Looking at one of the train stations in a lower-priced section of Weston, properties within walking distance of the stop go for roughly $2 million per acre, according to Zillow. Given what happened to the properties around the Green Line extension, I would expect those properties to sell for at least twice their Zillow listing price.

I thought about what it would take to get me to sell. I think it would take multiple millions, with a sub-5% mortgage, to get me to sell. It is kind of hard to put a value on it because I have established mini-orchard and berry patches.

How many housing units and parking spaces can you fit into two acres? Unless the units are heavily subsidized, I don't think any of them will be considered "affordable" because condos in the area sold for around half a million dollars seven years ago, and so I'd expect these to go for at least $750,000 to a million.

They also neglected the effect of travel time on behavior. Back in the day, I was commuting from a rich suburb to Cambridge, and to get to work on time, I had to get up early to accommodate a 30-minute commute to the train station, wait for the purple line and the red line, and then walk three-quarters of a mile. When I saw how little traffic was on the road, I said, "F it," and drove to work in the same amount of time as it took me to get to the train station.

In the Biolab space, it was a little overbuilt, and now it's tremendously overbuilt because of the killing off of NIH grants and subsequent reduction in investment in the biotech sector. I suspect the reason they don't drop the rent is that it would cause a bit of unraveling. You drop the rent; that changes the valuation of your building, which may mean you're underwater on the loan, the bank calls the loan, et cetera, et cetera. Then, similar properties would suffer devaluation and a similar unwinding. And if you agree with the contagion theory of deflationary environments, it'll all unwind all the way through your 401k and other investments. Sadly, the billionaires would be untouched.

A public health care system should be independent of politics. Unfortunately, as the latest administration has shown, even if you designed it to be independent, such as the CFPB, it doesn't matter with an autocrat in charge. On the other hand, private industry does not have all that good a reputation for not effing with your healthcare.

I was trying to show that it is not "merely a legal expedient", that corporate personhood had a specific purpose, and that it differed from a real person. I think that the confusion about legal personhood in corporations comes from how lawyers explain its existence. A couple of lawyers I've had explained it as, it's just like a person in the law, except where it's different.

The problem is that we haven't created a clear enough distinction between a natural person and a legal person. In many cases, corporations have rights but not the responsibility. For example, they have speech rights, but they don't go to jail when the corporation commits a crime. The judicial inequalities between ordinary people and rich people are even greater between natural persons and corporations.

Also, since it's a separate entity, its lifetime is not tied to the owner. So if the owner dies, their shares are inherited by somebody else, and the company keeps operating.

It helps in raising money for business operations. A corporation raises capital by issuing and selling shares of stock. However, if a physical person did that, I think it would be called indentured servitude.

I wish professional electricians use pigtails and wago lever nuts instead of wire nuts. Working an old house, I've had to cut way too many wires almost too short just to add another neutral or ground.

I've often thought that it would make sense to have a DIY electrician's certificate, proving that you know how to do basic home wiring, such as outlets, switches, ceiling lamps, basic solar (DC and AC), installing new wire, load calculations, and connecting to breakers in a service panel

I have no problems pulling a permit and going through an electrical inspection.

Second, I'm with you on the malfeasance of our billionaire class. They are driving more than just AI. They are driving whatever they can to steal wealth from ordinary people and acquire it. I'd give some examples, but quite frankly, you could throw a small stone and hit a number of them. We need to find a way to throw a large stone and hit them where it matters.

I see them as a bunch of toddlers with way too much power.

It's also called a Transaction with asymmetric information, or being in a position in an economic system where you cannot accumulate assets because the system is stacked against you.

I also think you're confusing wealth with value. Wealth is what you have; value is what you have is worth. You may have 50 billion in stock, but its value is what you can get away with Borrowing, spending, and dying.

> Your statement presumes that "value" is some construct independent of the market. The only "value" in commerce is what someone is willing to pay for it. There is no other useful definition of value.

But it is independent of the market. A company's stock is worth all of its assets divided by the number of shares. Anything else, such as anticipation of future earnings or expected losses, is a projection into the future. They don't exist until that moment arrives when the numbers have changed.

I learned a long time ago that the money's not real until the customer's check clears. We should be applying the same logic to valuing stocks and other financial instruments.

> As for how wealth is created, I buy a canvas and some paint for $50, and paint a masterpiece that Ritchie Rich buys from me for $10,000. I created that wealth. Taylor Swift figured out how to turn her song skillz into a billion dollars. She created that wealth. Musk figured out how to turn hunks of metal into rockets that are quite profitable. He created that wealth. And so on.

Elon Musk learned how to scam investors by selling them fantasies, projections, and wishes to raise money. But here's another way to create wealth. You ask for a loan. I give you the money and charge you interest. I did nothing, I made nothing, I just put an entry in a ledger, and all of a sudden, poof, wealth has appeared.

> Now that is a complex topic. But I'll make a simple take on it. When there is more cash than things to buy, then the value of the cash diminishes. We call that "inflation". Wealth creation does not cause inflation.

When too much money is chasing too few assets, and there is anxiety about the future, asset prices rise independent of fundamentals. Traders make increasingly poor decisions and take riskier bets to increase their portfolios' value. I've heard finance people describe this as the PE ratio as too high.

> As for private equity, nobody is making you invest in it.

If you have a pension, pension funds are one of the bigger investors in private equity, and you have no choice but to ride along with the fund's choices. The private equity industry is drooling at the thought of making a similar forced choice regarding employee 401 (k) plans.

There are numerous times when humanity's been debased. Copernicus, Kepler, Darwin, and the infinite number of animal behaviorists who have defined and documented consciousness And how it manifests in primates, parrots, dogs, cetaceans, and insects. (I just love the bumble bees taking time off from work to play with balls).

It takes humans a really long time to accept the fact they are no longer as special as they thought they were And make room for yet another conscious intelligence.

So, if we had an AI demonstrating symptoms of consciousness and suffering, how long would it take for you to accept that it is?

Wealth creation only works when the the money available to buy wealth creating instruments is significantly less than the value of those instruments.

How would markets behave if investment accounts had more cash in them than there were investment vehicles? I suspect it would be like what we see today in private equity with illiquid funds and subpar returns. The response of a market in this condition would be to look for sources of liquid funds, get them to buy the illiquid funds so that the original investors could get out leaving the new investors holding the bag of crap.

Oh wait, isn't private equity doing just that trying to make PE acceptable investment vehicle for 401ks?

I think the 50% number is a stake in the ground, period. A starting point for the discussion.

Why not Walmart? That's a great idea. Many companies, including Walmart, pay their employees so little that they qualify for Medicaid and other social benefits even though they're working full-time.

One of the primary methods of building wealth in this country is through stock ownership. Instead of being a wage slave, only making money based on your labor, with a stock tax on a company, the growth of that company's stock benefits everyone in the country directly, rather than just the moneyed few.

> A sovereign wealth fund? That seems like a great tool for a certain corrupt politician to use as a carrot to make CEO's bend to his/her whims.

That is a risk with an administration like the current one, but if the sovereign fund was ethically managed by an independent department, that wouldn't be an issue. The rest of the world has sovereign wealth funds, and you can find some good examples of how to do it right.

> What benefit does that have for anyone else?

How do you benefit with a 401k owning stock? What works for one should work for the other.

> You can't build a sovereign wealth fund if you're transferring all the money out. That's just more government spending, not a wealth fund.

How does any sovereign wealth fund increase its value? Proper planning, spending only dividends and not principal. Also, the sovereign wealth fund would continue to acquire stock whenever any company issues new stock. The fund would get 50% of those shares.

If one were to make it an active fund, the government has enough insider knowledge to know when to buy, sell, and short stocks. What? Using insider knowledge is unfair, you say? Why shouldn't the government play by the same rules as the rest of the finance industry? It's only us retail investors that have less-than-optimal returns because of insufficient knowledge.

https://www.minimax.io/news/minimax-m27-en

With human productivity already fully unleashed, the natural next step was to initiate self-evolution of both the model and the organization. M2.7 is our first model deeply participating in its own evolution.