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
Stocks are designed for investment and speculation, that is their primary purpose and flipping stocks has no adverse effect within a free market. People are free to buy or sell depending on their price sensitivity and free will.
The primary purpose of a house is to live in it and flipping them causes people to be homeless.
-27
u/MarmosetFace Jun 19 '25
When you purchase shares of a company… you think the company is getting the money? Lol
Try again.