DIA Millage Proposal

[Coaccession]

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

Quite so, davewindsor, quite so. Just as it's irrelevant that no museum has mobilized its collection's financial value yet. That still doesn't prove my system won't work. But, given the museum profession's allergy to fully utilizing its assets, getting a pioneer is going to take a situation like Detroit's -- situations that, unlike Detroit's, usually don't get much prior public notice.
Even in Detriot's case, the Founders Society is getting away with keeping the value of public assets off the public books, but with the public exposure they're taking on via their millage proposal, that may change. Once Detroiters understand just how much they're investing in the DIA collection, they may start demanding a better return on those many, many billions of dollars.

And, the difference is I buy and sell my own real estate. I trade in real tangible stuff. I live in reality, not fantasy.

How's that flippin' for a livin' working out for you? The old saying goes that the best way to make a small fortune in real estate is to start with a large one.

Investors don't invest their money if there isn't a realizable return.

Which ETF buyers get by selling.

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.

Well, davewindsor, since that's how ETFs work, my job is not to reject the evidence, but to understand it. You seem very committed to ignoring the ETF evidence since it doesn't agree with your theory of finance. As a PhD, I'm also trying to figure out why you don't understand the simple concept of following the evidence rather than the theory. I think human behavior like yours has a lot to do with explaining markets like ETFs.

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

Arizona, davewindsor. Did you learn your flippin' for a livin' where they don't even bother to assign grades: http://www.chicagocashflow.com/node/28

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?

As I've said before,davewindsor, if someone offers solid evidence that, for one example, people won't behave with art shares the way they behave with ETFs, or that the City of Detroit is obligated to follow museum ethics rules with it city assets, for another example, then it's time for me to back down. But all you're giving me is tirades about how you think things should work. Look at the evidence, davewindsor. Eppur si muove.