Yes yes, physical laws etcetera, empirical observations etcetera.

Can you just clarify for me whether the 'law of attraction' is about ‘like attracting like’ or ‘opposites attracting’? Because I have some interesting physical laws (laws of physics specifically) based on empirical observations I'd like to share with you, specifically relating to which kind of attraction occurs most commonly in the natural world.

Additionally, you may wish to ponder from your previous post about ‘closed systems’ whether the total ‘abundance’ in the world is finite or infinite. If it is finite, yet some people can attract it simply by thinking positively about it, would that not imply that somebody else somewhere in the world loses an equal and opposite amount of ‘abundance’? That would surely mean that the 'loser' had been thinking the wrong way about abundance, which raises a philosophical difficulty.

If the 'winner' can only 'win' at the expense of the 'loser'
and
The 'loser' can only 'lose' by thinking negatively
and
The 'winner' can 'win' at will by positive thinking
then
The 'winner' is controlling the 'loser' – ie forcing him/her to think negatively!

It follows that the 'winner' must question the morality of taking advantage of 'the law of abundance'…

Your most humble servant, F. [cowboy2]

PS – did the $2,000 I thought about sending you arrive yet?
PPS – I know you’re busy, what with all the teaching, preaching and thinking about abundance, but could you please find it in your heart to spend a few minutes thinking positively about my post from April 17, 2007 – 4:11pm. It still has that spelling error, and the sooner you can fix it the better I’ll feel.

What the heck is this supposed to mean? Surely you're not speaking of the shared equity loan Richard was touting here a while back? If so, you'd better go practice your spiel, and be very careful not to mislead people in the future. What am I talking about? Learn how your product works then check your maths. And logistics.

Cheers, F. [cowboy2]

How much capital gains tax will you be up for?

Well my damn lawn keeps growing. I will stop giving energy to it so that I no longer need to mow it. Thanks for the tip, oh wise and abundant sensei.

Your affectionate disciple,
F. [cowboy2]-

Ah, bum. I wrote my name wrong. However, I'm going to spend the next 20 minutes thinking and feeling the lack of spelling mistakes in my last post.

You'll see the wonders of my effort shortly.

Be prepared to be amazed.

F.

"can I claim the full amount of this loan regardless of what the funds are used for as this is the balance of the loan when I move out"

No. The ATO would be all over you before you knew it.

5. And… oh yes, give me $2,000!

Seriously, if the only thing I need to do to gain abundance is to visualise abundance, why would I (or anybody else) ever need to pay you $2,000? And why would you ever need anybody to give you $2,000, given you could just visualise it and recieve it instead?

Admit it, it's all just a sucker-scam. Only suckers would read the book or watch the movie without thinking "oh what a load of @#$%!". Lucky for you and your masters, if they're sucker enough to fall for the message, they'll be sucker enough to fall for the $2,000 ask. Of course, none of this will be reaching you since the very structure of the pyramid scheme means that you (assuming you're not the apex player) are every bit as much a sucker… as a leach!

All the best, F. [cowboy2]

That is exactly what it is! And that is exactly why 'rejoice' is here, 'sharing' (spruiking) 'the secret'.

Check out the rubbish link. It is her/his personal 'affiliate site'. Rejoice will sell you 'the secret' for $2000. What you get is a kit (what they call "Premium SGR Affiliate tools (a $3,000 value) that you can choose to use to build a new source of income by sharing the Science of Getting Rich Program.") that allows you to build the exact same website to sell 'the secret' to others for $2000.

It's Multi Level Marketting (MLM) in it's lowest form. It works exactly the same as any other pyramid scheme.

Why has this thread not at the very least been moved into the off-topic section? Or closed down?

F. [cowboy2]

That's quite correct in theory. In practise you won't have 'lost' $50,000 but you will have lost $50,000 of purchasing power. Booming house prices are only good for investors and downsizers. They are bad for people who own only one house and for those who as yet own none.

Another analogy. People often speak of 'getting on the housing ladder'. During a boom, the rungs become further apart. During a correction (real or nominal), the rungs become closer. So if you were to purchase a cheap 'bottom rung' house in the hope that booming prices give you a leg-up to the next rung, you'd be disappointed to find that the boom had left you further from that second rung, not closer!

The opposite is also true. If you own just one house and hope to move to a more expensive house, the very best thing would be for house prices to crash! If say, your $200k house (with a $50k mortgage) dropped 50% to $100k, a $400k house would now be ~$200k. You could now move to the new house with a $150k mortgage rather than a $250k mortgage! You might feel you've lost $100k on the value of your house, but you've actually gained $100k in purchasing power!

Cheers, F. [cowboy2]

What nonsense!

They get 25% more capital gain, but in return they promise to give 40% of all their capital gain to the 'equity partner'!

Without the equity loan, they get $0.01 in capital gain from every $1.00 purchased (with $1.00 outlayed) for every 1% growth in the property price.
With the equity loan they get $0.0075 in capital gain from every $1.25 purchased (with $1.00 outlayed) for every 1% growth in the property price.

Am I missing something here?

F. [cowboy2]