On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:19:11 -0400 Robin Hanson <rhanson@gmu.edu> writes:
> Lee Crocker wrote:
> > > I am now completely out of US stocks, though
> > > I do have a huge stake in DC area real estate.
> >
> >How can anyone who has read Julian Simon be comfortable
> >investing in "natural resources" whose value must
> >eventually decline, and not invest in the creativity and
> >ingenuity of boundless human accomplishment? I realize
> >that short-term prospects may be different, and that a
> >human lifetime is currently short-term, but I'm still a
> >lot more comfortable with my money in the hands of hard-
> >working widget makers than in dirt.
>
> I bought a house. A house is far from a "natural" resource.
> It takes creativity and ingenuity to build houses. The
> land under it is also valuable, but not because it is dirt.
> It is valuable because it is near places where creative
> people work to add value.
>
> Robin Hanson
An asset which declines in value over the term of investment can be a more profitable investment than an asset which rises in value over the same term. For example, over a 10 year period of holding, a house which falls in value by 1% per year can be a more profitable investment than a stock which rises in value by 10% per year over the same 10 year period of holding.
Ron Kean
.
.
.