3 ms·

> Real estate is not cash. It's cash spent. No, it's an asset only barely less liquid than cash, generally deliberately shelved in a holding company for the ex

> Real estate is not cash. It's cash spent. No, it's an asset only barely less liquid than cash, generally deliberately shelved in a holding company for the exact purpose of hoarding wealth. You have fallen for the bullshit. > History also shows us that societies without wealth disparity end up poorly for everyone. As in starving. You left out "unbounded." Deliberate misinterpretation or failure to comprehend? We'll never know. Wealth disparity will always exist. Unbounded wealth disparity is a symptom of a corruptable system. > Excellent. Go ahead and build one, compete and put Scrooge McDuck out of business. I already have built one, and I'm quite comfortable, thanks. Putting competitors out of business isn't part of the game plan for sustainable success. Unbounded growth doesn't benefit me past meeting my financial goals. You've once again missed the entire point of my post.

WalterBright 2y ago
> it's an asset only barely less liquid than cash Have you ever tried to sell real estate? I have. It's nothing like the liquidity of cash. Cash I can spend right now. Real estate? It can be 6 months or more. Even borrowing against the equity takes a while. You have to spend time at the bank, get appraisals, get credit checks, and spend an afternoon at the escrow office reading 100 odd pages of contracts. Bleh. > Unbounded wealth disparity is a symptom of a corruptable system. A brief study of various societies will show that wealth disparity is hardly a key ingredient for corruption. Corruption in 3rd world countries, for example, is rampant at every income level. When the only way to get ahead is through corruption, you're going to get a heluva lot of it. The USSR ran on corruption at all levels. There are many books on the Soviet economy. > Unbounded growth doesn't benefit me past meeting my financial goals Why does that entitle you to decide what the goals should be for everyone else? What if they decide your business is too big, and you should get a haircut? Setting the maximum for wealth being what you have seems a bit convenient? Elon Musk is the wealthiest man in the world. With his wealth he was able to start SpaceX. Would we be better off without SpaceX? Musk was also the primary investor in Tesla. He bet his entire fortune on it. Your proposal would have prevented that.
- stonogo 2y ago
  You're missing the holding company. I'm not going to teach you real estate as an asset-parking mechanism; there are plenty of articles about it you can find if you Google it instead of arguing with me about a topic you're clearly not familiar with. Here's a hint: the ownership of the property does not change. Only the holding company is modified, if even that. Once again you're ignoring the word "unbounded." I guess we can know whether it's deliberate misinterpretation, after all. My own agency as a human entitles me to have opinions what is or is not appropriate behavior. Your counterarguments to this are not even specious, just uninteresting scare tactics. For instance, who the hell is 'they'? It doesn't matter, because I don't have to justify the fact that I have opinions. Humanity would be unquestionably better off without SpaceX; it's a pollution factory with a byproduct of further enriching its owner by literally setting precious resources on fire. I am not particularly impressed with Tesla's products, but at least it's not a pointless boondoggle like SpaceX. Your definition of success is apparently based entirely on financial gain, which is a bizarre starting point from which to map out an ethos. I'm done engaging with this thread, as I no longer consider it possible that you're engaging in good faith. Good luck with your future endeavors.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > For instance, who the hell is 'they'? That's just being argumentative. > Humanity would be unquestionably better off without SpaceX Yes, it's much better to have 10x more expensive rockets. > Your definition of success is apparently based entirely on financial gain Financial gain due to providing people with the things they want at a price they are willing to pay.

WalterBright 2y ago

> it's an asset only barely less liquid than cash Have you ever tried to sell real estate? I have. It's nothing like the liquidity of cash. Cash I can spend right now. Real estate? It can be 6 months or more. Even borrowing against the equity takes a while. You have to spend time at the bank, get appraisals, get credit checks, and spend an afternoon at the escrow office reading 100 odd pages of contracts. Bleh. > Unbounded wealth disparity is a symptom of a corruptable system. A brief study of various societies will show that wealth disparity is hardly a key ingredient for corruption. Corruption in 3rd world countries, for example, is rampant at every income level. When the only way to get ahead is through corruption, you're going to get a heluva lot of it. The USSR ran on corruption at all levels. There are many books on the Soviet economy. > Unbounded growth doesn't benefit me past meeting my financial goals Why does that entitle you to decide what the goals should be for everyone else? What if they decide your business is too big, and you should get a haircut? Setting the maximum for wealth being what you have seems a bit convenient? Elon Musk is the wealthiest man in the world. With his wealth he was able to start SpaceX. Would we be better off without SpaceX? Musk was also the primary investor in Tesla. He bet his entire fortune on it. Your proposal would have prevented that.

stonogo 2y ago
You're missing the holding company. I'm not going to teach you real estate as an asset-parking mechanism; there are plenty of articles about it you can find if you Google it instead of arguing with me about a topic you're clearly not familiar with. Here's a hint: the ownership of the property does not change. Only the holding company is modified, if even that. Once again you're ignoring the word "unbounded." I guess we can know whether it's deliberate misinterpretation, after all. My own agency as a human entitles me to have opinions what is or is not appropriate behavior. Your counterarguments to this are not even specious, just uninteresting scare tactics. For instance, who the hell is 'they'? It doesn't matter, because I don't have to justify the fact that I have opinions. Humanity would be unquestionably better off without SpaceX; it's a pollution factory with a byproduct of further enriching its owner by literally setting precious resources on fire. I am not particularly impressed with Tesla's products, but at least it's not a pointless boondoggle like SpaceX. Your definition of success is apparently based entirely on financial gain, which is a bizarre starting point from which to map out an ethos. I'm done engaging with this thread, as I no longer consider it possible that you're engaging in good faith. Good luck with your future endeavors.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > For instance, who the hell is 'they'? That's just being argumentative. > Humanity would be unquestionably better off without SpaceX Yes, it's much better to have 10x more expensive rockets. > Your definition of success is apparently based entirely on financial gain Financial gain due to providing people with the things they want at a price they are willing to pay.