6 ms·

I feel like the term investment needs to be used ONLY with products that have a reasonable expectation of a return. A stock is an investment because the company

I feel like the term investment needs to be used ONLY with products that have a reasonable expectation of a return. A stock is an investment because the company will likely exist and one day pay a dividend. A beanie baby is not an investment because it cannot in and of itself produce value to sell to pay back cost of purchase. I find it wearying that people talk about "investing" in things when they really just mean "spending" on them. Spending is fine. Go spend. But let's not pretend this is an "investment".

PaulHoule 3y ago
There are times and places where people have looked at things like classic cars, bottles of wine, or paintings as an investment and it has worked as such. The thing is that a Picasso or a '64 Chevy Impala are worth something, an ugly ape isn't.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  The interesting thing is that the Picasso is closer to the ugly ape in the sense that the Impala has some real world use. Though technically you could probably burn a Picasso to stay warm for a bit :)
  - musicale 3y ago
    The painting is an actual painting - with oil paints, three-dimensional paint and canvas texture and light scattering, and Picasso's own brushwork (and underpainting if you x-ray it) - and you can hang it on your wall. Reproducing a copy of comparable quality would probably cost thousands (though not millions) of dollars and require a skilled artist. Creating a bit-for-bit replica of the jpeg costs basically nothing and can be done by anyone. And you still have to print it yourself or buy a monitor if you want to hang it on your wall.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      The value of something is not normally associated with how easy it is to copy. A state secret or a trade secret could be very easy to copy and yet immensely valuable. A print-out of 100G of random noise would be quite hard to copy and yet isn't very valuable. It's obvious that the Picasso has more intrinsic value than a jpeg, but not that much more. Art reproductions are typically sold at a fraction of the price of the original ($20 for a very nice print, $130 for a handmade reproduction (low wage country): https://www.etsy.com/market/picasso_reproduction https://www.etsy.com/market/picasso_reproduction) To reproduce that car would cost a fortune, much more than the car itself is worth.
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  Is that an investment or just getting lucky though? If you randomly picked 1000 cars, 10 years later they would almost all be worth less. The same for paintings. For stocks you'd have made a profit on most of them.
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    It's different when you get to really old or special chars.
  - musicale 3y ago
    Speculation might be a more accurate term, though perhaps it is less speculative if you are restoring the car and intending to drive it or exhibit it at car shows.
    - LatteLazy 3y ago
      I'd agree with that!

PaulHoule 3y ago

There are times and places where people have looked at things like classic cars, bottles of wine, or paintings as an investment and it has worked as such. The thing is that a Picasso or a '64 Chevy Impala are worth something, an ugly ape isn't.

jacquesm 3y ago
The interesting thing is that the Picasso is closer to the ugly ape in the sense that the Impala has some real world use. Though technically you could probably burn a Picasso to stay warm for a bit :)
- musicale 3y ago
  The painting is an actual painting - with oil paints, three-dimensional paint and canvas texture and light scattering, and Picasso's own brushwork (and underpainting if you x-ray it) - and you can hang it on your wall. Reproducing a copy of comparable quality would probably cost thousands (though not millions) of dollars and require a skilled artist. Creating a bit-for-bit replica of the jpeg costs basically nothing and can be done by anyone. And you still have to print it yourself or buy a monitor if you want to hang it on your wall.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    The value of something is not normally associated with how easy it is to copy. A state secret or a trade secret could be very easy to copy and yet immensely valuable. A print-out of 100G of random noise would be quite hard to copy and yet isn't very valuable. It's obvious that the Picasso has more intrinsic value than a jpeg, but not that much more. Art reproductions are typically sold at a fraction of the price of the original ($20 for a very nice print, $130 for a handmade reproduction (low wage country): https://www.etsy.com/market/picasso_reproduction https://www.etsy.com/market/picasso_reproduction) To reproduce that car would cost a fortune, much more than the car itself is worth.
LatteLazy 3y ago
Is that an investment or just getting lucky though? If you randomly picked 1000 cars, 10 years later they would almost all be worth less. The same for paintings. For stocks you'd have made a profit on most of them.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  It's different when you get to really old or special chars.
- musicale 3y ago
  Speculation might be a more accurate term, though perhaps it is less speculative if you are restoring the car and intending to drive it or exhibit it at car shows.
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    I'd agree with that!