IndieDev said:
Of course you're not going to be embarrassed, you're not even cognizant of why you should be embarrassed. :-\
Oooo... burn... but amazingly enough... no pain.
I'm sorry you think I'm "insulting" your level of education. That's not my intent. As an adult who has worked with business men much more talented and richer than I am, I've learned to listen and absorb what I can from these talented people and it's put me into a much more financially wealthy situation than I could have achieved if left to my own devices. The truth is, I could afford to buy any single home in QH, or any of the Woodbury/PS developments outright if I should choose to, but I don't chase stupid money with smart money. I attribute that to me gaining knowledge, and using that knowledge appropriately.
Okay... I get it... you are richer and smarter than me... congratulations.
I'm not going to continue this debate with you any longer, I don't want people to get upset based on a trivial water cooler discussion.
But... but... but... how can we enrich ourselves if you don't enlighten us with your all-knowing truth?
Again... you have yet to tell us with your vast knowledge of economics and financial wealth why is there non-fundamental factors at play in Irvine. At least I, with such a lack of basic economic principles, have offered up theories where you have not.
In other words... back up your game, or your game is no better than mine.
And regardless of what you claim your situation is, it is a bit suspect because you did not know Irvine history as much as you thought you did and misread articles because you got caught up trying to counter my "water cooler" theories.
p.s - If it's any consolation for you, yes, TIC and their partner builders did not build as many homes in 2007 as they did in later years, but not because on the reasons you stated. That's a very important fact, and actually works against your original premise.
Again... doesn't matter what the reasons were... they stopped... and according to you... they did not stop... and should not have stopped.
Which bring me to this little ditty you glossed over in your effort to enhance my education:
Me said:
And while $/sft is less now... they are probably making more now than they have back then because they are both the land owner AND the builder.
Isn't there some econ theory about cutting out the middle man to increase profits?
Let's put it simpler:
Villa Rosa was selling for $1m+ from 2007-2010, how much did TIC make off that?
TIC sold more homes in 2010 (in just one tract) than Villa Rosa did those 3 years... how much did TIC make off that?
Even with 20/20 hindsight, would you use the HotTubTimeMachine and go back to 2007 and tell TIC to keep selling land at and a smaller profit to builders who couldn't sell homes or tell them to wait until 2010 and sell them without the builders and make even more?
So, you, with all your super financial smartness thinks that TIC dropped the ball by stopping... what would you have done? Or are you going to just give me links to Irvine Valley College again instead of actually proving you walk the walk?
