Well if you look at smoking, we did quite similar things. We let people smoke, it's not forbidden, but don't try to smoke within a restaurant, an indoor space, a flight, etc. Why? Because that's where your secondary smoke can start impacting other people. But smoke at home as much as you want!
The argument is that we're not saving those other lives because we don't think we, as a society, have the right to make those people's choices for them. If your argument is that we do and we'll get to the overweight after we get to the antivaxxers just say it.
What country do you live in? Can you criticize the leader without going to jail? Do union representatives get murdered? Are police there to help you or to extort you?
I live in an actually authoritarian country. Only the most privileged people here don't get vaccinated, and among them it's a very small group, and mostly foreigners. No one is forced to, and no one is being forced to do anything else with their body.
I find this jump to tyranny argument disgusting. How on Earth would that work? In a country where one man can order the military to kill its own citizens there is no logical connection between vaccinations and smoking or obesity.
Americans (and a lot of other nationalities in the West, but mostly Americans) need to gain some perspective on the difference between tyranny and responsibility. I got vaccinated (with a Chinese vaccine, the horror!) because I consider it my duty to my family, my adopted country, and the world.
And guess what? Vaccination has been stupendously effective and our country is almost back to normal. And still the government is not locking up smokers or fat people.
>Americans (and a lot of other nationalities in the West, but mostly Americans) need to gain some perspective on the difference between tyranny and responsibility.
You're right, we do. I for one am happy to take an experimental RNA therapy in hopes a new and better cure can be developed from the results. But it has to be my choice. If the government has the right to shoot me with a novel serum for the sake of public health, what's to stop them from forcing me to expose myself to the virus itself in the next pandemic? Or shooting me with something more permanent if they decide my thought harbours the next dangerous viral pandemic?
You've my sympathies for the state of your country, but I honestly believe if more of your fellow citizens had drawn a bright line around abstract concepts like bodily autonomy, the authoritarians who took it over would have, at the very least, had a much harder time when they were starting out. That's its own kind of responsibility for those of us who don't live in a genuinely authoritarian country yet
I live in the US. Here the police do extort, union representatives have been murdered, and Ben Franklin's own grandson was jailed for criticizing our president adams. However we are certainly pretty low on the authoritarian spectrum, compared to many other countries.
Our own military has done quite horrible things to US citizens, including killing and jailing them in foreign detention centers.
Having spent time in "authoritarian countries", I can tell you even in those countries the common man can often criticize leaders in private, and as I foreigner I have had them confide in me about problems in their country. So it isn't some defense to say that because the common man can complain, it isn't authoritarian.
>And guess what? Vaccination has been stupendously effective and our country is almost back to normal. And still the government is not locking up smokers or fat people.
Despite the dooms-dayers on the internet and media, virtually the same has happened in the US. Nowadays almost all the deaths are the unvaccinated, which for the vast vast majority of them that was their own voluntary decision.
Do strikebreakers get murdered in your country? Because they did, regularly, in the West, and the rhetorical victory of the mafia/socialist-infused labor union movement was so complete, that the murdered were dehumanized as "scabs", and those who protected them, villainized as "union busters".
In the US, you cannot be anti-union and not be under threat of violence, whether it's Larry Elder's staff being assaulted (with hardly any media outcry):
People here love decrying "tyranny" in America and I will either laugh or cry when they their principles come up against the slightest of inconveniences. "Oh I can't go to the closest movie theater unless I get vaccinated and I have to go to the one in another town? Fine I guess I'll get tread on just this one time".
Unfortunately I can't delete my account so I'm just going to change my password without looking.
The government forcibly causing you to be fired from your job because you do not want your body forcefully penetrated against your will, is far from an inconvenience -- it's being shoved into poverty. There are individuals who could die of anaphylaxis or thrombosis from the vaccine if they are predisposed, and issuing mandates that fail to adequately screen for these predispositions is tyrannical.
It would be tyrannical even if the vaccine posed virtually zero health risks, and massively reduced the danger posed by the coronavirus (both of which are true).
Freedom of Association is not some fucking luxury that only spoiled AmeriDumb brats feel entitled to. It's a basic human right, and no government, anywhere, should ever violate the people's to it, as you advocate so naively, and that applies even if it's Joe Biden and the Holy Church of the Democratic Party that is endorsing it. That something so basic to a free world has become associated with being a Republican, and ridiculed, is tragic.
Saving lives cannot be the only consideration. There has to be limits on the power of the state to restrict and compel human behavior. We shouldn't live under medical tyranny.
How about the tyranny of being forced to pay taxes to blow up little kids in Afghanistan at $40k+ a bomb, or the tyranny of being forced under penalty of prison to pay for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons for the Taliban?
You don't think it's a little tyrannical that the tax man can say give us the money to blow up innocent little kids or I'm going to put you in a cage and take your own kids?
The market. I want to be free from it a la Freedom from the Market: America’s Fight to Liberate Itself from the Grip of the Invisible Hand by Mike Konczal[1]. As much as small government-types don't want to experience government in their everyday lives, I wish not not experience the market and its influence in my everyday life. As much as small government-types feel like they cannot escape government control, I feel like I cannot escape from market control.
>>The market. I want to be free from it a la Freedom from the Market:
So you want to be free from the state of others having the right to engage in mutually voluntary economic interactions? Their right to free assocation, is a tyrannical infringement of your right to dictate how they live? You can't just leave other people and form your own socialist commune somewhere?
My understanding of the issue is that the biggest problems are a few well known defunct satellites in mid altitude orbit. We have no control over them so if two collide we are in big trouble. That almost happened last year. I think someone can make a big difference by targeting those first.
I don't think East vs West is a fair generalization of this attitude. In Thailand someone is building an Angkor Wat replica and the Cambodian government is protesting because they see it as somehow cheapening the original. Angkor Wat has undergone very little reconstruction and where it has it's only sections which can be mostly rebuilt from original fragments.
In Vietnam you can visit lots of temples that are complete rebuilds. In Cambodia there are hundreds or even thousands of ancient temples, none of which have any restoration done, and there is no movement to do any.
Taking MDMA with my girlfriend was one of the greatest experiences of my life. Brought us much closer together. I can imagine it would be a wonderful addition to couple's therapy because it makes you so comfortable speaking and turns empathy into your instinctive response.
I think there are pros, but I believe with almost any substance it isn't always going to have such a profound positive effect on everyone. I would just like to make sure that people overall have safe and informed access, so if you have a negative experience you won't automatically be stigmatized or arrested and you can have access to a medical professional to help.
I think I'd say the same, although it's hard to say if it was 'the greatest experience' (and what that means) or just 'pure bliss' due to the drugs.
I've got a bit of a love/hate relationship with MDMA. I tried it for the first time around age 26, and did it about 4x a year the 3 years after, usually with my girlfriend. In the past year I've not done any drugs and am conflicted about where to go from here.
The initial experiences the first year were really just pure bliss in a way I'd not experienced before, and the feeling of being on cloud 9 lasted pretty strongly for weeks, and months later I could still relive the good feelings by recollecting it, or listening to certain music. As you describe, speaking comfortably with your partner was amazing. The feeling of having empathy for a loved one, and receiving it back, was one of the most wonderful aspects of it, the one I probably enjoyed the most, and longed for while sober. (more-so than the body-feel, the touching, the music, all of which was amazing too).
In the second year of use that developed into a more black/white experience of a heavy-upper and then a complete lack of it the day after. I don't think I had any downers, but the contrast between pure bliss one moment, and a very regular mundane living room setting that same evening, was definitely strange. It put the presence or absence of happiness in the spotlight, whereas before I didn't generally pay that much attention to my state of happiness. Feeling bliss wasn't an obsession, and lacking it wasn't an issue. After MDMA, that calculus changed a little bit.
In that year I also realise how artificial the experiences of drugs were. MDMA still gave me amazing experiences with friends and my SO, some of the conversations we'd not normally have really did have lasting effects in a positive way. At the same time, it felt like we were cheating. Feeling comfortable enough on drugs to discuss certain things is great, but it also highlighted we weren't communicating completely honestly without drugs. And lastly, there were some indications that we weren't the same person on drugs, either, and that the drug personality wasn't necessarily the 'real one' that lies underneath without inhibitions. I've seen friends cheerfully smile as they told me their phone was stolen at a festival due to drugs, whereas they lost precious pictures/data and money (which they couldn't afford), and were devastated about this the next day.
I still enjoyed MDMA without any cynicism, but the rose-tinted glasses had come off.
In the third year of use I think I noticed I was slightly less happy generally, and while on drugs the highs weren't as high. It's hard to isolate this, it could have a million causes. But my feeling was my brain has been altered for the worse due to the drugs and that it was time to stop. It's been a year now and I'm quite happy to have stopped. At the same time, an amazing experience unlike any other is a few dollars and 30 minutes away. I'm happy to have tried drugs, but I kind of feel it's probably best for me to stay away from it from now on and treat it like a middle-class family treats a Michelin star restaurant: every few years, on vacation, you may indulge, but otherwise you don't think about it. I think those who can limit it to once a year or even less, will find MDMA is quite amazing. For those like me who went down the rabbit hole a bit and tried it multiple times a year for years (or worse, those who do it every weekend), probably will suffer at some point.
> it felt like we were cheating. Feeling comfortable enough on drugs to discuss certain things is great, but it also highlighted we weren't communicating completely honestly without drugs
Take my input with a grain of salt. I am no professional.
But to me it is just like saying it is cheating to go to a therapist and talk about things you won't normally talk about. The whole point of these experiences is to shift your perspective so you can explore things under different lights. Doesn't make these experiences any less valid. You shouldn't beat yourself because it was chemically induced state of openness, it is awesome you can go there if you need to, as long as the altered state doesn't become a refuge.
Well described, I've gone through the same path and agree a lot. In fact there's a good amount nearby, but there hasn't been much of a temptation even though raves are back in action. It's been over 1.5 years now.
I do feel like there's some sort of damage from it. Feel like I stutter a bit more, and somedays I'm very socially apprehensive. Do you think time can heal from it?
My personal experience is that it is impossible to tell whether I got more socially apprehensive or just more sensitive to it - now that I have experienced times under the effects of this drug where I was very pro social and fearless. The older I get I feel like I was super insecure and socially awkward my whole life but I didn’t know anything else so it felt normal. Now I feel depressed sometimes and have social anxiety, but sometimes I don’t.
I experienced a similar thing by going to therapy. I don’t necessarily get better overall, but more confident in handling the dark times.
I personally feel I used to have quite a good memory, able to remember things I was told without being interested. Now I feel my memory is sharp with those items I find important to remember, but details of random conversations I don’t automatically store anymore. When revisiting those conversations later I find myself noticing I forgot things. I also search for words a bit more often. But it’s hard to recognise the pattern and even harder to trace it to MDMA.
But it is all in line with the impact on memory tasks from academic studies on MDMA users.
Not familiar with the symptoms you noted personally or academically.
My hunch is that damage will be partially temporary and partially permanent. But really it’s just a hunch.
> I think I'd say the same, although it's hard to say if it was 'the greatest experience' (and what that means) or just 'pure bliss' due to the drugs.
This reminds me of something I periodically see about ADHD medicine. There’s some debate about whether it makes you more productive or whether it just makes you feel like you’re more productive.
I’m pretty firmly undecided about whether or not the distinction even matters.
Having recently started low dose Concerta about 3 weeks ago after an ADHD diagnosis at 37, I can’t really say anything directly about productivity yet. What I can say is that, for me, it has made the non-interesting parts of work and life way easier to do: paying bills, keeping the house tidier, sitting in status meetings, carefully reading through project plans and requirements documents, managing unread email, etc. Additionally, I have made exactly zero impulse purchases since starting, which would generally not be the case over a 3 week period.
Many people report feelings of “wearing glasses for the first time” after their first few doses of either amphetamine or methylphenidate. I haven’t had that kind of wow moment yet, but there has definitely been a subtle shift in my behaviour.
I don't think it's at all controversial that it has this effect in the short term.
The questions are:
(1) Is the effect unique to people with ADHD, or does everyone get this focus boost?
(2) Is the effect sustainable over the long term, or are you just building up to an eventual crash where you have to wean yourself off the drugs very painfully.
I don't really have any firm opinions on the answers, but I do think that your first few weeks of experience doesn't count for much.
I absolutely agree that the first few weeks don’t count for much, and am very curious to see how this all pans out in the long term.
What I can contribute to #1 is that, apparently (per my psychiatrist), people who experiment with drugs sometimes discover that drugs like cocaine and amphetamine behave quite differently for them than with non-ADHD people; instead of getting ramped up, they find it calms them down. Of course, with a sufficiently high dose they’ll get ramped up too, but there’s a pronounced, confusing (to the user) dip in the dose response that the people around them don’t seem to experience. I’ve never tried either, so I can’t comment on that first hand.
I did the same with a girlfriend. It was great and memorable, but didn't really bring us any closer together. At least not for me. I'm currently in the best relationship I've had and I don't take any drugs any more (including alcohol).
I had a girlfriend who had mixed feelings and gave it up as well, because at the time she had no way of verifying the purity and suspected she was usually getting a dose of cheap stimulants in addition to or instead of MDMA. The dealbreaker was that after one experience she suddenly developed a severe teeth-grinding problem. It persisted for at least several years afterwards; maybe longer, since I haven't spoken with her about it in a long time.
I was always too cautious to take drugs from unknowable sources, but based on the positive things she said, I'm curious about therapeutic uses of MDMA and would be open to trying it with my therapist, if I had way to be confident in the safety and purity of it. I think the only way I would feel comfortable would be if it came from a pharmaceutical source, so I probably won't be trying it any time soon.
Safety and research is imperative with it. People will buy pills without ever asking their dealer the amounts, and will take them way too often without realizing it.
You can definitely screw yourself up doing it too often, or doing too much at once.
Even if you know the strength just having big amount around is risky - it's very hard to stop until you run out which at some point starts causing damage.
Anecdote time (throwaway account from a regular). From 2017 to early 2021, I was in an on/off relationship with a girl. Every time it ended, it would end up in the next few months of me getting drunk and then abusing her via messages or phone. I am also introvert, depressed and lonely so the abuses could get really bad. She eventually had to block me from all communication except email.
The last time this happened was in early 2021. At that time, one of my friends was about to leave for another country for work. My friend luckily managed to find a dealer. For around 3 months before he left, both of us would have an ecstasy pill each (not pure MDMA) every weekend and party. The abuses stopped and over time I did not feel any more anger towards the girl. Once my friend left, I stopped the ecstasy every week even though I take one every 2-3 months. However, my mental health has improved remarkably and I am now focused on re-skilling myself. I have never been so positive in my life.
I like to think MDMA has given me a second chance in life and it is up to me to make the most of it.
My supposed girlfriend actually enjoyed experimenting with drugs before we met, and occasionally used to do cocaine. I never touched them, even though I drink and smoke. Perhaps if I got the chance to do MDMA with her a couple of times our relationship could have been better. But I will never know.
Same things I'd normally say because I know anonymous posts on the internet are a terrible medium for rational discussion on controversial subjects. I've sworn off arguing anything with anyone on the internet.
More censorship = less content on social media, which is a good thing for humanity.
Me doxing myself in an anonymous forum doesn't make discussion any better if everyone else is anonymous. It just opens me up to real life attacks.
Plus, honestly non-anonymous discussion of controversial subjects might actually be worse. You still get maximally aggressive interpretation, but you actually know each other so you can lose real friends.
Discussing anything on the internet that makes anyone feel emotional is just a bad thing no matter how you do it. That's why I'm completely fine with censoring anyone with violent views I disagree with. Get them off the internet first, then maybe someday everyone else will get off too.
Also I'm aware I'm being a hypocrite right now just by responding here. I'm supposed to be working. Like I said, the internet is just bad and my hypocrisy is proof of it.
I love the internet :)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. This chunk of the thread has some thought provoking responses. You've never opened up a journal or text document and written gleefully knowing no one else could ever read what you wrote?
Does this mean that iMessage evaluates messages as code for some reason? Why on earth would that be the case? It's a foundational security principle to not do that.
And even if they did then why is that so hard to fix?
It’s more like, if you send someone a photo, iMessage will decode the photo and display it. If the imaging library has a bug a maliciously crafted image may be exploitable.
iMessage has more integrations than that too. If you send someone a URL, e.g., the recipient will see a preview of the content.
iMessage does a lot to mitigate the attack surface, but people still get through.
Replacing libjpeg, libpng, h264 & h265 codecs etc. is a gargantuan task. Even if Apple employs another 200 rust programmers (which don't exist in the market – so not possible) it would take years before that project is close to finishing. So intermediate solutions are necessary until then. It is also likely a rewrite would introduce other security issues (not memory safety issues) which would take time to fix.
Rewriting these libraries is probably also a common good, that would be better done through open source initiatives.
There are more than 200 people working on the Rust project itself. Depending on how you define “Rust programmer” there are already companies that employ that number of people individually.
That said you’re not wrong that it’s a gargantuan task that can’t be realistically undertaken, just you’ve really really underestimated the number of Rust developers.
I imagine that iMessage isn't executing the code but the malware is packed into some part of the metadata that some dumb library needs to parse and some sort of buffer overflow attack is accomplished. The library is probably assuming the data is safe to parse.
its not so clear cut. they both tackle the "plans are useless" but the "planning is indispensable" is implicit as anything you do in response to a challenging situation is a plan
The problem is that it gets harder and harder for normal people to own anything (build up wealth), while building wealth is the best retirement startegy there is.
I myself, for example, live in a city where owning the place I live in is just barely getting in reach for me, although I am in the top 30% income bracket of my country. I therefore have to put my savings into the stock market, which is at an all time high. Maybe even a bubble.
It is frustrating to see any income gain that I make being absorbed by the housing market. I work hard while others get unspeakably rich just by owning stuff.
The problem is that it gets harder and harder for normal people to own anything ( build up wealth), while building wealth is the best retirement startegy there is.
This is the problem in a nutshell! It’s impossible for houses to continue to be great “wealth building” vehicles and for them be affordable. Politicians have prioritized the former and that’s how we got where we are.
If we want affordable housing for people to live in they can’t also be the universal investment vehicle. Those two objectives are in direct contradiction.
I've often wondered, with enough knowledge to actually know, what would happen if renting housing was made illegal. I imagine prices would drop precipitously, maybe to a point where everyone can buy?
Marx's analysis is as relevant today as ever. The expansion of capital seeking ever-increasing sources of surplus value has left most of us as nothing more than serfs subject to the whims of landlords.
Perhaps people’s perception of the risk of living in a smaller town is sufficient to merit the risks of higher land prices in some of the wealthiest and most expensive cities in the worlds. Namely the risk of losing your source of income in a small town and the increased probability of higher income/access to opportunities in major cities.
Of course, it is a pendulum, and it is possible people’s perception swings too far towards the small town and the big city and back and forth.
But the Netherlands is small enough that the unaffordable prices in the big cities has pushed most people to the rest of the country basically increasing prices everywhere.
> The problem is that it gets harder and harder for normal people to own anything (build up wealth),
In the US, it is easier than ever. Open a free account online at a number of brokerages, and buy some broad market low cost equity index ETF.
The problem is government subsidies for real estate. Get rid of federal taxpayer guaranteed mortgages (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, ginnie mae). Get rid of 1031 exchanges. Let the markets set the interest rate and do its own risk calculations.
See similar price distortions due to federal taxpayer guaranteed student loans.
All of this is unlikely, however, since the US and many other societies have baked in burgeoning economic growth for decades to come in their previous decades’ spending. Therefore, to avoid defaulting on these assumptions, the societies will keep inflating currency to keep the ruse going as long as possible.
It's just that most people would prefer owning a house over owning stocks.
Because when the economy tanks and you lose your job, you have to sell your stocks at the low point to make rent. When you own your house, losing your job still sucks, but at least you still have a home. Thats also the reason why the low interest rates, although nice for homebuyers, also aren't a great levy of the situation: I have to pay back the credit for my house over 40 years, I have the same risk of losing everything in a downturn. You can't make the credit payment and are forced to sell your home at the market low.
Maybe I'm just traumatized. When I left school, 2008 economy crash was in full swing, two years after leaving Uni and in my first job, Corona happened.
On the topic of price distortions through government influenced loan rates: I think what you say makes sense.
I do not understand your comment, as it started off sounding like there was a downside of renting vs owning, but then later on in the paragraph, you say that the risks of not being able to pay rent and not being able to pay a mortgage result in the same consequences during an economic downturn.
> Because when the economy tanks and you lose your job, you have to sell your stocks at the low point to make rent.
You should have an emergency fund so that you do not have to sell at the low point. I try to keep at least 24 months of expenses.
In the US, the government also offers a federal taxpayer subsidy in the form of lending people money with no money down or 5% down or some ridiculous scheme advertised as helping lower income people. On the contrary, this simply increases home prices and over leverages them since they will barely make monthly payments and any hiccup will derail them.
I do think renting has a downside compared to owning, but that due to the high prices and resulting very long timespans of paying back credits, buying is getting riskier.
Owning has lower risk than renting, but you have to buy to own and when you can't buy outright, then there is a phase where you are still exposed to a risk of losing your home.
And keeping 24 months of expense is a good idea, but if I want to buy a house, I want to put down as much as possible. 24 months of expenses is about 80% of my savings. And the majority of people do not have any kind of savings at all.
A lot of these investors are 50+ year olds who've benefited from tremendous unearned wealth from their primary residence.
When you own outright your main house and have paid effectively no rent or mortgage payments for decades, that surplus income makes buying a second investment property, even at today's prices, relatively easy. The extra money and demand entering the market pushes prices up.
Then the renting tenants have to pay an ever increasing share of their income in rent. They never build up capital, and so can never afford to buy anywhere.
This is a societal problem - home ownership means stability (to have children), commitment to an area, a willingness to invest time into improving it. When you can be cast on to the streets with a few months notice at your landlords whim, you have none of that.
It affects the housing market very negatively. These are houses that could've been bought by families and couples and so on. Instead of being available for purchase, the same people have now have to rent instead of buy.
House prices rise, rent increases, common folk are struggling, investors are getting rich without doing anything.
The fact that those cities are so expensive is exactly the problem. Those cities are healthier if they have a healthy mix of different population groups. I live in Amsterdam and would hate to see it become a rich people's ghetto, though it's definitely at risk of that happening. Maybe it already is.
Where are the people who work in those cities supposed to live? Are they expected to commute an hour a day, diminishing their earning potential and increasing their expenses? People in the wealthiest cities also tend to have access to more resources, due to the concentration and diversity of the population. Denying low and middle income families access also diminishes their potential, while diminishing the potential of cities through the reduction of diversity.
At best, this sounds an argument to hold people back. At worse, it sound like an argument to push people down.
The problem is that in a globalized world, dutch homes are more attractive than, say, homes in Cairo or Sao Paulo. Investors moving money in means that home prices are no longer correlated with the local economy. A salary is no longer what determine the rent or the mortgage but rather "global" appeal to that place.
The problem is that these investors have raised rents nationally to a point where there is no affordable housing outside of social housing (8-15+ year wait lists). And this happened in a very short time period. If I'd want a 60-80m2 apartment in the city I currently live, I'd have to pay 1000-1200+ Euro for that; three to four years ago, that would have been half. Just over the border in Germany the same apartment goes for 350-500 Euros (NRW to be specific). The housing market here feels beyond crazy. Real estate prices themselves are also exploding +10%~ month over month
Germany has much better tenant and rental market protection. Real estate prices are rising rapidly, but supply does seem to keep up with demand when it comes down to renting. Population density in Germany also is only half that of the Netherlands (240 vs 508 per km2), so that also helps. If you're priced out somewhere, you always have the option to move somewhere else. In the Netherlands you don't have much of a option right now when it comes down to renting (and mostly buying as well).
It sold social housing and stopped building more of it. If you had asked about real estate 10 years ago you'd hear about how Germany solved the housing problem.
From my experience, the size and type of investor seem to be a factor. I have rented my entire adult life since it has some advantages (notably mobility), yet have always rented from homeowners or small-time investors. They tend to place more emphasis upon keeping their units rented and keeping good renters. Except for moving, I have only seen my rent increase once. It was a small increase and I lived in that place for many years.
Contrast that to people who have lived in places with large property managers. The rent increase is automatic, even with better renters than I. I have heard substantiated stories of rent doubling. Now those renters may have been bad apples and the property manager may have been using it as a tool for eviction, but that is still a problem. It is a problem since it is used a means to bypass tenant protections. Those protections are necessary to provide housing stability.
My apologies for the rant. In principle, I have nothing against investment. That said: the excessive greed of some investors, the ones that effectively push people down or out to achieve ... well, I don't know what some people are trying to achieve beyond a certain point ... is turning me away from that principle.
Market investment, ie. where little new value is added, is gambling dressed up to look respectable. It's all about getting something for nothing which is the root cause of all our economic ills.
I try to be careful with how I think about these things, so I don't go off the deep end. In my mind, investment is the adding of value while trading does not add value. Both are gambling on the outcome, but investment tries to direct the outcome while trading tries to predict the outcome.
In the context of housing, investment may look like a renovation to improve desirability or replacing a small number of units with a larger number of units. In contrast, trading would involve maintaining the status quo in hopes that the desirability of a neighbourhood or relative scarcity would increase the value of a property.
That being said, I don't know how you would create a system of investment that doesn't create an environment for speculative trading. In would be difficult to encourage the former without a means of selling off the investment at a later date. Reducing the frequency of trading wouldn't help in the case of housing since those are long term investments to start with.
Literally Whataboutism. Don’t take the irrelevant bait.