> Then I went into a managerial role with a non-tech company, which was a small increase again
How did you do this? I think it would be hard for me to make the same outside of tech. Tech to managerial role outside of tech doesn't sound like an obvious or easy move.
Certainly very ironic. But is this line of argument incorrect?
E.g. if I said "I don't believe in the Holy Book because in verse 7 it says that one cannot trust anything written in any books". Isn't that an analogous reasoning?
I think these examples/arguments are ultimately about exposing a liar-paradox statement, and when you can show such a statement you have proven that something isn't right.
At first I assumed it was because of liquidity problems and not because they wanted to screw customers. But in the hearings later he refused to answer a bunch of easy questions. E.g. the following meme is literally what he said: https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/lngem6/do_y...
Q: "Do you realize that you literally manipulated the market. Yes or No?"
Vlad: "Thank you for the great question. When I was a boy in Bulgaria [ladida]"
If he had been honest in his dealings then he wouldn't have had to evade every question posed to him.
> in the long term you need to worry about war or terrorism destroying your property
True, although in that case you continue to own the land.
On the other hand, countries also default. So the question is which one is more common. E.g. Argentina used to be a serious economic force with 5% of world GDP. Owning property there (even with all the violence) may have been safer going through the series of government defaults. Greece, Cyprus, Russia, too.
Rent doesn't have to be all from buildings. You can combine with farm and forest to be even more resilient. Low leverage also adds to your ability to recover.
> Even if you’d lived in Merthyr Tydfil from it’s best days to its worst and therefore influenced by the local (as opposed to national) inflation rate, you’d have been made worse off by its decline.
I promise you that back then, people spent between 10% and 50% of their income on rent, as they have done forever, and continue to do today.
You happen to track a declining area. If the area had seen 10x more development, rents would have developed by that order of magnitude.
Okay then, nothing you can do I guess. You're hereby absolved from behaving responsibly towards your own body. Is that better?