'Mystery company' buys land worth $800M near Travis AFB, raising concerns

Post by itisit » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 10:55 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #111

ethanbond wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False information like Q: Who is buying this land? A: XYZ Shell Corp (no connection to who is actually effectively buying and coming into control of this land)? Obviously your argument will be "it's not false that XYZ Shell Corp is buying it," and sure, but it's obviously misleading in a way that affects the transaction, as it is specifically designed to do.

I don't even think it's misleading. You don't know what XYZ show Corp does or will do with the land. It's a mystery not a deception. On the other hand, if the buyer is called XYZ Fun Center and tells you that they're going to put in a nonprofit for Orphans, that would be deception. It all comes back to the idea that saying I won't tell you what I'm going to do with the purchase is not a lie. It's perfectly honest

Post by imtringued » Fri, Jul 21, 2023, 11:22 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #143

Loquebantur wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of economists are clearly wrong, as mutually excluding statements cannot be simultaneously true. To find out which side is which, you can employ simple logic. If you sustain a profitable information imbalance, you prevent the market from reaching a more efficient state. You steal from everybody else that way. And incur opportunity costs that will dwarf any profits made. Not necessarily on a short-term personal l…

The whole premise of price discovery is that participants in the market profit from information imbalances. The profit motive is the incentive for people to expend effort to generate and then, through price signals, disseminate information.

Post by 1letterunixname » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 12:11 AM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #32

soupfordummies wrote: post #14

Towards the end of the article is this depressing nugget: " Nearly one in five homes were purchased by investors in early 2023, including LLCs and other corporate entities, according to data compiled by real-estate firm Redfin of more than 40 of the largest U.S. metro areas. "

The implication is that the land is for housing? Notably, Irvine California successfully transitioned from being an Army Base town (very large military blimps, etc) to a thriving city. A jewel of southern california.

Post by s1artibartfast » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 1:56 AM UTC

itisit wrote: post #161

s1artibartfast wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even think it's misleading. You don't know what XYZ show Corp does or will do with the land. It's a mystery not a deception. On the other hand, if the buyer is called XYZ Fun Center and tells you that they're going to put in a nonprofit for Orphans, that would be deception. It all comes back to the idea that saying I won't tell you what I'm going to do with the purchase is not a lie. It's perfectly honest

I'd say the primary concern is not with the purchasing party exercising their right not to disclose their intent post-sale. It's that they're intentionally masking their identity to prevent unwelcome influence on the transaction (i.e. If you know I'm rich, you're going to jack up the price.) I think the argument is really over whether parties on either side are entitled to privacy/anonymity. The answer seems to be 'y…

Post by snapplebobapple » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 4:50 AM UTC

Loquebantur wrote: post #60

Negitivefrags wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also an advocate for transparency of ownership of companies, but that Disney example seems like more of a case against transparency than for it? Why should Disney be price gouged in that circumstance?

By your logic, insider trading would be just fine. For a market to function properly, information pertinent to traded value has to flow freely. The more you stifle that, the more rigged the market. Essentially, you sustain a monopoly that way. Of course, people in possession of such "insider information" believe themselves in the right to profit from it. But that perspective is obviously biased and reveals a fundamen…