The world's richest centi-billionaire oligarch used his power to change the rules, so he could dump his garbage company (which is cartoonishly overvalued, unprofitable, and incinerating cash) on retail investors, using trillions of dollars in retirement funds as exit liquidity, all in order to become the first trillionaire.
This is the perfect metaphor for the US economy as a whole, which is entirely based on bubbles and scams.
“In practice, however, technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise it, finance it, regulate it and use it.”
THANK YOU POPE LEO FOR SAYING THIS.
Time for the “technology is a tool with no inherent moral position” idea to die!
CALL TO ACTION:
Tell President Trump, your Congressional Rep, & your Senators that you don't support American boots on the ground in Iran.
White House Comment Line:
(202) 456-1111
Congress Switchboard:
(202) 224-3121
This is how We the People make our voices heard. 🇺🇸
@realEstateTrent Remember, they tried to trial balloon this by shutting down TSA Precheck and Global Entry (still closed) a month ago as a method of pressure.
Yes! All construction—even ‘luxury’ construction—helps housing affordability. It creates moving chains that open up opportunities for lower earners and make more affordable units available.
This is shaping up as the most consistent finding in housing studies: Building lots of luxury housing can reduce rents at the top of the market—but the people it helps most are renters struggling to afford even the least desirable units
This is huge if true. I asked Grok how this could work with for sale product, because they would seem to be at odds. Here’s the response:
### How "For-Sale" Could Work Under Current OZ Rules (and With Potential EO Alignments)
- A developer/investor sets up a QOF that funds a project to build single-family homes/rowhomes in an OZ.
- The project develops and sells the homes (e.g., to families/owner-occupants), generating proceeds.
- The QOF could realize gains from sales, distributions, or eventual exit.
- To get full OZ benefits (especially tax-free appreciation after 10 years), the investor must still hold the QOF interest for 10+ years — even if the underlying homes are sold sooner.
- Common structures might include:
- The QOF holds residual assets (e.g., land, unsold units, or reinvests proceeds) long-term.
- Or uses layered financing where OZ capital supports development, but sales happen earlier while preserving QOF compliance.
- The EO's push for alignment could make such models more attractive/viable by layering in non-OZ incentives (grants, credits, reduced regs), effectively subsidizing for-sale development without needing to change the OZ holding rules via legislation.
In short: The statutory OZ holding periods remain unchanged (no new legislation has altered them as of March 14, 2026). The Executive Order encourages and facilitates for-sale single-family projects in OZs through better program coordination and incentives, but investors/developers would still need to structure deals to satisfy the 5/7/10-year QOF holding requirements for maximum tax advantages. This might involve creative fund designs (e.g., longer-term QOF vehicles supporting shorter-cycle development/sales).
@realEstateTrent If they have it, Entrepreneurship major runs circles. Positions you for leadership, bias for action, and being dangerous across all business domains.