoin is just an alternative to the fiat banking system and not a replacement or an anti government assets, bitcoin is not an outlaw actor, but a complement to the existing system.
Bitcoin is becoming more and more popular and many governments are gradually becoming more bitcoin friendly. Things are slowly getting better but it's confusing that there are still people like OP trying to spread negativity between the government and bitcoin. It seems like he and those spreading this negativity do not want a world where bitcoin is legal and recognized. Stories about governments trying to stop bitcoin are slowly disappearing and we should do something to make it happen faster instead of trying to create bigger misunderstandings. Satoshi created bitcoin as an alternative, he never said that bitcoin is a replacement for banks, the current fiat currency system, but there are many people who are deliberately distorting the truth and spreading it . |
|
|
|
No mate, literally no one could predict the Bitcoin's price and we see all such speculation only when the market is upward and we don't see them often during market dip. Bitcoin may even cross $84k or even $100k or even drop below $60 k once again hence we cannot predict much about Bitcoin unless there is a strong factor threatening it's usage which usually results in temporary dump.
If we are all optimistic here, I guess $84k is lesser than what we expect to see in the market. It could be $100k or above, that’s what we want to witness happening in the market. However, bitcoin price is highly volatile that makes it so unpredictable to anticipate a price. Reality is we can witness higher or lower than $84k, and we have no control of that. But if positive news and updates will consistently hit the market, then it’s highly possible for bitcoin price to achieve $100k at the year end or even higher than that. Bitcoin is very volatile and price prediction is difficult because we often make short-term predictions but if we zoom out and think long term, I think predicting bitcoin price is not too difficult. If we stop making short-term predictions and set long-term goals, I think the target of 84k$ is not too difficult for bitcoin to achieve and even 100k$ or more. Even if we have more bad news spread and bitcoin may correct lower, but in the long run, bitcoin will soon recover and rise again. Based on history, bull season is approaching, we should not let bitcoin's short-term volatility cause us to waver and sell bitcoin too early. Hold and hold is the only thing we should do now. |
|
|
|
~
Most likely. I reckon a lot of people are expecting it as well tbh, and some are even expecting more than that even. Chances of it happening this year is pretty low though unless the market has only that positive vibes, which is unlikely. I mean look at the recent market, we stayed at 60k ish for a few months when people were expecting it to bulldoze through just like how it did when it went up from 40k to 70k last time. Same thing here, same cycle of going up, stabilizing, maybe going down every now and then and should slowly go up again. I do reckon if we hit 90k we might see a big bulldoze through 100k just because of hype though lol. There are more than 7 months left until the end of the year and bitcoin always brings us surprises, such as bitcoin reaching a new ATH before the halving, which no one could have thought of. So we don't need to be too pessimistic, optimism is the only thing we should keep at this time. Personally, I think it is not an impossible task for bitcoin to reach $100k this year because the gap from $70k to $100k is not too big. But we don't need to rush, if bitcoin cannot reach 100k$ this year then it will happen next year too. To me, bitcoin hitting $100K is inevitable and we just need to wait patiently. |
|
|
|
~Snip
I feel like we haven't seen a crash hard yet because we are in the bull run period, not saying that we are in the bull run exactly, but it is definitely the same period. Which is why I think it feels like we are going to end up with something that will take a while. I do hope that we are going to see a greater return, it may not be all that easy to handle, but it does feel like we are going to see a greater result one way or another. So that means that we may not see a crash all the way until late 2025, where the bull run would probably end, or even early 2026 could be a date. That is because in 2026 it is expected to be another bear year, just like 2018 was and just like 2022 was, every four years it's a cycle we have. History can still be expected to repeat itself, but we never know when. Even this time, bitcoin's new ATH occurred before the halving and this has never happened before in history. A holder who already owns 10 btc today will very likely become a millionaire in the coming bullish period, but diversification could make it quicker for them, or it could slow it down. I strongly believe that bitcoin will not lose too much in price in 2024 to 2025, but price volatility is very possible. Prices rising and falling for one reason or another are normal, but economic, political and other situations can have an impact on the market. We cannot expect that history will always repeat itself exactly in every detail because things will always change over time and the impact at each stage will be different. This year, bitcoin has a new ATH because we have a bitcoin ETF and this has never happened before, and for this reason, many people suspect that history has been changed. To be honest, I also doubt whether history will repeat itself, but if we look at the rapidly growing demand for bitcoin. Even if history doesn't repeat itself, bitcoin's price increase is inevitable. I agree with you, since the bitcoin ETFs were approved I don't think we will see another bear season like before, bitcoin is still falling, there will still be corrections, but bitcoin is dumped 70% - 90% will not happen again. |
|
|
|
but I think the upcoming bull season will not able to reach 20x multiplier, x10 is still realistic as Bitcoin price getting expensive, it require more money to pump it.
Yup, If you look at the exact bottom of the cycle, $15.4k, $154k is the 10x. My Target price for Bitcoin's next ATH is $172k. I mean I am not asking much from Bitcoin, or am I?  That's not that much and that's only going to be around 2.5x from the current price of $69k. And with what the speculations and analyses that I have read, 10x is actually more than from what they're seeing since it is past with the last cycles that we're in. So, IMHO $172k is possible but I hope that I still able to hold a lot from that time because many of us are likely to sell from the price ranges of $100k-$120k and $150k is going to be a survival mode for the ones who are still in diamond hands by that time. Thanks for the chart IT, with what the cycles that we've seen, the red line is likely going to surpass that green line. x10 profit is not much, how much do you think is much? You cannot find any traditional asset or business that can deliver x10 returns in 4 years. And those who buy bitcoin from now and if bitcoin can reach $170k, they will gain 2.5 times profit in just 1.5 years. And I can tell you that no traditional asset can do the same thing that bitcoin has done. That's also why many traditional investors call bitcoin a get-rich-quick investment. I also see many people on the forum setting a target of 100k$ but I don't believe they will sell when bitcoin reaches 100k$, in a bull market there will always be greed. Planning and setting goals is one thing, whether we follow the plan or not is another. |
|
|
|
This topic has come up quite a few times over the years on this board. A lot of the discussion around it has mostly been others opinions. I found this neat little graph online (instagram) from the New York Times that compares the two. Now keep in mind one's location will certainly have an effect on which one might make more sense, even in what part of you own country you're in.
There is nothing bad in buying a house or renting it, doing both, your plan and purpose for doing such matters. At times, you may not have the money to get the kind of house you want to buy, in this case, surely, you will not sleep outside or do any magic, you will have to be patient for a while until you are financially stronger enough to buy a house. In some cases, it could be a situation of relocation where you can't immediately settle for the buying of the house, and of course, you will have to rent. Again, there are some people who have bought or built houses at some disadvantaged location, they do not have a choice, and they might still opt to rent a house for the time being. If they calculate the proximity-caused issues like the convenience of getting to work, resources to be wasted due to and fro daily, and safety, they would surely resort to renting a house in most cases. So, the two are no big deal, as safety, purpose, plan and convenience are key here. It would really be something that will be depending into someones needs and preference because there are really people who are really that loving on having their own home and there are ones who do love to rent due to various reasons like the location of their job and something that do talks about practicality.It would really be just that depending on how well you would really be that making yourself that goes with your preference. When it comes to savings then it would really be something that renting would be saving you up rather than on having that your own house. It would really be that situational and just like been said it would really be affected with several factors on which we know that this could really affect your decision making. For me on which having your own house will definitely give out that kind of peace of mind and having that confidence since you are living on your own house which you wont really be needing to pay up some rent but still you would really be needing to pay up those monthly amortization on which this is where people would be that skeptical on making up decisions because they dont really like for these things to be happening because they dont have the money or having not have the plans on paying up big for a long term amort on which i do really that seeing this stuff on where people do come into a point or consider about speaking with practicality but of course it would really be still that depending on someones preference. I agree that whether to buy or rent will depend on each person because there are many things to consider . But I will disagree that renting a house is more economical than buying a house. When buying a house you will need to spend a large amount of money and not everyone has the economic ability to do that. Meanwhile , renting a house is largely due to some people not having much money or due to the nature of their work. But if you rent for a short term, there's no problem, but if you have to rent for the rest of your life, it's a problem . Some people say that the amount of money they rent for 30 or 40 years is enough to own their own house , but because they can't have that much money, they can't buy a house . Meanwhile, if you buy a house, you can live in it and after you die you can inherit that house to your children . In the long run , buying a house always has greater benefits than renting . I believe that owning real estate or a house is always the dream of everyone, especially those with families , which is why the demand for real estate or its value has never stopped increasing. On the moment that you would be buying your own house then it would be a one time big time payment specially if its cash purchased but that would only stop on there and next of that then you would be that free of monthly payment or wont really be having that responsibility on paying up something but we do know that not all people would be having that finances that they could afford their own house. If you do then you are lucky or consider yourself on a good position because building one doesn't come cheap and only a few could be having that capability on doing so. We are all hoping and wanting on having our own home but there are really indeed instances that due to lack of funds or cant be able to afford then we would be ending up on renting out. Just like on what Fatunad said above that it will really be situational basing up on what are the condition that you are into. If you do find that you could save up money on renting or really that near on your workplace then it would be common sense that you will be renting instead on making some commute specially if your home is really that too far. It would be impossible that you cant be able to assess yourself on what are the things that you should gonna do and stick out on where you could be able to save more. I do not deny that whether to rent or buy a house will depend on each person such as the nature of the job and many other factors. But like I said , I don't think long-term renting is more economical than owning a house. Personally, I lived in a rented house for more than 10 years while working away from home and I found that with that 10 years' rent , I was able to own a small house in my hometown. But because the economic conditions at that time were quite difficult, I could not buy a house and had to rent a house . If at that time I have enough money to buy a house and return to my hometown after quitting my job , I will even make a large profit from that house by renting or selling that house . That's why I disagree when people say renting a house is more economical than owning a house. |
|
|
|
 Chelsea are looking for dynamic manager, several candidates are being discussed internally with owners and directors involved.
Thomas Frank among names mentioned internally; also Kieran McKenna but still all open.
Seb Hoeneß, highly rated but fully focused on Stuttgart. Source: https://www.101greatgoals.com/news/next-chelsea-manager-kieran-mckenna-thomas-frank-thomas-tuchel/At least it is good to see that Chelsea are actually looking for a coach and not keeping the current coach any longer. Yes towards the end they were able to perform really well. Maybe better than they have performed the whole season. But that does not mean in the next season they are not going to suffer. So the decision that they have taken is very good in my opinion. And it looks like they are actually looking for a coach who will be able to handle pressure and also handle such a big squad like Chelsea as well. That is something we have seen many coaches fail to do in recent times. I have also heard that Chelsea is not going back to the previous coaches that they have brought in recently. I am talking about Jose Marino, Conte, and Tuchel. |
|
|
|
This topic has come up quite a few times over the years on this board. A lot of the discussion around it has mostly been others opinions. I found this neat little graph online (instagram) from the New York Times that compares the two. Now keep in mind one's location will certainly have an effect on which one might make more sense, even in what part of you own country you're in.
There is nothing bad in buying a house or renting it, doing both, your plan and purpose for doing such matters. At times, you may not have the money to get the kind of house you want to buy, in this case, surely, you will not sleep outside or do any magic, you will have to be patient for a while until you are financially stronger enough to buy a house. In some cases, it could be a situation of relocation where you can't immediately settle for the buying of the house, and of course, you will have to rent. Again, there are some people who have bought or built houses at some disadvantaged location, they do not have a choice, and they might still opt to rent a house for the time being. If they calculate the proximity-caused issues like the convenience of getting to work, resources to be wasted due to and fro daily, and safety, they would surely resort to renting a house in most cases. So, the two are no big deal, as safety, purpose, plan and convenience are key here. It would really be something that will be depending into someones needs and preference because there are really people who are really that loving on having their own home and there are ones who do love to rent due to various reasons like the location of their job and something that do talks about practicality.It would really be just that depending on how well you would really be that making yourself that goes with your preference. When it comes to savings then it would really be something that renting would be saving you up rather than on having that your own house. It would really be that situational and just like been said it would really be affected with several factors on which we know that this could really affect your decision making. For me on which having your own house will definitely give out that kind of peace of mind and having that confidence since you are living on your own house which you wont really be needing to pay up some rent but still you would really be needing to pay up those monthly amortization on which this is where people would be that skeptical on making up decisions because they dont really like for these things to be happening because they dont have the money or having not have the plans on paying up big for a long term amort on which i do really that seeing this stuff on where people do come into a point or consider about speaking with practicality but of course it would really be still that depending on someones preference. I do not deny that whether to rent or buy a house will depend on each person such as the nature of the job and many other factors. But like I said , I don't think long-term renting is more economical than owning a house. Personally, I lived in a rented house for more than 10 years while working away from home and I found that with that 10 years' rent , I was able to own a small house in my hometown. But because the economic conditions at that time were quite difficult, I could not buy a house and had to rent a house . If at that time I have enough money to buy a house and return to my hometown after quitting my job , I will even make a large profit from that house by renting or selling that house . That's why I disagree when people say renting a house is more economical than owning a house. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
