Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
an
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.[/quote]
Almost all homes built on tract in SD County in the “exurbs” are fairly new (meaning built since 2000).[/quote]
Do you consider Scripps Ranch, Mira Mesa, Rancho Penasquitos, Carlsbad, Rancho Santa Fe, Solana Beach, Rancho Bernardo, Poway, etc. exurbs?ParticipantBG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.
ParticipantBG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.
ParticipantBG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.
ParticipantBG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.
ParticipantBG, you didn’t mention anything about new vs old. You said “SD County “exurbs””.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]
Care to back that up with numbers or specifics?Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]
Care to back that up with numbers or specifics?Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]
Care to back that up with numbers or specifics?Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]
Care to back that up with numbers or specifics?Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
I disagree that “exurb” housing is primarily “low-density,” Eugene. In the SD County “exurbs”, the vast majority of =<3000 sf SFR's are built on substandard lots (<5000 sf), are encumbered with an HOA and also usually CFD(s). The vast majority of 30+ yr old houses in SD County sit on bigger lots and have far more desirable locations than those built in the "exurbs" in the last 15 years.[/quote]
Care to back that up with numbers or specifics?Participant[quote=CA renter]I’m sure it’s better for society if $1MM is split among 100,000 people, instead of having it go to one person.
If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.
The concentration of massive amounts of wealth — at the expense of many — has never led to a good ending.
BTW, I would put Bill Gates in an entirely different category than traders. At least he *worked* to earn his money (monopolies, notwithstanding).[/quote]
Bill Gates $56B in asset isn’t all from MSFT. He used his money he made from MSFT to invest in other companies as well. Then there’s Warren Buffett. MOST of his wealth came from investment.That $1M wasn’t given to 1 person. That one person earned it. If that person didn’t earn that $1M, there’s no guarantee that 100k other people would magically earn a combined $1M more. If you’re talking about taxing $1M from one person to give another, well, reality is not panning out like your ideal scenario. That $1M might go from one person and given to another’s pension, or what we’ve seen recently, $700B was given to a few companies. Tell me, do you think the $700B in bailout dished out by the government help society more or the $600B that Warren Buffett is raising between the Billionaires for charity?
Participant[quote=CA renter]I’m sure it’s better for society if $1MM is split among 100,000 people, instead of having it go to one person.
If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.
The concentration of massive amounts of wealth — at the expense of many — has never led to a good ending.
BTW, I would put Bill Gates in an entirely different category than traders. At least he *worked* to earn his money (monopolies, notwithstanding).[/quote]
Bill Gates $56B in asset isn’t all from MSFT. He used his money he made from MSFT to invest in other companies as well. Then there’s Warren Buffett. MOST of his wealth came from investment.That $1M wasn’t given to 1 person. That one person earned it. If that person didn’t earn that $1M, there’s no guarantee that 100k other people would magically earn a combined $1M more. If you’re talking about taxing $1M from one person to give another, well, reality is not panning out like your ideal scenario. That $1M might go from one person and given to another’s pension, or what we’ve seen recently, $700B was given to a few companies. Tell me, do you think the $700B in bailout dished out by the government help society more or the $600B that Warren Buffett is raising between the Billionaires for charity?
Participant[quote=CA renter]I’m sure it’s better for society if $1MM is split among 100,000 people, instead of having it go to one person.
If one has to choose between giving this money to a HF trader, or giving it to a handful of start-ups, or to an existing company that wants to expand to meet demand, I would certainly prefer the latter two.
The concentration of massive amounts of wealth — at the expense of many — has never led to a good ending.
BTW, I would put Bill Gates in an entirely different category than traders. At least he *worked* to earn his money (monopolies, notwithstanding).[/quote]
Bill Gates $56B in asset isn’t all from MSFT. He used his money he made from MSFT to invest in other companies as well. Then there’s Warren Buffett. MOST of his wealth came from investment.That $1M wasn’t given to 1 person. That one person earned it. If that person didn’t earn that $1M, there’s no guarantee that 100k other people would magically earn a combined $1M more. If you’re talking about taxing $1M from one person to give another, well, reality is not panning out like your ideal scenario. That $1M might go from one person and given to another’s pension, or what we’ve seen recently, $700B was given to a few companies. Tell me, do you think the $700B in bailout dished out by the government help society more or the $600B that Warren Buffett is raising between the Billionaires for charity?
-
AuthorPosts
