DIA Millage Proposal

[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.

[davewindsor]

.... 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.

This is how the world really works: no museum has sold artwork ETFs before because they don't want to be associated with that scam. There is no empirical data on the successful results of your museum artwork ETF cashflow system anywhere. It's just another George Parker con job in new packaging where the investor ends up with a worthless piece of paper for their money. It's your arguments that have no purchase.

[Coaccession]

This is how the world really works: no museum has sold artwork ETFs before because they don't want to be associated with that scam. There is no empirical data on the successful results of your museum artwork ETF cashflow system anywhere.

So, let's see... anything that hasn't been done can't be done...

It's just another George Parker con job in new packaging where the investor ends up with a worthless piece of paper for their money. It's your arguments that have no purchase.

...and George Parker sold things he didn't own, so anything you don't like is just like George Parker! Now that we've boiled down your arguments, I can see why you've convinced yourself.

[davewindsor]

...and George Parker sold things he didn't own, so anything you don't like is just like George Parker! Now that we've boiled down your arguments, I can see why you've convinced yourself.

George Parker traded in things he didn't own, just like the ETF artwork traders will be trading things they don't own. Same scam.

Let's try this again with a baby step explanation.

Scenario 1: George Parker sold paper that claimed ownership for money. Person B who bought that paper could sell it again for more money. [[Your appreciation). But, person B doesn't own anything real. He's now trading worthless paper when he sells it to C and C to D, etc.

Scenario 2: the DIA sells artwork ETFs to Person B. Person B will try to sell that paper again for more money. [[Your appreciation). But, person B doesn't own anything real. He's also now trading worthless paper when he sells it to C and C to D, etc., because the DIA never sold person B anything real.

That's how these two scams are alike.

[Coaccession]

Let's try this again with a baby step explanation.

That's the spirit, davewindsor. We'll just keep simplifying this until you can understand it!

Scenario 1: George Parker sold paper that claimed ownership for money.

Illegitimately, since George Parker didn't own the Brooklyn Bridge or the Met. Are you with me so far? This is a critical point to remember later.

Person B who bought that paper could sell it again for more money. [[Your appreciation).

Not many fools actually did buy from Persons B, but if a B could luck into a greater fool... sure. But B indeed had illegitimate paper, whether B knew it or not, since Parker didn't own the Brooklyn Bridge or the Met. No court would enforce any rights for B, or C, or D, just as a court wouldn't enforce any rights for George Parker. You're still on the right track... but differences will come into play a bit later. Be on the lookout!

But, person B doesn't own anything real. He's now trading worthless paper when he sells it to C and C to D, etc.

Correct! You're absolutely right, all the way through this example. Congrats! Now, as we go into the next example, pay very close attention. This is where that critical point comes into play. Ready? I don't want to rush you. Take a deep breath and... FOCUS!

Scenario 2: the DIA sells artwork ETFs to Person B.

Legitimately, since Detroit owns the artworks. Just as a court will enforce Detroit's rights for Detroit, it will in turn enforce whatever rights Detroit sells to Person B for Person B. [[Note the crucial difference here -- Detroit owns the artworks, George Parker did not own the Brooklyn Bridge or the Met. This is really, really important, davewindsor, so try to bear it in mind as we go forward.)

Person B will try to sell that paper again for more money. [[Your appreciation). But, person B doesn't own anything real.

Ahhh, this is precisely where you're confusing yourself, davewindsor. You think that just because YOU say Detroit never sold Person B anything real, a court will say Detroit never sold Person B anything real. Well, let's look at what courts actually do in cases like this. Have any gold ETF sellers gone to jail? Why, no! They're selling legitimate paper they legitimately acquired from legitimate owners of gold in a vault, even if it doesn't provide for physical delivery. But did George Parker go to jail? Why, yes he did!! As Jay Gould famously said, "He who sells what isn't his'n, must buy it back or go to prison!" George Parker blew his money and couldn't buy back the Brooklyn Bridge or the Met. He went to prison. ETF traders? Not so much.

You see, davewindsor. This isn't so hard. Have you got it now? Do you see the difference? YOU are not a court of law. Just because YOU say the DIA never sold person B anything real doesn't mean that the DIA never sold person B anything real. If Detroit dots its "i's" and crosses its "t's" it will sell legitimate paper because Detroit owns the artworks. Courts will enforce B's paper for B, just as courts will enforce Detroit's paper for Detroit, because B bought his paper from the owner, not from a scammer. And you, davewindsor, will be able to short-sell artwork ETFs, just like you can short-sell gold ETFs now. Remember what Jay Gould said, though. You can lose money by short-selling, and if you lose too much... well, it gets hard to buy back what you sold. If I were you, I'd be very, very careful out there.

Now, to finish your example...

{Person B is} also now trading worthless paper when he sells it to C and C to D, etc., because the DIA never sold person B anything real.

Wrong here too, because Person B owns the legitimate claim he bought from the City of Detroit, which legitimately owns the artworks. Courts will enforce whatever rights Detroit sold to Person B on behalf of Persons C, D, E, F... right on down the line of legitimate buyers of legitimate claims.

George Parker traded in things he didn't own, just like the ETF artwork traders will be trading things they don't own. Same scam.

Well, when gold ETF sellers start ending up in jail, it will be time to take your own analysis seriously. Until then, please remember that the law exists independently of your own opinions. It could save you a lot of trouble. And if you see where I got the law wrong, please let me know. I'd like to avoid trouble too. But remember... look at what courts actually do, not what you think they should do. Otherwise you're liable to confuse yourself again. We don't want that, so feel free to ask for more simplification. If you're a bit shaky on all this, someone else probably is also.

[davewindsor]

Wrong here too, because Person B owns the legitimate claim he bought from the City of Detroit, which legitimately owns the artworks. Courts will enforce whatever rights Detroit sold to Person B on behalf of Persons C, D, E, F... right on down the line of legitimate buyers of legitimate claims.



Well, when gold ETF sellers start ending up in jail, it will be time to take your own analysis seriously. Until then, please remember that the law exists independently of your own opinions. It could save you a lot of trouble. And if you see where I got the law wrong, please let me know. I'd like to avoid trouble too. But remember... look at what courts actually do, not what you think they should do. Otherwise you're liable to confuse yourself again. We don't want that, so feel free to ask for more simplification. If you're a bit shaky on all this, someone else probably is also.

Just because the laws don't always make sense doesn't make what happened right. It's just like when the police find a murder weapon without a warrant and the next thing you know a murderer is acquitted of a capitol crime and can't be retried. The murderer is still a murderer, but he's allowed to walk free because of a technicality in the law. And that's only in the US, by the way. In Canada, for instance, the courts would not throw a capitol case out because of a technicality like that. Hence, just because the laws don't always make sense doesn't make it right.

A century ago, price fixing and monopolies like Standard Oil were legal in the US and then came US anti-trust laws to break these companies up. Yet, in Japan the keiretsu is still legal. In the US, the keiretsu would be violating US anti-trust laws and declared illegal. The laws don't always make sense.

Likewise, just because you thought up a technicality in the law doesn't make a scam right or any less a scam. It's still a scam.

If courts do uphold fraudulent artwork ETFs, it will only be because of a good lawyering that argued a technicality in the law such as the DIA were the original owners, even though they sold Person B a useless piece of paper for money. The paper is a worthless scam because Person B doesn't own the painting, even though Person B paid money for it; the DIA still owns it plus they got the money. That is a scam and it's only by technicality and good lawyering that they would successful pull it off, if they did.

Using a past example for the umpteenth time: If an investor buys 100% of the ETF shares on a Monet in the DIA for $10m and a Sotheby's art dealer found a buyer in Dubai wanting physical ownership of the Monet and is willing to pay the investor $20m for it, can the investor convert his 100% share ownership into actual delivery of the Monet at any point in time? No, because the investor doesn't own it and never did and never will own it. All the investor owns is a worthless piece of paper.

To take it a step further, if the DIA makes a bad investment on that $10m it received on selling 100% of the Monet ETF shares and goes into receivership, does the investor get the painting? No, his worthless piece of paper legally becomes a worthless piece of paper by the courts and the investor just lost all their money. That's a scam! But, please keep reiterating your technicalities in the law.

[poobert]

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".

Yes, we are all idiots, making your scheme worthless, Coassession. You have attracted absolutely zero followers or interest in your scam. How does that feel? So even if all your high and maniacal theories had any semblance of reason, it has become clear that no one in their right mind would invest a dime, making them worthless, regardless of whatever convoluted logic you may imagine you spew. There is always a place for someone like you with the likes of the Branch Davidians or Jonestown, though, so don't give up hope.

[Coaccession]

Yes, we are all idiots...

Speak for yourself, poobert. Most DYessers reading this thread are just following the discussion, poobert, making no comment at all. Some may appreciate the evidence and logic.