DIA Millage Proposal

[Pam]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2012203300335

The Wayne County Commission cleared the way Thursday for the Detroit Institute of Arts to ask voters to approve a property tax measure to help fund the struggling institution.

The commission overwhelmingly approved a measure to create a nine-member art authority whose job is to write the proposal and set a date as early as the August primary. The museum is seeking 0.2 mill in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties, the equivalent of $20 on a home worth $200,000.

[Coaccession]

My Freep comment: "Detroit has billions of dollars invested in the DIA, and while the cultural returns are nice, it should get very substantial financial returns as well. With art finance innovations, the artworks at the DIA could provide investors with a store of value, like gold in a vault, and the money they invest in the artworks could produce income for Detroit. Sure, Detroit would give up future capital appreciation, which would instead go to the investors, but Detroit can't pay its bills despite the billions in capital appreciation the DIA has already earned. Detroit ought to look for double duty from its artworks -- financial and cultural returns -- rather than the traditional single duty of cultural returns only. With a little creativity, the DIA can pay for itself and pay dividends to Detroit. Is there any creativity there?"

[Detroitnerd]

Coaccession, your one-trick dog and pony show is pretty tired by now. Why don't you go beat a dead horse somewhere else...

[Zacha341]

Hah! You have to admit he is "devoted"... comments and postings all over the web!

Coaccession, your one-trick dog and pony show is pretty tired by now. Why don't you go beat a dead horse somewhere else...

[davewindsor]

My Freep comment: "Detroit has billions of dollars invested in the DIA, and while the cultural returns are nice, it should get very substantial financial returns as well. With art finance innovations, the artworks at the DIA could provide investors with a store of value, like gold in a vault, and the money they invest in the artworks could produce income for Detroit. Sure, Detroit would give up future capital appreciation, which would instead go to the investors, but Detroit can't pay its bills despite the billions in capital appreciation the DIA has already earned. Detroit ought to look for double duty from its artworks -- financial and cultural returns -- rather than the traditional single duty of cultural returns only. With a little creativity, the DIA can pay for itself and pay dividends to Detroit. Is there any creativity there?"

Because it's questionable whether it would play out like that. Why would a Bloomfield Hills billionaire pay $20m for a piece of artwork and let the DIA keep it instead of moving it to their own private castle? A lot of the artwork would probably be transported to private collections in Dubai or some other foreign country if not here. Spending that kind of money is not just an investment, but a proof of success to show off to their neighbors. Most people who buy $2m Bugatti Veyron's don't store them at the public car museums either.

[poobert]

Here's the rub:
"A lot of people I know who work in the factories would not have an interest in this," said Roland Fraschetti, a Republican from St. Clair Shores."

First of all, that's a pretty broad generalization. My parents were as working class as they come and we weren't just knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who threw rocks at each other for fun. Sure I remember some pretty shabby "art" hanging on the walls of our house but we went to the DIA too. And the Science Center.

Secondly, way to think long-term. This isn't 1985. Metro Detroit isn't just autoworkers and the occasional plumber anymore. If we want to attract/retain people who aren't factory workers [[not exactly a growth industry there) then we need to invest in our cultural institutions at least on this minimal level. Those factory worker buddies of yours aren't going to be around forever.

Even at the local level the Republicans are the biggest bunch of dumbfucks. Hopefully they finally kill themselves off this election. Can somebody get a quote from Santorum or ask Romney for some more humorous stories today?

[Pam]

Here's the rub:
"A lot of people I know who work in the factories would not have an interest in this," said Roland Fraschetti, a Republican from St. Clair Shores."

First of all, that's a pretty broad generalization. My parents were as working class as they come and we weren't just knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who threw rocks at each other for fun. Sure I remember some pretty shabby "art" hanging on the walls of our house but we went to the DIA too. And the Science Center.

I couldn't believe that quote either.

[Danny]

I would vote YES YES YES on the DIA millage proposal because art is very important in our cultural society. Now let's add in the Detroit Science Center millage proposal and vote YES YES YES.

[Gistok]

Here's the rub:
"A lot of people I know who work in the factories would not have an interest in this," said Roland Fraschetti, a Republican from St. Clair Shores."

First of all, that's a pretty broad generalization. My parents were as working class as they come and we weren't just knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who threw rocks at each other for fun. Sure I remember some pretty shabby "art" hanging on the walls of our house but we went to the DIA too. And the Science Center.

Secondly, way to think long-term. This isn't 1985. Metro Detroit isn't just autoworkers and the occasional plumber anymore. If we want to attract/retain people who aren't factory workers [[not exactly a growth industry there) then we need to invest in our cultural institutions at least on this minimal level. Those factory worker buddies of yours aren't going to be around forever.

Even at the local level the Republicans are the biggest bunch of dumbfucks. Hopefully they finally kill themselves off this election. Can somebody get a quote from Santorum or ask Romney for some more humorous stories today?

Exactly... I don't know why he brought up his parents... based on his age, they're long gone...

My parents too didn't have fancy artwork hanging in their house... but that didn't stop them from taking their kids to visit these places. And fortunately my late parents kids, grand kids and even great grandkids are visiting these places. It's no wonder that Macomb County gets a bum rap over the comments of some of their older politicians. But once that generation is gone, I think that you'll see more cooperation. But knuckle dragging is a good analogy...

[Coaccession]

... it's questionable whether it would play out like that. Why would a Bloomfield Hills billionaire pay $20m for a piece of artwork and let the DIA keep it instead of moving it to their own private castle?

You need to show a little more creativity, davewindsor. The Bloomfield Hills billionaire can already get art returns, so you don't target that market. It's the small investor trying to diversify an IRA or a 401k who'd want to buy a nice portfolio of exchange-traded shares of DIA artworks to get art returns. It's a better store of value than gold or silver -- no storage charges for vaults, since DIA is happy to keep exhibiting the artworks for cultural appreciation even when Detroit no longer gets any capital appreciation on those exchange-traded artworks -- and much more socially-responsible -- when you hold exchange-traded artworks, you stimulate artistry, rather than stimulating more holes in the ground by buying gold or silver. There are a lot of small investors out there seeking diversification.

A lot of the artwork would probably be transported to private collections in Dubai or some other foreign country if not here. Spending that kind of money is not just an investment, but a proof of success to show off to their neighbors. Most people who buy $2m Bugatti Veyron's don't store them at the public car museums either.

Well, an EFM or bankruptcy judge would indeed sell Detroit's DIA artworks to the highest bidder, and from Detroit they would go to Dubai or Russia or somewhere else with billionaires as thick on the ground as Bloomfield Hills. The DIA millage won't bring in enough cash to avoid that, either. The DIA millage is about building up an operating endowment for the DIA, not an operating endowment for the City. On the other hand, mobilizing the financial value of Detroit's 60,000+ artworks at the DIA could create an operating endowment for the City. That Detroit Arts Endowment may not end up big enough to generate revenues covering all the City's expenses, but it could certainly cover very generous support for the arts, sciences and humanities -- all over Detroit, not just the DIA -- with enough left over to top up essential public safety and health services. It would let Detroit keep growing the DIA collection, rather than losing it all to outright art sales that pay off the bondholders, pensioners and other claimants.

Hah! You have to admit he is "devoted"... comments and postings all over the web!

Well, capital appreciation at the DIA isn't doing Detroit any good right now, Zacha341, while capital income from a Detroit Arts Endowment -- quite possibly well, well north of $100 million annually from mobilizing the many, many billions of dollars that Detroit's got invested in its DIA collection -- could really make a difference in Detroit's fiscal and cultural health. It would be hard to argue against reinvesting in Detroit's cultural sector when the results of prior investments have paid off so spectacularly -- that is, if a little creativity gets Detroit a financial payoff as well as a cultural payoff.

Coaccession, your one-trick dog and pony show is pretty tired by now. Why don't you go beat a dead horse somewhere else...

Really, Detroitnerd, Detroit won't be a dead horse if it applies my trick -- or for that matter, some other creative trick -- to the billions of dollars it's got invested in the DIA. On the other hand, if the Founders Society -- which got its 1998 contract to run the DIA, displacing city workers paid by Detroit's own millage revenues, by promising to raise its own funding through 2098 -- keeps up its DIA millage dog and pony show, it does virtually nothing for the fiscal health of the City that owns all those artworks. It's time artworks did financial duty as well as cultural duty. Museums that can pay their own way should pay their own way, leaving society with more resources for other important missions -- like public health and safety -- that don't involve accumulating and caring for vast quantities of extremely valuable objects.

If someone gives me a solid argument explaining why my message is mistaken, I'll give up trying to call Detroit's attention to its transformational opportunity. Heck, if I'd found one myself I'd already have given up. But while people have tossed in and keep tossing in many specious arguments out of habit or spite -- much but not all of the conventional wisdom has already appeared on the various threads here -- I haven't yet seen how Detroit is better off with having just the DIA collection rather than having the DIA collection and a multi-billion dollar Detroit Arts Endowment capable of generating very substantial revenues in perpetuity. In other words, why just have your Monet when you can have your Monet and money too?

[Mikeg]

Here's the rub:
"A lot of people I know who work in the factories would not have an interest in this," said Roland Fraschetti, a Republican from St. Clair Shores."

First of all, that's a pretty broad generalization. My parents were as working class as they come and we weren't just knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who threw rocks at each other for fun. Sure I remember some pretty shabby "art" hanging on the walls of our house but we went to the DIA too. And the Science Center.

Secondly, way to think long-term. This isn't 1985. Metro Detroit isn't just autoworkers and the occasional plumber anymore. If we want to attract/retain people who aren't factory workers [[not exactly a growth industry there) then we need to invest in our cultural institutions at least on this minimal level. Those factory worker buddies of yours aren't going to be around forever.

Even at the local level the Republicans are the biggest bunch of dumbfucks......

DIA tax may go on ballot
By Chad Selweski
Macomb Daily
April 21, 2012

Faced with a crowd of local Detroit Institute of Arts supporters, Macomb County commissioners on Friday reversed a previous vote and agreed to place a DIA tax on the August primary ballot.

After two hours of public comments dominated by supporters of the ballot proposal, the Board of Commissioners’ Planning and Economic Development Committee supported the tax plan. Democratic Commissioner Bob Smith of Clinton Township determined the outcome, switching his vote to “yes".........

The final approval of the DIA ballot proposal will take place at 6 p.m. on Tuesday at a special meeting of the full Board of Commissioners......

So the obstacle to getting this out of committee for a vote by the full Board and onto the August Primary ballot turns out to be one of those "knuckle-dragging mouth-breather" Democrats on the Board of Commissioners!

Why don't you all save your Macomb County and Republican bashing on this issue until after the August Primary Election?

[Gistok]

So the obstacle to getting this out of committee for a vote by the full Board and onto the August Primary ballot turns out to be one of those "knuckle-dragging mouth-breather" Democrats on the Board of Commissioners!

Why don't you all save your Macomb County and Republican bashing on this issue until after the August Primary Election?

Well I guess that means he's no longer a "knuckle dragger"...

But speaking of 'knuckle-draggers"....
http://rcnmc.com/2012/04/tax-alert-d...commissioners/

[gazhekwe]

The DIA has had many programs to appeal to a broad range of art lovers. I am not sure if they still do this, but you used to be able to rent nicely framed reproduction art from them to dress up your house. I had a beautiful Klee hanging at the top of my stairs for awhile, back in the days when we couldn't afford fancy decor. That would be one way to bring in a little cash and brighten some spaces.

As well, there have been serious efforts to make the exhibits more relevant to daily life, getting away from the view of artifacts as art alone, to showing them as they were used in daily life when created, or how they reflect daily life at the time they were created.

I hope the millage will do well. There are a lot of people who support paying for community enhancements. The zoo millage did quite well across the tri-county area. Several communities have recently approved millages to support their libraries. Not everyone is in the pay nothing but expect everything tax camp.

[Coaccession]

It sounds like you are advocating the sale of a worthless piece of paper.

That's not what I'm doing, davewindsor, but you'll be free to short sell if you think so. Before you do, though, you might want to think it through. Claims on artworks could have real value.

The thing with gold or silver certificates is that it is backed by real gold or silver...

Artwork shares would be backed by real artworks... to the extent the DIA has avoided fakes in the permanent collection. Are you sure your gold and silver is as real as the Detroit's DIA artworks?

... and you can convert the certificate into gold or silver bars and physically have it in your possession and sell it to a dealer.

Some you can, some you can't. Feel free to short sell the ones, like ETFs, that don't offer physical delivery. After all, according to your theory, they're worthless. We'll see if their prices fall to zero tomorrow now that the cat is out of the bag.

Why would anybody buy a certificate on a Monet in the DIA if they could not sell the Monet on the open market?

Uh, because artwork shares would be backed by real artworks, and would trade at prices reflecting the financial value of those real artworks. Kind of like ETFs.

A realizeable return is what makes the certificate appealing to the investor.

Actually, rising prices for art and art shares is what would make art shares appeal to investors.

If there's a clause in the certificate that says you can't claim possession of the Monet to sell at auction or to a private collector, it's just a worthless piece of paper. Capital appreciation means nothing to an investor if all you own is a piece of paper.

Short sell those ETFs, davewindsor. I'll be watching.

The right to real, physical ownership is what gives that piece of paper value and equity.

If gold ETF prices don't collapse today, will you admit you don't understand everything about financial markets? Heck, I've got a University of Arizona finance PhD and did dissertation research studying field and laboratory bubbles with Economics Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith, and I admit I don't understand everything about financial markets. Still, I understand enough to have confidence that art shares prices will reflect art values even without physical delivery. Plus, I've worked out how to design the shares to ensure that prices and market values eventually converge, even if occasional bubbles and crashes influence trading.

Otherwise it's a junk bond. It's junk ownership for a fool and his money. It's a worthless pyramid scam, which is outlawed in many states if it were done by private individuals. Without a right to possession, it has no real value. It's not like a federal bond. Everyone knows that the federal government has a right to collect taxes and print money so that's why it doesn't need to be backed an actual asset like a piece of a government owned building.

Well, let's see what happens to those ETFs today now that you've explained your theory.

[Zacha341]

Ummm 'investors', 'great opportunity', 'win win', 'investments', 'capital' etc.... hmmm sounds like the terminology associated with a good ole' fashion MLM set up! Next we'll be discussing 'diamond level', 'financial independence' and 'downline building'? Who'da thought the DIA would become the fabric of such?

[Coaccession]

Ummm 'investors', 'great opportunity', 'win win', 'investments', 'capital' etc.... hmmm sounds like the terminology associated with a good ole' fashion MLM set up! Next we'll be discussing 'diamond level', 'financial independence' and 'downline building'? Who'da thought the DIA would become the fabric of such?

Well, the terms I've used are more common outside MLM than in, Zacha341, even if your own 'diamond level' and 'downline building' aren't. Personally, I don't think we're ever likely to see closets full of unsold art outside of art schools, and certainly won't see closets full of museum-quality art languishing for lack of a downline... oh... oh, wait! On second thought, 80% of art museum artworks are in storage at the average museum, with much higher percentages in storage at the better museums. Maybe we should do something about those closets full of museum-quality art... but given all those other closets filled with household supplies and vitamin supplements by MLM, I don't think MLM is part of the solution. Art school dumpsters aren't either, I suppose.

... somehow I don't think they built their wealth by investing their hard-earned money in an untried, trademarked, patent-pending, legal "innovation" such as a "Collector Title[[TM)".

Collector Titles won't be untried, Mikeg, when the first IPOs come out... though trading them will be. Testing goes step-by-step, scaling up over time... but Detroit could hardly be worse off just sticking with the status quo. That may lead to a DIA breakup even if the Founders Society gets their millage despite Detroit's wealth.

Why don't you try selling off the artwork at the Packard Plant before it goes by way of the wrecking ball. That way you could show people how your scam ...er.. I mean system works.

Does the owner of the Packard Plant want to keep all the "art" together as a collection? Otherwise, just selling the pieces off individually is easier, Wheels, even if selling off Packard Plant artworks is not all that easy with all the title questions. I got the impression Detroiters would like to keep the City's DIA collection together as a collection, which is why alternatives to outright sales are worth discussing. Detroit has clear title to those works.

None of us are [the Bing administration or the Founders Society]. If your scam is so brilliant go fucking tell them, not some obscure internet message board.

Give Lowell some credit, poobert. DetroitYes is Detroit's leading message board! They know. The blinders are still on, though.

[Greentree]

What a lot of people don't realize is that the DIA is subject to union labor contracts, and therefore the labor costs to operate are $1 million a year. This seems to me to be a big problem with the DIA's finances. You can see it's tax returns on guidestar.org It's own auxilliaries don't like holding fundraising events there, it's too hard to raise funds for the DIA when security, food, and everything else costs so much more than at other venues. I am all for a millage for this important gem nevertheless.

[Pam]

Maybe if we all vote for the millage, Coaccession will go away? Let's hope.

[Coaccession]

Re-READ WHAT others have already posted here and elsewhere relative to the "Pyramid" construct and other questionable aspects of your um' program. Did someone stutter?...

No, no one stuttered. They just emit clouds of ink... well, pixels, really.

Maybe if we all vote for the millage, Coaccession will go away? Let's hope.

Even if I went away, the Detroit would still hold many, many billions of dollars of Detroit assets that could earn -- should earn -- tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year in added revenues for Detroit. Heck, the Founders Society admits Detroit's DIA collection is worth over a billion dollars. How well are they managing those assets? Well, they're asking taxpayers for a bailout while they manage over a billion dollars for the taxpayers. That's chutzpah, and that chutzpah whether I post here or not.

[Detroitnerd]

Coaccession is delivering a savage beating to that dead horse.

[SteveJ]

Coaccession is delivering a savage beating to that dead horse.

I don't even blame him anymore. You got people egging him on and not letting it go.... I just ignore the guy.

[gazhekwe]

Reminds me of the carpetbaggers.

[Coaccession]

“If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you” ... Remember that old expression about someone selling something they don't own? ... The more I listen to you talking about DIA artwork ETFs, the more I think about George Parker who sold the Brooklyn Bridge over a century ago. And then he sold the Metropolitan Museum of Art.http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/02/legendary-landmark-scams/ ... You're offering an old scam in new packaging. Do you really think the Founder's Society of the DIA want to be associated with that?

Gee, davewindsor, you'll stretch really far to score points. If only Detroit didn't own any DIA artworks, your analogy would make sense. George Parker didn't own anything he sold. Detroit owns billions of dollars in artworks.

If you're not selling ownership, you're basically selling the Brooklyn Bridge.

Ahhh... but Detroit would be selling ownership, davewindsor, while retaining a cultural easement.

And then you want to take it a step further where the duped person who bought it can sell it to someone else for more money. And it goes on and on building a phoney pyramid of appreciation. It's phoney because the people who bought it are trading claims they don't have a real claim to.

Just like the people buying ETFs don't have a real claim to the gold in the vault? But wait, they do, even though they can't get physical delivery at a time of their choosing. But even if they could get physical delivery, when investors buy and hold gold, they're only counting on the potential for future appreciation. Gold has been a pyramid of appreciation for thousands of years, according to your grand unified theory of finance. Never paid dividends, cost you storage if you didn't want to secure it yourself... but there it is. People still buy it and hold it.

Your theory's good if you can explain what happens. Have gold prices collapsed? Do you think they will tomorrow? Have ETF prices collapsed? They didn't yesterday. But ETF shareholders can't take physical delivery. The prices must collapse if your theory's right. These darn phony pyramids of appreciation! Killing another beautiful theory with an ugly fact. Ugly, ugly phony pyramids of appreciation that people trade on stock exchanges!!

George Parker pulled a scam because he sold something he never owned and people were so easily duped into thinking they owned something they did not.

And now you're trying to pull a scam, arguing against a strawman of some person unknown who proposes selling exchange-traded artworks based on paintings he doesn't own. Detroit owns billions of dollars in artworks. If Detriot sells IPOs of exchange-traded artwork rights, they're based on paintings it owns. Do you think you can easily dupe DetroitYessers into believing your strawman argument?

You are just selling paper that isn't worth anymore the paper it's printed on.

You are just selling a strawman argument that isn't worth as much as the pixels you propagate it on. You are not arguing against Detroit selling exchange-traded artworks rights based on artworks it actually owns. You are arguing against a scam hoping people will agree with you because they oppose scams, without ever bothering to make any kind of connection between that scam and a method Detroit might use to have its Monet and money too. Do you think DYessers are idiots who can't see the difference?

BTW--I was educated at a government owned university, not a private one, and people who are flipping for a livin' are selling real things. I'm not referring to seminar companies. Those places are notorious for scams as well and most of them should be shut down because all they're teaching and the courses they are upselling you on you can get from a $20 book.

Well, yes, davewindsor, and I earned my PhD at the University of Arizona, graduating in 1993. But since you put in a link associating me with an educational scam, I thought you wouldn't mind me putting in a link associating you with an educational scam. You do follow the Golden Rule, don't you? You do things to me that you want me to do to you, right? Or will you do just about anything to score points, hoping that other discussants won't do the same to you?

I'm referring to the people who buy and sell real estate. There's a point in the transaction where the person who bought it owns it before he can sell it. When he owns it, he has legal title to it and can do things to it like repair and rehab it to add value or rent it out. If you have an ETF in DIA artwork, you can't rent out that painting. You can't move it. You can't charge admission to view it. You can't touch it. You can't repair it. You can't even change the frame that it's sitting in.

When you own real estate, you can exclude trespassers, but you can't exclude easement holders. Does utility access mean you don't really own the real estate?

I'm not going to offer "solid evidence that, for one example, people won't behave with art shares the way they behave with ETFs".

Does the fact that Detroit owns an exhibition easement on your artwork mean you don't really own it? Does it make exchange-traded artwork rights worthless? Your theory predicts people won't buy ETFs, yet they do. You need a better theory, davewindsor.

Just like with George Parker and the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge and other landmarks, people can be easily duped into thinking they bought something they did not. A good con artist can dupe people because that's his or her art. That's what they do. Just because a con artist can con people out of their money doesn't make it right, ethical or legal.

And if people buy your George Parker strawman argument, they'll think they
bought an argument against exchange-traded artwork rights when they did not. The question might be, davewindsor, why are you trying to con DYessers? Detroiters could use Detroit's DIA assets to have tens of millions of dollars -- perhaps hundreds of millions -- in added revenues to help make Detroit a healthier, safer and more pleasant and cultured place, and you're trying to con them out of having those added benefits. I could ask, what have you got against Detroit's safety and health?

That's the wrong question to ask now, though. Scientists know that the easiest person to fool is themselves. I predict Detroit could have billions of dollars in a Detroit Arts Endowment and still have its artworks in the DIA. That's based on my honest reading of the evidence I know. Still, the reading could be wrong or there could be contradictory evidence I don't know. I'm open to reason and evidence, and happy to see what folks discuss here. You probably fooled yourself, davewindsor, and had no intention of conning anyone here. It's easy to forget that I've got to convince Detroiters to want the City to sell exchange-traded artwork rights and to think I'm saying that I would sell them. That would indeed be like George Parker. But if Detroit sells them, that's like ETFs -- Detroit would get the investors' money, and investors would get the Monet's appreciation. I'm sure you see the difference now. It's the give and take of peer review that can expand knowledge.

[davewindsor]

Gee, davewindsor, you'll stretch really far to score points. If only Detroit didn't own any DIA artworks, your analogy would make sense. George Parker didn't own anything he sold. Detroit owns billions of dollars in artworks.



Ahhh... but Detroit would be selling ownership, davewindsor, while retaining a cultural easement.



Just like the people buying ETFs don't have a real claim to the gold in the vault? But wait, they do, even though they can't get physical delivery at a time of their choosing. But even if they could get physical delivery, when investors buy and hold gold, they're only counting on the potential for future appreciation. Gold has been a pyramid of appreciation for thousands of years, according to your grand unified theory of finance. Never paid dividends, cost you storage if you didn't want to secure it yourself... but there it is. People still buy it and hold it.

Your theory's good if you can explain what happens. Have gold prices collapsed? Do you think they will tomorrow? Have ETF prices collapsed? They didn't yesterday. But ETF shareholders can't take physical delivery. The prices must collapse if your theory's right. These darn phony pyramids of appreciation! Killing another beautiful theory with an ugly fact. Ugly, ugly phony pyramids of appreciation that people trade on stock exchanges!!



And now you're trying to pull a scam, arguing against a strawman of some person unknown who proposes selling exchange-traded artworks based on paintings he doesn't own. Detroit owns billions of dollars in artworks. If Detriot sells IPOs of exchange-traded artwork rights, they're based on paintings it owns. Do you think you can easily dupe DetroitYessers into believing your strawman argument?



You are just selling a strawman argument that isn't worth as much as the pixels you propagate it on. You are not arguing against Detroit selling exchange-traded artworks rights based on artworks it actually owns. You are arguing against a scam hoping people will agree with you because they oppose scams, without ever bothering to make any kind of connection between that scam and a method Detroit might use to have its Monet and money too. Do you think DYessers are idiots who can't see the difference?



Well, yes, davewindsor, and I earned my PhD at the University of Arizona, graduating in 1993. But since you put in a link associating me with an educational scam, I thought you wouldn't mind me putting in a link associating you with an educational scam. You do follow the Golden Rule, don't you? You do things to me that you want me to do to you, right? Or will you do just about anything to score points, hoping that other discussants won't do the same to you?



When you own real estate, you can exclude trespassers, but you can't exclude easement holders. Does utility access mean you don't really own the real estate?



Does the fact that Detroit owns an exhibition easement on your artwork mean you don't really own it? Does it make exchange-traded artwork rights worthless? Your theory predicts people won't buy ETFs, yet they do. You need a better theory, davewindsor.



And if people buy your George Parker strawman argument, they'll think they
bought an argument against exchange-traded artwork rights when they did not. The question might be, davewindsor, why are you trying to con DYessers? Detroiters could use Detroit's DIA assets to have tens of millions of dollars -- perhaps hundreds of millions -- in added revenues to help make Detroit a healthier, safer and more pleasant and cultured place, and you're trying to con them out of having those added benefits. I could ask, what have you got against Detroit's safety and health?

That's the wrong question to ask now, though. Scientists know that the easiest person to fool is themselves. I predict Detroit could have billions of dollars in a Detroit Arts Endowment and still have its artworks in the DIA. That's based on my honest reading of the evidence I know. Still, the reading could be wrong or there could be contradictory evidence I don't know. I'm open to reason and evidence, and happy to see what folks discuss here. You probably fooled yourself, davewindsor, and had no intention of conning anyone here. It's easy to forget that I've got to convince Detroiters to want the City to sell exchange-traded artwork rights and to think I'm saying that I would sell them. That would indeed be like George Parker. But if Detroit sells them, that's like ETFs -- Detroit would get the investors' money, and investors would get the Monet's appreciation. I'm sure you see the difference now. It's the give and take of peer review that can expand knowledge.

No, the people who bought from George Parker didn't own anything just like the people who buy artwork ETFs. The investor ends up losing their money on the same scam. What happens if the DIA blows all that money it got on this scam? It goes into receivership. Do the investors get the painting or are they sh-it out of luck?

You can't even argue appreciation of gold to artwork unless you can show legitimate ownership. Cultural easements is just a misleading mumbo jumbo. It's a scam.

You: "If Detriot sells IPOs of exchange-traded artwork rights, they're based on paintings it owns. Do you think you can easily dupe DetroitYessers into believing your strawman argument?"

Look, you are not arguing selling artwork rights unless it includes the right to sell the actual painting, not a worthless piece of paper. Then, you go ad hominem calling me the duper for challenging the scam you initiated. Show me one place in the world where your scam sale of ETF artworks was successfully done. Oh, you can't. But I can show you millions of scams if you like.

I guess everyone here is an idiot except you because everyone has the street smarts to see a con job and call him out for it, but you keep living in denial. Maybe you should google the definition of "delusional".

I never went to those real estate seminars nor would I recommend anyone go to one. As I stated before, you can get all that information from a $20 book.

YOU: "When you own real estate, you can exclude trespassers, but you can't exclude easement holders. Does utility access mean you don't really own the real estate?"

Completely off topic. In real estate, a utility easement doesn't prevent you from selling a parcel of land with a utility easement on it. In most cases, you can still put a building on that parcel to increase it's value. I can walk on the land, charge rent and/or use it to earn an operating income in addition to capital appreciation. In fact, the parcel is often worth more money because a utility easement on a parcel most likely means you are trading a serviced lot. You, on the other hand, are advocating title to property that cannot be sold on the open market or have any of the rights that a property owner would have. You're comparing apples to oranges

Not all gold investors buy and hold gold. Some gold investors are jewelry makers, microchip manufacturers, etc. who are securing future gold to ensure a steady flow of raw materials so that their plants are operating smoothly. And some of these gold investors that buy and hold gold are going to be selling gold bars to manufacturers plus their markup for selling real gold that they receive in the future.

With your artwork ETFs, you can't do that. You don't own the artwork, so if the Sotheby's dealer approaches you with a better offer for phyiscal ownership, you can't do that. If the DIA runs into financial difficulty and makes a bad investment on the money they raise, you'll see how quickly the value of those worthless ETF shares drop because the investor cannot get possession of the artwork. The investor ends up with a worthless piece of paper just like the deeds that George Parker sold investors. That's the difference between real ownership and the scam you are trying to sell.

[Coaccession]

No, the people who bought from George Parker didn't own anything...

... because George Parker didn't own anything!!!

...the people who buy artwork ETFs...

... will earn artwork returns with their money just like the people who own gold ETFs earn gold returns with their money, at least as long as courts uphold cultural easements so the DIA can have its Monet to back its exchange-traded artwork rights. And since courts have upheld cultural easements, conservation easements, preservation easements and all sorts of similar easements -- not just utility easements -- that's not a real far stretch, davewindsor.

If you really think artworks lose their financial value just because they've gone into a museum, then I guess you really can't help fooling yourself. Did you happen to take museum studies at that government-owned university? If so, just forget your books and start studying how the world really works. Then you'll realize you're just waving your hands in the air when you think there's a "just like" that connect people who bought from George Parker and people who buy artwork ETFs. Your arguments have no purchase.