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...

[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?

[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.

[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...

[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?

[davewindsor]

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.

It sounds like you are advocating the sale of a worthless piece of paper. The thing with gold or silver certificates is that it is backed by real gold or silver and you can convert the certificate into gold or silver bars and physically have it in your possession and sell it to a dealer. Why would anybody buy a certificate on a Monet in the DIA if they could not sell the Monet on the open market? Say, for instance, a dealer from Sotheby's approaches the certificate holder and says we just talked to an art collector from Dubai and we'll give you double what you bought the certificate for if you proxy to allow us to sell the actual Monet. A realizeable return is what makes the certificate appealing to the investor. 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.

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

[Zacha341]

**crickets** **crickets**

In other words, why just have your Monet when you can have your Monet and money too?

[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.

[Coaccession]

**crickets** **crickets**

"In other words, why just have your Monet when you can have your Monet and money too?"

There's a whole literature on how hard it is for societies to adopt innovations even when those advances offer substantial benefits. Given that I'm more Ignaz Semmelweis than William Harvey in my propensity towards the charm and flattery that ease the process, I'm not surprised at having to work at this. Still, I have little doubt Detroiters will look back soon and ask themselves, "Why did I just want my Monet?" Then they'll start blaming the doubters for keeping the City unnecessarily broke for so long [[and point toward their own early acceptance!).

[Coaccession]

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

For the same reason, davewindsor, that gold ETF prices did not collapse today. A Monet in a museum is a pretty good store of value, much like gold in a vault... which, especially if you happen to live in certain neighborhoods in Detroit, can be even better for storing value than keeping gold bars in your home.

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 probably too much to expect an apology from you, davewindsor, for joining others here who've ignorantly called me a scammer. But it's worth pointing out facts that show why my method offers museums and investors a great win-win opportunity for each side to be better off with a deal. Museums need capital income to pay their expenses but get capital appreciation they can't use. Investors get capital income they simply reinvest after taxes, when capital appreciation could better suit their savings goals. Letting investors invest in museum objects can make both sides better off, as long as museums reserve the rights they need for their cultural mission.

Detroit has billions of dollars invested in its DIA collection. It could create a multi-billion dollar arts endowment with that financial value, and still have cultural rights to its entire collection. The Detroit Arts Department, aka DIA, could use every last object in its collection for any exhibition, research project, conservation project or any other cultural project it chooses, plus have money to put on far more of every kind of cultural project than it does today. The DIA doesn't need a millage to build an operating endowment. Detroit just needs to properly manage its own assets. If the Bing administration or the Founders Society wants to learn how, they can start -- like you, davewindsor -- by taking off their blinders and looking at how people really behave financially.

[Mikeg]

There's a whole literature on how hard it is for societies to adopt innovations.......

There's no need to reference the literature on how hard it is for societies to adopt innovations. You're unwittingly adding to it with your continual peddling of your legal "innovation" on this Internet forum. Even if you were able to convince some society to try this, you still need to find willing investors. But 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)".

[Wheels]

There's a whole literature on how hard it is for societies to adopt innovations even when those advances offer substantial benefits. Given that I'm more Ignaz Semmelweis than William Harvey in my propensity towards the charm and flattery that ease the process, I'm not surprised at having to work at this. Still, I have little doubt Detroiters will look back soon and ask themselves, "Why did I just want my Monet?" Then they'll start blaming the doubters for keeping the City unnecessarily broke for so long [[and point toward their own early acceptance!).

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

[davewindsor]

For the same reason, davewindsor, that gold ETF prices did not collapse today. A Monet in a museum is a pretty good store of value, much like gold in a vault... which, especially if you happen to live in certain neighborhoods in Detroit, can be even better for storing value than keeping gold bars in your home.



It's probably too much to expect an apology from you, davewindsor, for joining others here who've ignorantly called me a scammer. But it's worth pointing out facts that show why my method offers museums and investors a great win-win opportunity for each side to be better off with a deal. Museums need capital income to pay their expenses but get capital appreciation they can't use. Investors get capital income they simply reinvest after taxes, when capital appreciation could better suit their savings goals. Letting investors invest in museum objects can make both sides better off, as long as museums reserve the rights they need for their cultural mission.

Detroit has billions of dollars invested in its DIA collection. It could create a multi-billion dollar arts endowment with that financial value, and still have cultural rights to its entire collection. The Detroit Arts Department, aka DIA, could use every last object in its collection for any exhibition, research project, conservation project or any other cultural project it chooses, plus have money to put on far more of every kind of cultural project than it does today. The DIA doesn't need a millage to build an operating endowment. Detroit just needs to properly manage its own assets. If the Bing administration or the Founders Society wants to learn how, they can start -- like you, davewindsor -- by taking off their blinders and looking at how people really behave financially.

Apology? Why? Name one Museum with a large collection where this has worked ever. Just one. It's theoretical.

An ETF, from what I understand, is just a mutual fund that is publically traded. You have a broker that buys and sells shares or gold paper for the ETF, but the broker can proxy a claim for that gold at some point, whether it be mined 5 years down the road from the production of a reputable mine [[ex., future, forward or option) or converted right away and sold as gold bricks on the open market. In the case of DIA artwork, the broker does not have an option to claim it so they could sell the artwork on an open market. What you're offering is funny money. If no one can ever lay claim to possess that artwork so they can sell it other than the DIA, then it's not real and the value is not realizable. Investors will see it as a scam because that's what it is. It's a pyramid scam. You are selling phoney equity.

Let's put this another way. How about I offer you the same deal on a million dollar apartment building? You give me all your savings and I'll use it to buy an apartment building in trust. I'll let you claim the appreciation which you can never realize if I don't ever sell it and I get to keep all the income from it and I'll keep ownership of it in my trust in perpetuity and deed the trust to my children so you could never own it or make money off of it unless you sell your funny money claim to appreciation to some other schmuck.

It's an amazing deal for me because I just got a free income producing property using your money and I don't have to pay you dividends or interest. It's a crappy deal for you because even though you have the right to real estate appreciation if it ever gets sold, you do not have the option to sell it. With an interest free deal like that, what is the incentive for me to ever sell it? Yet, keep deluding yourself that appreciation without any right to put the property for sale on the open market is a good deal for investors. When do you want to give me all your savings so we can write up your amazing appreciation contract on an apartment building? Think of the tax savings from asset depreciation and real estate appreciation to you. And don't worry, the building will be in my safe hands. Hahaha.

[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?

[poobert]

...the Bing administration or the Founders Society wants to learn how....

None of us are them. If your scam is so brilliant go fucking tell them, not some obscure internet message board.

[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.

[Coaccession]

Apology? Why? Name one Museum with a large collection where this has worked ever. Just one. It's theoretical.

C'mon, davewindsor, name one city with a large art collection that's due to run out of cash next month without a multi-million dollar infusion. Just one. Oh... Detroit? Gee, you're right. I bet they would like to find alternatives to payless paydays, cancelled services and closed facilities, as well as alternatives to outright art sales when they start digging Detroit out of its financial hole.

An ETF, from what I understand, is just a mutual fund that is publically traded. You have a broker that buys and sells shares or gold paper for the ETF, but the broker can proxy a claim for that gold at some point, whether it be mined 5 years down the road from the production of a reputable mine [[ex., future, forward or option) or converted right away and sold as gold bricks on the open market.

Shares or gold paper? Proxy a claim? Hey, how about you just sell your Bruegel the Elder "Wedding Dance" shares if you really want to buy some Van Gogh "Self Portrait" shares? That's as clean and simple as selling your gold ETF shares to buy silver ETF shares, which is why physical delivery won't matter in the art shares market any more than it matters now in the ETF market. What matters is having the store of value to back the shares, ETF or art.

In the case of DIA artwork, the broker does not have an option to claim it so they could sell the artwork on an open market.

You can sputter all you want, davewindsor, about non-existent delivery procedures with ETFs. They don't physically deliver commodities. That doesn't mean they don't trade at prices that reflect their underlying values [[abstracting from the occasional bubble or crash, of course).

What you're offering is funny money.

While you're offering ignorance and blather. Take another shot. If you can actually find physical delivery procedures on ETFs, let me know. But as long as ETFs work when no one can ever lay claim to possess that gold so they can sell it other than the ETF, then art shares are real possibilities because their value is realizable day-in and day-out in active trading, just as with ETFs. Non-specialists will see art shares as a scam because they don't understand how ETFs work. They think everything they don't understand is a pyramid scam. You are selling phony procedures to try to get around how physical delivery really works. Show you actually understand ETFs.

Let's put this another way. How about I offer you the same deal on a million dollar apartment building?

Yes, indeed, davewindsor, let's put this another way. If you don't understand the difference between depreciable and non-depreciable assets, if you don't understand the difference between an ETF buying and selling gold for its own vault and an ETF physically delivering gold to shareholders, then doing more internet research is not likely to bring you up to speed. Feel free to try, though. And, no, I don't expect an apology now. That's way too much to hope.

[davewindsor]

C'mon, davewindsor, name one city with a large art collection that's due to run out of cash next month without a multi-million dollar infusion. Just one. Oh... Detroit? Gee, you're right. I bet they would like to find alternatives to payless paydays, cancelled services and closed facilities, as well as alternatives to outright art sales when they start digging Detroit out of its financial hole.

....

Yes, indeed, davewindsor, let's put this another way. If you don't understand the difference between depreciable and non-depreciable assets, if you don't understand the difference between an ETF buying and selling gold for its own vault and an ETF physically delivering gold to shareholders, then doing more internet research is not likely to bring you up to speed. Feel free to try, though. And, no, I don't expect an apology now. That's way too much to hope.

It's irrelevant whether museums are solvent or not. It still doesn't prove your system will work.

And, the difference is I buy and sell my own real estate. I trade in real tangible stuff. I live in reality, not fantasy. Investors don't invest their money if there isn't a realizable return. In fact, private investors are very careful when they do lend money on investment real estate like they want to see skin in the game, not lending at 100% LTV, they have terms and conditions to minimize their risk, and they have a right to recall or auction the collateral when things go wrong.

You are basically talking about an unsecured loan in perpetuity that generates no interest or profit that investors are making in return for appreciation in value and the only appreciation in value is by creating a phoney pyramid of appreciating equity that they must hustle onto another unsuspecting investor to make a profit. But, the loan isn't secured with any rights to possession or recall, so it's not real equity. It's phantom equity in exchange for real money. I can't understand why a PhD doesn't understand such a simple concept. Is your degree from Arizona or University of Phoenix where they guarantee everyone acceptance and a straight A average to students who've never gotten As in high school? http://www.ripoffreport.com/colleges...38q.htm#427423

There's a reason why you can't find a museum that has done your phoney equity pyramid art trading. The burden of proof to do Internet research isn't on me when what you are saying defies common sense. The burden of proof is on you when you're selling an art trading system that neither exists nor is proven. No one is going to buy something that can never be controlled by the brokering business.

Does what you are saying defy common sense? If not, why is everybody else on this thread is saying the same thing?

What does that tell you about your scam trading system?

[Zacha341]

Well stated DW... and yes the concept of 'pyramid' did emerge in my mind as well.

...There's a reason why you can't find a museum that has done your phoney equity pyramid art trading.

Does what you are saying defy common sense? If not, why is everybody else on this thread is saying the same thing?

What does that tell you about your scam trading system?