[ishtanbul]

Real infrastructure and housing

[baq]

Investors don't want 5x revenue valuations, they want 30x growth.

Make 'real infrastructure' and 'housing' companies attractive products for investors to buy and they'll buy. (No idea how to do that, don't ask me! :))

[danaris]

No.

We need to kill the idea that a) this is what investors should be looking for, and b) it's even possible aside from a 1 in 1,000,000,000 fluke.

All of these economic instruments are supposed to be there to serve the needs of real human people, not just to make the wealthy even wealthier. We need to break this cycle of ever-escalating capital chasing capital, and get investment in things that will actually make people's lives better.

[AndrewDucker]

That's the thing. You have to remove the unsustainable nonsense that looks like 30x growth in order for investors to be willing to invest in 5x revenue valuations.

(If you have real things that are actually producing 30x growth then that's fine, obvs.)

[saubeidl]

Maybe markets that optimize for capital growth are just a bad way to allocate resources?

Why did we decide that return on capital investment is the metric to optimize for, at the expense of everything else?

[swexbe]

Most investors have more money invested in their house than stocks.

[ASalazarMX]

Maybe investors shouldn't treat inversion like casino gambling. With their capital, they could make inversions (or even their own businesses) that grow slower but steadily.

[waffletower]

I think housing might have some potential with federal subsidies, particularly in the container scale pre-fabricated home market.

[tharmas]

Tax incentives?

[mike_hearn]

What is "real infrastructure", exactly?

[ElevenLathe]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? In case you aren't, the answer is roads, bridges, public transportation, electrified rail, grid modernization, utility-scale storage and solar. We need these things desperately, and instead we're going to get sheds full of video cards from here to the horizon.