3 ms·
you'd asserted a simple statement that houses are (edit: only) assets, which is trivially rejected by showing just one of many other valid perspectives. that th
by clairity 6y ago
you'd asserted a simple statement that houses are (edit: only) assets, which is trivially rejected by showing just one of many other valid perspectives. that there is a spectrum of goods and diversity of economic intricacy among that range doesn't validate your original statement.
the broader point is that asserting a house is just an asset is more a value statement (and more abstractly, an aggression) than a truism. investment has generally become decoupled from its intended purpose of producing value for the many, not just the few (i.e., the efficient allocation of capital), and this kind of misguidance contributes to that kind of misallocation.
- gruez 6y ago>you'd asserted a simple statement that houses are assets, which is trivially rejected by showing just one of many other valid perspectives. that there is a spectrum of goods and diversity of economic intricacy among that range doesn't validate your original statement. Not exactly, because there are two definition of "asset". From wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset >In financial accounting, an asset is any resource owned or controlled by a business or an economic entity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_(economics) >An asset in economic theory is a durable good which can only be partially consumed (like a portable music player) or input as a factor of production (like a cement mixer) which can only be partially used up in production.
- clairity 6y agoapologies, you'd asserted a statement that houses are only assets (as amended above). houses can act as assets in an economic sense, but that's not their primary or sole purpose or source of value.