>The risk involved in getting a 1400% return in 2 months isn't
>comparable to the risk involved in purchasing investment
>property. It might go down in value, but it's not likely to
>depreciate much. The kind of stocks that jump 14X in two
>months typically also drop to 0 in two months.

House prices aren't likely to go up by as large of a faction as your associate's - the point I was making is that "results may vary", those sort of returns aren't *typical*.

>Where I live, to get an apples-to-apples comparison (w/ regard
>to standard of living) you'd need to compare a small house
> possibly in a posh area of town, possibly not) to a fairly
>large two or three bedroom apartment. When I used to rent, I
>was paying $1150/mo for a "luxury" two-bedroom apartment in a
>"somewhat inconvenient" part of town. My house payement is
>larger than that now, but my house is also bigger, I'm
>building equity and it's appreciating.

Most places I've seen you can rent a house, yard & all. You're paying a higher mortgage payment and additionally your land taxes have gone from being part of your rent payment to being an additional expense. Also, now you have maintanence fees you didn't have before, insurances you didn't have or need before, etc. Your "total cost of ownership" is much higher. You're paying for that equity (and a lot of that payment is going purely to interest).

>The author's point isn't so much "house vs. renting: which is
>a better long-term investment"- clearly he's interested in
>living simply, being eco-friendly, being able to live
>extremely close to where he works, etc.

I disagree, he cited numbers and financials which clearly support renting as a better long term investment and he's probably right. You don't get the same "ownership" freedoms when you rent, and you pay for it. Whether or not its worth the added price is up to you, but there's no denying that there is an added price.