<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Weekly Roundup</title>
	<atom:link href="http://allfinancialmatters.com/2006/06/30/weekly-roundup-7/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://allfinancialmatters.com/2006/06/30/weekly-roundup-7/</link>
	<description>A personal finance blog dedicated to discussing such topics as budgeting, asset allocation, 401K, IRA, cash flow, insurance, financial planning, portfolio management, and other areas in personal finance.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:32:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Acomplia</title>
		<link>http://allfinancialmatters.com/2006/06/30/weekly-roundup-7/comment-page-1/#comment-415598</link>
		<dc:creator>Acomplia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://allthingsfinancialblog.com/?p=889#comment-415598</guid>
		<description>Acomplia (rimonabant) is an anti-obesity drug. It was approved for marketing in the European Union in June 2006. Rimonabant is not yet approved for use in the United States, where it is known as Zimulti at www.genericacomplia.us</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Acomplia (rimonabant) is an anti-obesity drug. It was approved for marketing in the European Union in June 2006. Rimonabant is not yet approved for use in the United States, where it is known as Zimulti at <a href="http://www.genericacomplia.us" rel="nofollow">http://www.genericacomplia.us</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Family CEO</title>
		<link>http://allfinancialmatters.com/2006/06/30/weekly-roundup-7/comment-page-1/#comment-10858</link>
		<dc:creator>The Family CEO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2006 06:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://allthingsfinancialblog.com/?p=889#comment-10858</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the mention, JLP. I look forward to checking out the other links!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the mention, JLP. I look forward to checking out the other links!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Foobarista</title>
		<link>http://allfinancialmatters.com/2006/06/30/weekly-roundup-7/comment-page-1/#comment-10748</link>
		<dc:creator>Foobarista</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 21:38:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://allthingsfinancialblog.com/?p=889#comment-10748</guid>
		<description>One thing I noticed on the &quot;Consumerism COmmentary&quot; regarding &quot;car ownership&quot; when you have a loan on it that I have an issue with - and I&#039;m not sure my post made it so I&#039;ll post it here - sorry JLP...

Not to be a pedant, but you _do_ legally own the car in the legal sense that ownership means you have exclusive use of the property, etc.  The dealership can&#039;t decide to let the dealer&#039;s kid take your car out for the weekend or whatever.

If you use a loan to buy a car (or house, etc), it has a lien on it for the amount of the balance due on the note, and your ownership rights are bound by any other terms in the note.  But unless you bought your car through an explicit &quot;rent to own&quot; arrangement, you own the car as soon as you sign the purchase agreement.

The reason I don&#039;t like muddying &quot;ownership&quot; discussions in this way is because some people  have been known to exploit this type of &quot;non-ownership&quot; argument to extort terms out of people that they wouldn&#039;t get otherwise.  You don&#039;t see this as much with cars but you do see it with people trying to buy houses from people who owe mortgage debt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing I noticed on the &#8220;Consumerism COmmentary&#8221; regarding &#8220;car ownership&#8221; when you have a loan on it that I have an issue with &#8211; and I&#8217;m not sure my post made it so I&#8217;ll post it here &#8211; sorry JLP&#8230;</p>
<p>Not to be a pedant, but you _do_ legally own the car in the legal sense that ownership means you have exclusive use of the property, etc.  The dealership can&#8217;t decide to let the dealer&#8217;s kid take your car out for the weekend or whatever.</p>
<p>If you use a loan to buy a car (or house, etc), it has a lien on it for the amount of the balance due on the note, and your ownership rights are bound by any other terms in the note.  But unless you bought your car through an explicit &#8220;rent to own&#8221; arrangement, you own the car as soon as you sign the purchase agreement.</p>
<p>The reason I don&#8217;t like muddying &#8220;ownership&#8221; discussions in this way is because some people  have been known to exploit this type of &#8220;non-ownership&#8221; argument to extort terms out of people that they wouldn&#8217;t get otherwise.  You don&#8217;t see this as much with cars but you do see it with people trying to buy houses from people who owe mortgage debt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

