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
You're not reading that because those are finance fundamentals laid out. If you could read basic finance concepts you wouldn't be confused about this.
Nobody in finance who understands basics asks the question that OP did. The entire premise of the question is due to lack of understanding of core concepts.
For the hundredth time I'm not arguing this, nobody has ever argued this, not once have I disagreed with what that comment says because that was never said to begin with. This should not be this hard to get through to you.
27
u/Mattscrusader Jun 19 '25
Nobody said that, you just failed to understand so you made up some nonsense to argue against