4 ms·

I'm generally curious about this question because it popped in my mind when I read your comment but what about the situation where someone builds or buys a hous

by vecinu 4y ago

I'm generally curious about this question because it popped in my mind when I read your comment but what about the situation where someone builds or buys a house in a dense forest in California? Said house is destroyed in a fire, insurance can't pay everyone out (see Paradise fire) and then those same people end up begging others for support (Including GoFundMe) pages. Didn't they gamble on having a house in a high risk area and lost? Why do we only bail out certain people and not feel bad about it?

jeromegv 4y ago
Just like houses built in known flooding zone. It’s a good point.
- vel0city 4y ago
  The tricky part is, a lot of flood-prone areas tend to also be very economically active overall. Lots of ports on the coasts or along riverbanks which need people to operate and deal with the economic activity of the area, but rivers do sometimes flood and hurricanes will push water inland.
cableshaft 4y ago
Well presumably they have insurance, although I think the days of insurance companies offering insurance to just about anywhere in the western US are numbered, with the rapidly disappearing water and constant threat of wildfires. But people who bought LUNA didn't buy insurance. But generally I agree with you, there are definitely tragic events that happen to people that get more sympathy than other types of tragic events, even if they're pretty similar ultimately. But I'm also someone who "gambles" on nothing but "ponzi schemes", (i.e. I buy Bitcoin and Ethereum) according to HN. I don't have insurance though, if some black swan thing happened and I lost it all, then I don't have much recourse. Crypto is far from the only thing where that's a possibility, though. I'd say three of the startups I worked for have been even more of a gamble than my crypto purchases (all three shut down a little more than a year after I joined and I never made a dime more than my kind of low salary, and they didn't offer a 401k so I missed out on a lot of financial accumulation and security there).
Mordisquitos 4y ago
That is in no way "gambling" and is in no way analogous to cryptocurrency investments. Everybody needs a home, and one way to have a home is to buy one. Investing one's savings in buying a home comes with the expected option that one can live in it indefinitely if one wants to. Fulfilling this expectation does not depend on others becoming homeless, nor on their home becoming worse, nor on others being unable to buy a home in the future. On the other hand, nobody needs to invest in cryptocurrencies. Investing one's savings in cryptocurrencies is done on the expectation that they will increase in value at least until one can sell them at profit. Being able to do this depends on others losing out by comparison, inasmuch as one expects others to buy the same amount of currency at a greater price.
- vecinu 4y ago
  > Investing one's savings in buying a home comes with the expected option that one can live in it indefinitely if one wants to. Fulfilling this expectation does not depend on others becoming homeless, nor on their home becoming worse, nor on others being unable to buy a home in the future. I don't think any of this is true. You buying a home deprives someone of said home and drives the expected price up. We have a homeless crisis in California because we are not building enough and everyone is treating housing like an investment ("It can only go up!", "This is an investment!"). Living in it indefinitely is also a pipe dream. You're paying taxes and fees that can increase or change at any moments notice if enough people agree. This requires the same consensus as fundamental algorithmic changes in cryptocurrencies. You can't bank of living somewhere "indefinitely" without agreeing that it's a gamble...nothing is guaranteed. Regarding the "need" to invest in cryptocurrencies, I can kind of agree. Shelter is a need because it helps us survive more efficiently but one could argue investing/growing wealth should also make life easier to live if it works out.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
seattle_spring 4y ago
You don't see a difference between people losing their homes, and people losing their money because they were greedy and bought some pictures of apes they thought would make them rich?

by vecinu 4y ago

jeromegv 4y ago

Just like houses built in known flooding zone. It’s a good point.

vel0city 4y ago
The tricky part is, a lot of flood-prone areas tend to also be very economically active overall. Lots of ports on the coasts or along riverbanks which need people to operate and deal with the economic activity of the area, but rivers do sometimes flood and hurricanes will push water inland.

cableshaft 4y ago

Well presumably they have insurance, although I think the days of insurance companies offering insurance to just about anywhere in the western US are numbered, with the rapidly disappearing water and constant threat of wildfires. But people who bought LUNA didn't buy insurance. But generally I agree with you, there are definitely tragic events that happen to people that get more sympathy than other types of tragic events, even if they're pretty similar ultimately. But I'm also someone who "gambles" on nothing but "ponzi schemes", (i.e. I buy Bitcoin and Ethereum) according to HN. I don't have insurance though, if some black swan thing happened and I lost it all, then I don't have much recourse. Crypto is far from the only thing where that's a possibility, though. I'd say three of the startups I worked for have been even more of a gamble than my crypto purchases (all three shut down a little more than a year after I joined and I never made a dime more than my kind of low salary, and they didn't offer a 401k so I missed out on a lot of financial accumulation and security there).

Mordisquitos 4y ago

That is in no way "gambling" and is in no way analogous to cryptocurrency investments. Everybody needs a home, and one way to have a home is to buy one. Investing one's savings in buying a home comes with the expected option that one can live in it indefinitely if one wants to. Fulfilling this expectation does not depend on others becoming homeless, nor on their home becoming worse, nor on others being unable to buy a home in the future. On the other hand, nobody needs to invest in cryptocurrencies. Investing one's savings in cryptocurrencies is done on the expectation that they will increase in value at least until one can sell them at profit. Being able to do this depends on others losing out by comparison, inasmuch as one expects others to buy the same amount of currency at a greater price.

vecinu 4y ago
> Investing one's savings in buying a home comes with the expected option that one can live in it indefinitely if one wants to. Fulfilling this expectation does not depend on others becoming homeless, nor on their home becoming worse, nor on others being unable to buy a home in the future. I don't think any of this is true. You buying a home deprives someone of said home and drives the expected price up. We have a homeless crisis in California because we are not building enough and everyone is treating housing like an investment ("It can only go up!", "This is an investment!"). Living in it indefinitely is also a pipe dream. You're paying taxes and fees that can increase or change at any moments notice if enough people agree. This requires the same consensus as fundamental algorithmic changes in cryptocurrencies. You can't bank of living somewhere "indefinitely" without agreeing that it's a gamble...nothing is guaranteed. Regarding the "need" to invest in cryptocurrencies, I can kind of agree. Shelter is a need because it helps us survive more efficiently but one could argue investing/growing wealth should also make life easier to live if it works out.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

seattle_spring 4y ago

You don't see a difference between people losing their homes, and people losing their money because they were greedy and bought some pictures of apes they thought would make them rich?