391–400 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren't suboptimal where I am. US products are cheaper, but they are routinely less healthy, more addictive, and poorer quality than the alternatives. Its fine if you can't afford it or don't want to pay the difference, but by and large they are not suboptimal, at all.
Ok, don't buy them? You always had that decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canada is the canary in the coal mine. Watch it closely if you want to see what's coming for Europe.
Yet none of the Canadians stop using reddit, a US company. Easy to boycott things you don't care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically, I would not have been able to own my car, which is rapidly depreciating to nothing, without my land on which to park it. Are you suggesting that I should start telling people that my car is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? I'm quite sure I'll get a lot of funny looks, and probably some angered questions from my financial associates, if I heed your advice, even if it is actually true under some s…
You don't seem to understand how land works in the US. Owning land is more like a license to do certain things in a certain place. Part of that is the license and infrastructure that forms a house. Land is part of the house. Your argument is totally disingenuous and pedantic, you will be sued for fraud if you sell a house to someone and rip out the septic system and the soil underneath the footing and make this argum…
If the agreement includes the land, septic system, etc., then sure, absolutely. Likewise, I could also sell my car with the driveway it is currently sitting on, given a willing buyer, and it would equally be fraud if I ripped up the driveway. Lawyers can draft up all kinds of different agreements as far as your imagination, and another willing party, can take you.
But it is not unheard of to sell a house alone. Granted, houses are becoming massive – with the average home today being twice the size of the average home in the 1950s – which makes them harder to load onto a trailer, let alone fit down the road, and thus seeing less and less of it, but it was somewhat common in the past to move a house (and I don't mean a mobile home) from one property to another. They are clearly distinct things.
But, most importantly, the context of discussion explicitly removed land from the equation. It was posed under a theoretical assumption that there were no land constraints. To keep talking about the land in that context doesn't make any sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't seem to understand how land works in the US. Owning land is more like a license to do certain things in a certain place. Part of that is the license and infrastructure that forms a house. Land is part of the house. Your argument is totally disingenuous and pedantic, you will be sued for fraud if you sell a house to someone and rip out the septic system and the soil underneath the footing and make this argum…
> you will be sued for fraud if you sell a house to someone and rip out the septic system and the soil underneath If the agreement includes the land, septic system, etc., then sure, absolutely. Likewise, I could also sell my car with the driveway it is currently sitting on, given a willing buyer, and it would equally be fraud if I ripped up the driveway. Lawyers can draft up all kinds of different agreements as far a…
You could theoretically buy a shell of a house in a vacuum but it would be condemned the second it drops off a trailer. It's not useful in a vacuum, no one talking about housing prices wants a useless condemned house husk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you will be sued for fraud if you sell a house to someone and rip out the septic system and the soil underneath If the agreement includes the land, septic system, etc., then sure, absolutely. Likewise, I could also sell my car with the driveway it is currently sitting on, given a willing buyer, and it would equally be fraud if I ripped up the driveway. Lawyers can draft up all kinds of different agreements as far a…
Moving the shell of a house in my county is illegal without waste treatment, which is part of the house permit that forms the legal entity of a house. And I live in about the most deregulated county in the lower 49. You could theoretically buy a shell of a house in a vacuum but it would be condemned the second it drops off a trailer. It's not useful in a vacuum, no one talking about housing prices wants a useless con…
Nobody is talking about housing prices, so... They are pointlessly squabbling over whether or not a house and land are the same thing, when it is obvious that they are not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moving the shell of a house in my county is illegal without waste treatment, which is part of the house permit that forms the legal entity of a house. And I live in about the most deregulated county in the lower 49. You could theoretically buy a shell of a house in a vacuum but it would be condemned the second it drops off a trailer. It's not useful in a vacuum, no one talking about housing prices wants a useless con…
> no one talking about housing prices wants a useless condemned house husk. Nobody is talking about housing prices, so... They are pointlessly squabbling over whether or not a house and land are the same thing, when it is obvious that they are not.
>Nobody is talking about housing prices
Actually we were?
Nobody but you thought land and a house is the same thing. House prices include the land they are on. Unless you are living on the space station or sea steading, the land and infrastructure is part of housing prices.
I have no idea why you took such offense to the infrastructure of the house being part of house prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might be worth noting that this is not specific to the EU, it's the whole of Europe. So for example it includes companies from Norway, Switerzland and the UK. So asking how much tax is paid or how much supply chain is in the EU doesn't necissarily make sense here.
In this case, "in the EU" is a shorthand for "in the single market", "in the customs union", or "in the EEA (plus Switzerland)". High-level discussions rarely go down to this level of detail, and from the point of view of the consumers it is not very relevant. What matters is coupling with the US or China, and the relevant regulations.
No it isn’t because the UK is not in the EEA or the single market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chips made with Dutch chip fabrication technology to English chip designs... The software situation is grim but maybe open source somewhat ameliorates that...
>Chips made with Dutch chip fabrication technology Using american EUV light sources....this train of who makes what in the supply chain can go on forever, the point is who's making the highest margins from the end product and it's not ASML nor ARM but Nvidia, AMD, Qualcomm, Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. Hence my point that while EU has some IP, its value is dwarfed by the IP the US makes. Just look at market cap of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no one talking about housing prices wants a useless condemned house husk. Nobody is talking about housing prices, so... They are pointlessly squabbling over whether or not a house and land are the same thing, when it is obvious that they are not.
>>I’d argue most of the cost of scare housing is supply limits imposed by ridiculous over regulation of new construction >Nobody is talking about housing prices Actually we were? Nobody but you thought land and a house is the same thing. House prices include the land they are on. Unless you are living on the space station or sea steading, the land and infrastructure is part of housing prices. I have no idea why you t…
We were earlier talking about the cost to build a house. I suppose that is close enough to satisfy your historical observation, but we also moved on from that a long time ago.
> House prices include the land they are on.
It was recognized that we are in different jurisdictions, so maybe things are different where you are, but around here you effectively need to own the land[1] before building the house. How, exactly, can the price include something that doesn't even exist at the time of the land purchase?
Perhaps you are suggesting that once the house is standing and all the bills are paid one might sum it all up and say that is what it cost to get them into a house? Perhaps, but the prices (e.g. the price of the land and the price of the contractor) will still have been observed independently.
> I have no idea why you took such offense to the infrastructure of the house being part of house prices.
I have no idea how you think someone could take offence to a comment on the internet. It is an emotionless venue.
[1] It is not entirely unheard of to build a house on someone else's (e.g. a family member) land, but in that case it is even clearer that the price of the house is not included in the price of the land.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
whats "zirp-enabled" free cash?
zero-interest-rate-policy-enabled, i.e. it's a reference back to the prior paragraph. But I don't think the US government's money-printing tells the full story. There's been just as much "cash" created by stock market overvaluations and un-backed securities.
Yes, though they originate from the free-cash printing. Both through the central bank (Federal Reserve) and private banks that were allowed to do fractional reserve lending, the US infused immense cash into its economy, which led to all the phenomena you mentioned. Because in countries that cant have zirp, such overvaluations of stocks and securities are scarce. Indeed, the derivatives market took a life of its own and created derivatives of derivatives backed by derivatives that were loosely tied to real-world assets and that also contributed to the bloat. But the real deal was always the zirp.