patrick.net

Why don't they just invest in harvesting atmospheric oxygen to depletion and then selling it to the plebes?

Same fucking thing.

This is predatory capitalism at its finest -- not creating any new wealth, just capturing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty

I looked at the document, it has a lot of incorrect data. Especially around SFH expenses and ownership. Their numbers do not add up. Looks more like a sales pitch document someone would give to a VC in hopes to get funding for an idea. (I've prepared a few in my life) But the data is incorrect still.

And last but not least, if it was such an awesome deal.... banks wouldn't be trying to sell it off. Banks run this country, if it was an investment they would be holding onto it. Why wouldn't google just build 100,000 houses and hold on to them if it was such a sweet deal? Answer is simple, it is not.

I do know that SFH housing is very predatory, I don't need this article to tell me that. I can see it on late night tv when some schmo comes out and tells people to look for distressed retirees in misfortune who will give up their houses for lower than price, etc... but it's not the same as buying up ballooned liabilities.

Any publically traded SFH reits?

E-man says

National Housing Affordability Index is at all time high. Even higher than the mid 90's.

but but but but according to Shiller-Case chart prices are still too high?!?!?

SFace says

One of the giants in the finance world I admire is Bill Ackman from Pershing Square.

Bill is a sleazeball, but at least he has moved over to the right side of the toxxine issue:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/05/bill-ackman-rfk-jr-covid-vaccines.html

Bill Ackman, one of the most influential investors on Wall Street, has stunned his Wall Street peers by amplifying Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vaccine skepticism.

“I listened to RFK on several podcasts and a town hall and thought he raised important issues about vaccines and other issues that were worth learning more about,” the Pershing Square CEO told CNBC. ...

Bill Ackman said in 2021 that delaying Covid vaccinations for older Americans “seems like genocide.”

Today, the influential hedge fund chief and investor is amplifying the debunked anti-vaccine views of Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Ackman is not denying his change. In fact, he said Kennedy is asking “important questions” about vaccines, raising issues he is interested in learning more about. ...

I tweeted that @RobertKennedyJr raised some important questions about vaccine safety and now I am being labeled a Qanon conspiracist by some and a member of the alt-right by others.

I have long believed that incentives drive all human behavior. This gives me reason to be open to the potential risks and conflicts as more and more vaccines are prescribed for our children.

Developing a successful drug is expensive, typically about $1 to $2 billion, and it takes an average of 10-15 years to bring a drug to market. Most drugs have a limited market, that is, those who have the targeted disease or condition who can afford to pay for the cost of the drug.

Even when a successful drug is brought to market, the drug company remains liable for any potential damages from those who are harmed by the drug.

The above reasons are why getting profitable drugs approved is challenging and risky.

Imagine, however, if:

(1) you could create a drug in a much shorter period of time, a year or two, rather than 10-15 years, and the total cost to get it approved and marketed to patients was a fraction of the cost of a typical drug.

(2) the new drug is prescribed for everyone, regardless of their health, and therefore the market for the drug is every newborn or potentially everyone on the planet.

(3) the drug is prescribed for everyone regardless of their age or consent and they need to take it in order to attend school or keep their job, and the gov’t pays for it.

(4) the patients who are prescribed the drug are of an age where they are incapable of assessing the risk versus the reward for taking the drug.

(5) the drug needs to be taken every year regardless of the health of the individual who takes it.

(6) the drug companies who manufacture these new drugs are exempt from liability for these drugs even if they cause serious harm or death.

and

(7) drug companies are: (a) permitted to advertise on TV and on other media and are one of the largest sources of revenues for the news media who are responsible for educating the public about risks to public health and safety, and (b) the drug companies are also major lobbyists to the government and funders of the FDA.

If (1) - (7) were true:

and you were a drug company, you would seek to obtain approval for as many of the above drugs as possible, as the above drugs would have the lowest R&D costs, the fastest time to market, the lowest marketing costs, the largest addressable market, and no liability.

You would be crazy not to develop as many of the above drugs as possible and do everything possible to convince the government to make them standard of care, and motivate the public to take them.

If you were a citizen, however, you would want the above drugs to receive the highest scrutiny for safety and efficacy, and you would want longitudinal studies to understand the long-term effects and the potential cumulative effects of these drugs, in particular, on children.

Now, if the number of doses of these drugs taken by children increased from 3 to 72 in the last 30 or so years, and over the same period there was a massive unexplained increase in the percentage of kids that suffered from debilitating diseases like autism and other less debilitating, but concerning issues, like allergies and eczema, you would look deeper until you understood what was causing the massive increase in these issues.

Now, of course, I am talking about vaccines. But instead of going deeper to understand what is going on, the media and others attack anyone who dares to raise these concerns.

This is not how we get to the truth.

We need to think about vaccines the same way we think about other drugs, particularly when we are deciding whether or not to inject a one-day-old infant or three-year-old child.

We need to assess what is the benefit to the child in protecting them from a disease versus the potential risk from the side effects from each vaccine.

~ Bill Ackman, Pershing Square