111–120 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sickening. These people don't care about improving people's living conditions. They care about extracting more and more and more money by exploiting a crisis that they have had a hand in creating.
Status quo is not ideal and I don't trust the government to do what is necessary to alleviate the situation. Let's see if innovation, driven by greed, can change it.
So how's Flowcarbon doing? Was that a good idea?
I guess it is dead? FlowCarbon was Adam's idea last quarter, some sort of carbon credit / crypto currency confection. https://www.vox.com/recode/23142106/adam-neumann-crypto-carb... https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/07/17/adam-neumanns-new-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Status quo is not ideal and I don't trust the government to do what is necessary to alleviate the situation. Let's see if innovation, driven by greed, can change it.
Regulation just pushed the largest mortgage lender out of the market : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-14/wells-far...
I am surprised to see so many negative responses. I bet most of the people here agree 100% with the problems and structural shifts this memo identified, and that technological innovation in the housing space to facilitate both social cohesion and affordability would be a *very good thing*. Sure, Adam had some highly publicized issues at WeWork. Also, a16z is on a lot of people's shit list right now. Still, why do so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neumann bought ownership stakes in properties which he then leased to WeWork. I don’t know if this meets the legal definition of fraud but it’s absurdly shady, a clear conflict of interest. https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/16/we-company-ceo-in-hot-wate...
Fraud: “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.” Not sure that fits as I assume it was both legal and didn’t involve any deception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sickening. These people don't care about improving people's living conditions. They care about extracting more and more and more money by exploiting a crisis that they have had a hand in creating.
Status quo is not ideal and I don't trust the government to do what is necessary to alleviate the situation. Let's see if innovation, driven by greed, can change it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sickening. These people don't care about improving people's living conditions. They care about extracting more and more and more money by exploiting a crisis that they have had a hand in creating.
Status quo is not ideal and I don't trust the government to do what is necessary to alleviate the situation. Let's see if innovation, driven by greed, can change it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lot of people dunking on Neumann here. But the space is very interesting and certainly there is a market need. No one seems to understand that Neumann built a massively successful company, because they watch the documentaries and think he’s a scumbag for failing to deliver an IPO.
Wasn't he the guy that had the company license the trademark from himself privately, lease his own privately held properties and stuff? It was all very close to embezzlement if I'm remembering the right company.
I think not everything needs a venture-backed, take-over-the-world solution. For the issues being raised here (home ownership is inaccessible to many, renters don't have stability, security), aside from greater protections for renters, another class of existing solution is Community Land Trusts. These organizations retain ownership of the land, have a charter that's targeted at keeping housing affordable (or some rel…
This is similar to a co-op where the land is owned by the building as a whole.
You can't get away from the problem that if you price something under the market price, you'll get a lot of people who want to live there. How do you choose who lives there? Lottery? There's a huge incentive by the people deciding to self-deal.
Even then, it's still not efficient. For instance suppose the market price is $200k and you give it away to someone who really needs it for $100k, you just essentially gave them $100k. But they have to accept that benefit in form of housing. Perhaps they would prefer to live in a home worth $150k and get $50k in cash for groceries or school or whatever else?
And once they're there they won't want to give up the benefit. They're essentially getting something for nothing. Anyone who grew up in a city with rent control can tell you stories about people they know exploiting the system.
All these efforts to control price are like trying to control global warming with new thermometer designs. The price is a signal of larger economic issues. The only reasonable solution I've found is allowing people to build more.
I am surprised to see so many negative responses. I bet most of the people here agree 100% with the problems and structural shifts this memo identified, and that technological innovation in the housing space to facilitate both social cohesion and affordability would be a *very good thing*. Sure, Adam had some highly publicized issues at WeWork. Also, a16z is on a lot of people's shit list right now. Still, why do so…