4 ms·
I think the idea is to invest in geographical regions that have plenty of water. I would read that as investing in land, actually, because in places with plent
by msandford 11y ago
I think the idea is to invest in geographical regions that have plenty of water. I would read that as investing in land, actually, because in places with plenty of water the land is going to appreciate versus places without plenty of water.
- pitt1980 11y agoI don't have an opinion on whether that is or isn't a good strategy what I find interesting is that seems to be the converse of the historical trend of the last 30 years or so Rust Belt places like Michigan and Upstate New York, actually have a lot of water and have been losing population to places like CA, AZ, and Las Vegas which don't it seems like more people are less connected to water than they ever have been maybe there is a correction coming, maybe there isn't, I don't feel confident asserting a guess either way as to that
- msandford 11y agoThat the water rich places have been losing population to water poor areas would allow you to buy real estate in those locations below historical norms. If you buy into the "water will be more important in the future" hypothesis then it's probably a good bet. I agree that it's hard to know if a correction is coming. I suspect that it eventually will happen, but how far away that eventually is I don't want to speculate. Might be a couple of years, might be a couple of decades.