[extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Dan Clemmensen <dgc at cox.net> wrote:

> Dirk Bruere wrote:
> 
> >On 8/16/05, Acy James Stapp <astapp at amazeent.com> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>I'd like to offer my opinion on real estate. Assuming a
> >>post-scarcity economy, real property becomes one of the
> >>only finite resources, and will become highly desired as
> >>an extravagent luxury good.
> >>
> >>If fusion does not become rapidly affordable the insolation
> >>of a particular parcel of land becomes a valuable resource
> >>for solar power; if you want to bet against fusion buying
> >>land in the American west, Australian outback, or other sunny
> >>desert areas could be quite profitable. And if fusion does
> >>become affordable, you can farm it with desalinated water.
> >>    
> >Well, fusion is at least three decades away, and that's being
> >optimistic. The notion that in three decades it will be cheaper
> >than PV is insanely optimistic. I wouldn't bet on it being cheaper
> > than solar in less than six decades.  
> >
> Fusion developed by humans, extrapolating from current magnetic or
> laser systems, may in fact be six decades from feasibility. Fusion
> developed by SI is a different story. Either we have nanotech, or
> not. If nanotech, then SI, and if SI, then nanotech. If SI, then
> fusion, probably based on nanotech. Therefore, your extrapolation
> of fusion to 2065 implies that you think the singularity will not
> have occurred by then.
> 
> True nanotech implies design to atomic precision. In my opinion, 
> accelerator-based fusion can easily reach break-even if the
> accelerator is atomically precise.
> 
> Depending on the ethics of the SI, real estate may still be the best 
> investment, due as you say to insolation. 

Nope. The 2030-2050 population crash will cause a corresponding crash
in real estate prices. Anyone betting on real estate will go begging
for spare change to cryonically suspend. The only thing that could keep
real estate prices rising during this period is if the state goes on an
eminent domain spree of confiscating rural private property for
biosphere reserves, herding the population into urban centers and
taking massive amounts of land off the market. 

Government in the US owns about 40% of the land here (not sure of stats
in other nations, though Canada seems significantly higher). Private
land trusts and corps own another 30%. Gov't and or land trusts will
have to absorb another 10% of the open market land (for sale or not) in
order to stave off a real estate crash.

Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com