1 Like
Less is more… my goal later in life is to own almost nothing myself. Can’t take any of this shit with me… I’m gonna strive for memories instead of just “stuff”…
3 Likes
The less you own, the less they can take away!
But soon enough they’ll find a way to own/wipe your memories too…
1 Like
3 Likes
Okay, so is this going to be good or bad for those of us who send stuff to CGC? Like, what does this actually mean?
It means, now they answer to shareholders who normally ruin the quality businesses carry because the business now focuses and caters to shareholders before the actual customers…
4 Likes
The only positive I can see in this is now they actually will start behaving like a real business. Y’know - have procedures, have a QC department that functions, perform annual reviews of employees and get rid of the dregs. Maybe even an engineering staff that concentrates on appropriate packaging.
Maybe, just maybe, this Daffy Duck Disneyland will function with all the other headaches that reporting to shareholders brings, but actually brings some good with it too. 'Cos it aint good now. That’s for sure.
1 Like
That’s if they operate like a good business… if this is the same company that is indeed buying up family homes just to prevent people from buying them so they can just rent/lease them out forever, doesn’t sound like a very ethical company to me. I didn’t use CGC before (I only buy the occasional slabbed book seldomly), so makes no difference to me.
1 Like
I simply desire a quality product that I can stand by when I sell.
Not a 9.6 that looks like it’s been dragged through hell (and then some).
Or a delivered packaged with broken cases.
If poor delivered product continues; followed by loss of customer confidence and customer base (me) - I’m ok with heads flying
I see so much complaining about black stone + black rock (whatever it’s called) and their tactics … By the same ppl that swear by the “free market” and are quick to yell “socialism bad!” Or “big government bad!” (Not talking about CHU here … Rather just in general)
Is this not just a result of the so called free market tho? Multi billion dollar private equity firms buying up everything in sight because they have the means to do so, and because sellers are selling? Why would a capitalist be upset with this? 
Also, wouldn’t curbing such behavior depend on big government stepping in and doing something about it… Via regulations or some other means? And wouldn’t such measures be contrary to a free market?
Shrug 
1 Like
Without much rhyme or reason, there is a consensus point where people agree the ultimate result of a truly free market-monopolistic control of all markets in one entity or person- is bad. That’s functionally a dictatorship through economic means rather than political. Where people of varying political colors differ is a matter of severity on that spectrum and when to intervene. Both sides of the aisle right now pretty much agree that they’ve let anti-trust enforcement go lax when it comes to big tech companies. It’s more a tolerance of concentration of power that dictates the decision to crack down on these things rather than a definition you can actually point to. Many things rise to the paper definition of unlawful restraints on trade. Single digit percentages get dealt with.
During my time at an attorney general’s office in antitrust enforcement, I wrote an analysis on potato farmers fixing prices. Obviously we didn’t gang up on them. They’re potato farmers after all.
What I’m getting at is that it’s hard to define what it is about securities and investment firms buying single family residences that is actually wrong. My sole client is a real estate development company. We own malls, office buildings, research campuses, and residential developments. Mostly apartments or townhomes, but we have institutional investors. We have the Wells Fargo’s of the world who invest. We also have investments firms of smaller size, but similar business model, to Blackstone as equity partners in some of these residential projects. Now, we don’t buy individual homes and rent them. Mostly because that is a lot of administrative hassle for relatively low return per square foot. But, unconventional as it may be, buying single family homes to rent is one step away from renting an apartment building.
Many upper middle class entrepreneurs start by buying and renting duplexes and they do it by holding those homes in LLCs. It’s hard to draw the line and define what it is we should be regulating. We can hope that these large firms find that they’re return isn’t worth the overhead dealing with maintaining hundreds of stand alone homes, their yards, electrical systems, plumbing, etc., etc. they also have to bring all those homes up to code for occupancy or risk getting sued. I think time will prove that the model of renting out these houses is not resource efficient in the long run.
4 Likes
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and feedback, sir. Always appreciate the views and perspective of others.
1 Like
No problem. I’m also not saying any of the state of things in my post above is right or that I agree with it. It’s just the way things are.
2 Likes
Hey, they’re just serving the part of the market that wants to own nothing and be happy about it.
Runaway capitalism isn’t the answer. Oppressive, regressive runaway socialism isn’t the answer either. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but the tribalism that the political class, elite class, and media push is what keeps Americans too divided to discover that for themselves.
2 Likes
Capitalism is not a perfect system and neither is socialism. It seems like all systems eventually become infested with corruption. A lot of the corruption in capitalism results from big companies getting in bed with government officials, so looking for government to fix the problem may not work out.
Capitalism has brought us so many advancements in technology, space exploration, transport, etc in the last few decades that never would have happened in a socialist system. I suppose some people would just say they prefer not to have those advancements. OK, everybody’s different I suppose.
I’m afraid we need a crash and burn before this corrupt capitalism phase will perish. Personally, I hope we can get a fresh start with true capitalism again and not this crony capitalism. That could be helped along by imposing 1 term limits on elected government officials.
3 Likes
Love this take 
I am unsure how Socialism would stop people from inventing things and advancing technologies. What do people think Socialism is? Regressive and oppressive? What? The Soviets were the 1st people in space lol Unfettered American Capitalism is just our Government regulating what they want and not what they should. If you have money you control everything. If you don’t you are oppressed and at the bottom of the food chain. Man I have health insurance and a blood thinner I am supposed to be taking is $470 a month. I can’t afford that shit. I suppose I should get a better job under capitalism eh because Socialism would just destroy America.
I had a Dr. appointment on Monday and talking with the guy I was telling him how I usually see Dr Lyons but she is booked up through August and he said oh yea I am also booked up to September. I said “What? I thought that only happened in Canada”? and we both shared a laugh about the blatant misinformation surrounding so many things in this country and around the world really. It’s sad. People read a wiki article or read a news story on their super biased news site pushing an agenda or something and then they become the expert when they really just have no clue.
Socialism would actually deconstruct this crap Government and take the power from them and put the people in control. The Government already controls everything. But it doesn’t really matter what system we have. It will always become infested with corrupt people who will abuse whatever power they have. History shows that power corrupts.
2 Likes
This.
Too many government officials cuck to the dollar. The place money over morals, profit over people, etc. I mean we legit have Ted Cruz who said, and this isn’t a direct quote but it is close, “To America’s woke companies: The next time you need a regulatory change or a tax break, don’t knock on my door. I am no longer accepting your money.” I mean the dude openly admitted to corruption. It isn’t a level playing field out there at all. Lobbying politicians to get favorable treatment, and manipulation of laws to work in your favor is not a free market.
Hell, did you know that the bottled water industry successfully lobbied congress to allow the term “spring water” to be placed on their labels if the water they are using connects to a spring AT ANY POINT in its “journey” for lack of a better term.
Furthermore our tax dollars are being used to subsidize major industries, and then those industries are selling their products to us for profit. Pharmaceutical companies are closing or severely downsizing their R&D divisions in favor of piggybacking off of CDC and university studies (tax payer funded…) in order to make a new drug. Then the drug is sold to us for thousands of dollars (and a LOT LESS than that in other countries). We are also subsidizing the richest men in the world… and often. I can’t stand that crap.
Yes, Russia is a veritable hotbed of innovation. The only reason they were horny to get into space is to show America who had the biggest dick.
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.