4 ms·

That land is more valuable than money. Reminded of this while watching Lakota Nation vs United States. The Oceti Sakowin refuse the just-compensation settlement

That land is more valuable than money. Reminded of this while watching Lakota Nation vs United States. The Oceti Sakowin refuse the just-compensation settlement claim for the Black Hills; a people can live many generations on the land, while money is an intermediary and too easily lost.

johncreatescode 2y ago
Yeah, I've noticed that. I've had the chance to meet with people who have their fortune on land. they might not have a lot in their wallet. but the amount of land they have is enough to build a small city.
dosinga 2y ago
That doesn't strike me as financial advice; land is only more valuable than money if you care about a particular piece of land because of ties with it. Otherwise if you have money you can buy a piece of land. Having land takes effort, having money doesn't. You might enjoy the effort of course
- ted_bunny 2y ago
  I think it's more along the lines of a bird in the hand.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  See threads on "The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015." Control-F "land." We often make the mistake of equating money with wealth. Money is simply the currency needed to exchange for goods, services, or assets (which can include securities, commodities, real estate, amongst others), while wealth is control of something of both current and potentially future value to people who will pay for it (see assets previously enumerated, although the list is in no way exhaustive). For example: Would you rather I give you $100? Or a share of SPY? If you intend to spend, probably the fiat. If you intend to hold for future wealth, more likely the security. And if you intend to be financially secure, you are very likely of the mindset of accumulating assets that will appreciate in value at favorable prices. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/3/1225/5435538?login=false https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/3/1225/5435538?logi... | https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz012 https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40650326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40650326 - June 2024 (148 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584 - May 2019 (260 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16078059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16078059 - January 2018 (151 comments) (additional threads exist, but without comment, therefore not cited)
- screye 2y ago
  No, land is illiquid, and that's a good thing. People, as a group, undisciplined. Without discipline, money in hand is money spent. Land, land sits there, doing nothing, menacingly. In that sense, land is 'default alive' and money isn't. Generations can go by without any land-atrophy. It helps with another human weakness too. It's impossible to get a person to save at rates of 30-40% of their salary. But make it a mortgage, and suddenly they've learned conscientiousness.
dauertewigkeit 2y ago
Is this true? I think the difference in ROI between land speculation and investing in the stock market is minimal. At least according to my napkin math. And both incur their own risks. BTW, I am not making an arguement for renting instead of buying. But if you had a spare $1million, becoming a landlord won't make you significantly richer than just putting it in the stock market.
znpy 2y ago
Something I read a while ago that has stuck with me is that you can actually buy just two things: time and space. Everything else is made up.

johncreatescode 2y ago

Yeah, I've noticed that. I've had the chance to meet with people who have their fortune on land. they might not have a lot in their wallet. but the amount of land they have is enough to build a small city.

dosinga 2y ago

That doesn't strike me as financial advice; land is only more valuable than money if you care about a particular piece of land because of ties with it. Otherwise if you have money you can buy a piece of land. Having land takes effort, having money doesn't. You might enjoy the effort of course

ted_bunny 2y ago
I think it's more along the lines of a bird in the hand.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
See threads on "The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015." Control-F "land." We often make the mistake of equating money with wealth. Money is simply the currency needed to exchange for goods, services, or assets (which can include securities, commodities, real estate, amongst others), while wealth is control of something of both current and potentially future value to people who will pay for it (see assets previously enumerated, although the list is in no way exhaustive). For example: Would you rather I give you $100? Or a share of SPY? If you intend to spend, probably the fiat. If you intend to hold for future wealth, more likely the security. And if you intend to be financially secure, you are very likely of the mindset of accumulating assets that will appreciate in value at favorable prices. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/3/1225/5435538?login=false https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/3/1225/5435538?logi... | https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz012 https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40650326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40650326 - June 2024 (148 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584 - May 2019 (260 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16078059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16078059 - January 2018 (151 comments) (additional threads exist, but without comment, therefore not cited)
screye 2y ago
No, land is illiquid, and that's a good thing. People, as a group, undisciplined. Without discipline, money in hand is money spent. Land, land sits there, doing nothing, menacingly. In that sense, land is 'default alive' and money isn't. Generations can go by without any land-atrophy. It helps with another human weakness too. It's impossible to get a person to save at rates of 30-40% of their salary. But make it a mortgage, and suddenly they've learned conscientiousness.

dauertewigkeit 2y ago

Is this true? I think the difference in ROI between land speculation and investing in the stock market is minimal. At least according to my napkin math. And both incur their own risks. BTW, I am not making an arguement for renting instead of buying. But if you had a spare $1million, becoming a landlord won't make you significantly richer than just putting it in the stock market.

znpy 2y ago

Something I read a while ago that has stuck with me is that you can actually buy just two things: time and space. Everything else is made up.