For some reason they're not threaded on the twitter link, but you can see them threaded on the xcancel link:

https://xcancel.com/eastdakota/status/2062860530360959273

Starlink is growing. Valuation is too high, but it is growing.

"Growing" and "more future upside than any other company" are very different things.

Low earth orbit includes orbits that take from hours to centuries to decay, depends a lot on altitude/apogee/perigee. Starlink for multiple reasons places satellites in the range where it takes ~5 years to decay, thankfully. Kessler syndrome is real though, and satellites do collide or break apart in LEO.

Using c++ templates wrong in the year 2000 exposed me to real compiler bugs in the Microsoft c++ compiler at the time, the kind that would make the compiler crash.

I think the passive version is the tank stays in a pool all the time.

Homeowners already pay a wealth tax.

> Homeowners already pay a wealth tax.

If you're talking about property taxes, then renters pay that as well through their rent (which passes through the landlord before getting to the city/county).

* https://realestatemagazine.ca/do-residential-tenants-pay-pro...

And is some (many?) cases higher rates than owners:

* https://www.renx.ca/renters-often-pay-higher-municipal-taxes...

Renters will always pay one way or another. You can name it wealth tax or property tax or house tax. It doesn't matter -- the result will be higher rent.

Economy's doing good? Rent increases because people can afford to pay more, and demand is always very high.

Economy's doing badly? Rent increases because costs and taxes for the landlord are higher.

UBI? Rent increases because people have more disposable income.

---

The secret to the infinite money glitch is to maintain a much lower supply than the demand, and to concentrate jobs within a small area

The point of my post was to indicate that just because you're a home owner (rather than a renter) does not make you special.

Property taxes are not wealth taxes, but fees for services rendered by the local government. Both home owners and renters (may) benefit from those fees.

It's a wealth tax. You're just describing what the funds are used for. Other types of wealth tax can pay for those things too.

This isn’t true. Plenty of landlords don’t cover their monthly expenses for providing the housing.

In what sense are landlords "providing" housing? Is there an argument around like, stabilizing a demand floor for new construction or something, or is this one of those weird in-group terms that cover over what might otherwise be seen as a relationship of power or dominance?

Either way, if I rent out my house and pull in $5k/mo but spend $2k/mo on principal, $2k/mo on interest, and $1.5k/mo on miscellaneous costs, that $500 "loss" translates into me paying $500 for $2k in principal value, all while gaining the benefits of solid inflation-indexed real estate growth AND assistance up the amortization schedule. So even cash-flow negative rentals are usually pretty long-run lucrative.

Providing housing is exactly how the word is defined - giving something - in this case a place to live.

Go and ask all the landlords in Toronto how the finances are working out.

Tons of landlords were cash flow negative against fully loaded costs. Then the market flipped and house prices dropped 30%.

Now they’re shelling out $2000 of their own cash per month, gaining $500 in equity, while they pay down a $700,000 mortgage on a home worth $500,000.

This sounds like an investment that didn't pan out - I've had one or two of those myself, never pleasant. But are they providing housing? I guess in my mind the builders, equity incentive assistors, re-zoning advocates, etc might be 'providing housing'. How is a landlord providing housing?

> This isn’t true. Plenty of landlords don’t cover their monthly expenses for providing the housing.

Just because landlords don't clear their monthly expenses does not mean that the tenant's rent is not going to cover (a portion of) property taxes.

Sure but it’s not a direct one for one.

It like me buying a laptop and saying I pay for the electricity in the factory in China.

While it’s true the money helps pay for it, it’s not a pss through expense.

Then they should get out of that business, right?

I assume that rising property values make the endeavor worthwhile?

tone: I am not being snarky here. Genuine question.

And even if the house represents negative wealth - same property taxes apply to a house regardless of whether the owner owns it outright with no mortgage (wealthy) or if they're paying 8% interest on an underwater mortgage (negative wealth). And, unlike VCs, property taxes are paid - often for decades - before one even sees if they'll even realize any wealth from the estimated value of their home that they pay tax on.

What intermediate is involved?

I think that stretches what it means for a company to "be" a 125b company, but that is still awful.

They are a pension fund; they literally had/have US$125 billion dollars under management. What exactly is being stretched here? I can't for the life of me think of something that qualifies more for being a 125b company than actually having 125b in assets.

Having assets under management doesn't mean you have that money. You don't own it, you are just taking care of it for somebody. When describing a company as an $X billion company, conventionally this is referring to the market cap. You could use it to describe other things they possess if you wanted to, but assets they manage will never be something they possess.

Ok, so we're engaging in sophistry. Got it.

Language is a communication tool. If you misuse language you will be badly understood. The solution is to use the correct word for what you mean, not to accuse others of sophistry.

How about 'pedantry'. I'd go with 'condescending', but that was clearly your intent.

People misunderstood your original reply. Correcting you is not pedantry.

Companies are described by revenue. UniSuper made $110 million recently. It deceptive to use the assets managed as the size since it makes it look like a much larger company. NVIDIA has revenue of $130 billion. $125 billion revenue would make it the largest company in Australia by a good amount.

That's fair, but if I'm a fund that can literally write a check the size of my endowment, why is that not a demonstration of my value? That's not finance 101, but you get to it later on.

> I can't for the life of me think of something that qualifies more for being a 125b company than actually having 125b in assets.

Which this company didn't. They managed 125b of assets belonging to other people, they didn't have 125b of their own.

Another solid C in finance. Congrats.

They have 125b they can literally write a check against and allocate any way they want as long as it delivers an adequate return and doesn't piss off the shareholders. Other than sophistry, what's the difference?

> They have 125b they can literally write a check against and allocate any way they want as long as it delivers an adequate return and doesn't piss off the shareholders.

No they don't. The pension regulator sets very restrictive controls on what they can do with that 125b, because it's neither the company's nor the shareholders' money.

That isn't how it works anymore, as far as I know (it used to). The dealerships now can print paper license plates with numbers on them.

Yup, I recently bought a car and you get temporary numbers that are associated with the dealer (who knows who you are and what car you have) until your actual plate with real numbers and registration comes from the DMV.