[FredPret]

Money is more like mercury and less like gold: dynamic and quick rather than solid and permanent.

It doesn’t “land” anywhere. Landlords spend it and invest it. When they invest it it goes to some business who then spends it.

If the landlords are rich enough, they may consider wildly risky invesments like tech startups.

If there’s enough rich people investing in businesses - not just tech startups - you end up with a thick ecosystem of companies and thus US-level wages.

[Rinzler89]

That's nice theory from someone working in the tech sector, but that rubber never hits the road in practice in the real world, where the higher rents we're paying here don't magically translate into more tech investments.

You need some high quality hopium to actually believe that would happen. Making my landlords wealthier hasn't resulted in any benefits to any society I know.

[FredPret]

You don't seem open to being persuaded by facts contrary to your current framework so I'll stop here.

But if you study the economic history of the richest places on your own time, you'll see that private capital formation always played a critical role.

[Rinzler89]

Maybe if you provided some of those "facts" people would be more persuaded.

[JetSpiegel]

> you'll see that private capital formation always played a critical role

Portugal's previous economic successes have always been state-adjacent, as every single other place on Earth: CUF had state monopolies, EDP, PT (state monopolies), TAP (state owned). Just like Silicon Valley, there's nothing private about takin money or privileges from the state and selling it as "hard work".