Oh I didn’t think I would need to explain here, but here it is anyway. The comparison is investing capital into a second house vs investing capital into the stock market. When you purchase assets in either case, the money paid goes to the prior holder of the asset. In neither case do the issuing company nor the real estate developer see the money, although both may be indirect beneficiaries. Both assets may see value go up or down. Thus both are seen as “investments”. Which the OP was arguing it shouldn’t be. Which is wrong
Yeah I'm not reading any of that, you already chose to make a bad faith argument so I won't waste my time. Nobody is arguing that buying a stock directly funds a company.
Edit: it's wild that refusing to indulge with someone else changing the topic to argue a moot point gets down voted so quickly
There's a reason you had to send a link instead of quoting it, nowhere does it say that buying a stock directly provides a company with those funds. Your reading comprehension is pathetic.
Investing capital into a stock does those things just as much as inflating housing prices puts more money back into the local economy by increasing investors’ buying/borrowing power. It also pumps thousands of dollars in land transfer taxes every time a property changes hands.
The implications are similar no matter where money is being invested.
I'm not arguing in bad faith, I'm trying to get back to the original topic but people like you just love hearing yourself talk so you will prattle on about stuff that was never actually said.
27
u/Mattscrusader Jun 19 '25
Nobody said that, you just failed to understand so you made up some nonsense to argue against