Backgroound Image

Category: Serious Stuff

AI, why is residential real estate in Japan seen as a depreciating asset rather than a good investment?

Posted on by Roshinka

(here I am attempting to compel AI to compare Japan to North America. Unfortunately, once we hit Toronto, the LLM collapsed. So we’ll stay in Japan for now. If I need to cross-examine an LLM, then there better be someone to object to my questions… No really, I don’t have to do research before interrogating an LLM. It defeats the purpose.)

Residential real estate in Japan is often seen as a depreciating asset due to a combination of cultural, economic, and governmental factors.Historically, Japanese homes are built with the expectation that they will depreciate significantly over time, with an average lifespan of around 27 to 30 years for wooden houses and longer for concrete buildings.

One key reason is the cultural mindset that emphasizes the impermanence of buildings, influenced by Buddhist notions of ephemerality and the concept of mono no aware, which is a sense of the sadness of things due to impermanence.This cultural perspective has led to a practice where homeowners often demolish and rebuild their homes rather than maintaining and renovating them.

Additionally, Japanese tax laws treat land and buildings separately, allowing buildings to depreciate rapidly for tax purposes.This system favors new constructions and can lead to a cycle of demolition and rebuilding, as it provides tax benefits for new buildings.The depreciation rate of structures in Japan is estimated to be around 6% for housing and 10% for commercial structures.

Furthermore, the government’s post-World War II policies aimed to encourage rapid rebuilding and technological advancement, which included tax incentives and low-interest loans for new constructions.These policies have contributed to a market where new constructions are favored over maintaining older buildings.

In summary, the perception of Japanese residential real estate as a depreciating asset is deeply rooted incultural attitudes, tax policies, and economic incentives that favor new construction over renovation and maintenance.

Follow-up: but isn’t real estate a depreciating asset anyway, regardless of culture? 

Real estate depreciation rates vary significantly across different countries and property types. For instance, in Japan, the depreciation rate for housing is approximately 6%, while for commercial structures, it is around 10%.In contrast, the depreciation rate for U.S. housing is much lower, at about 1%.

These differences in depreciation rates can impact investment decisions and returns. For example, higher depreciation rates can decrease capital gains from real estate investment but increase income returns, as demonstrated by Poterba (1984).Additionally, the depreciation rate of real estate varies based on factors such as the value share of structures, city size, location within a city, building age, and density.

In the context of global real estate, the total value of real estate is more than the combined value of global equities and bond markets, and is almost four times the size of global GDP.Residential property accounts for just over three-quarters of the total value, with commercial and agricultural land making up the remaining portions.

The depreciation of real estate also has implications for the global economy, particularly in the context of currency fluctuations. For example, a weaker U.S. dollar can make U.S. real estate more attractive to foreign investors, potentially leading to higher real estate prices in prime locations.However, it can also result in higher interest rates, which may decrease demand and affect property values.

Understanding these global variations and their economic impacts is crucial for investors and policymakers in making informed decisions about real estate investments and financial planning.

 

AI, Can US judges interfere with presidential executive power? I always thought the judiciary is there to keep the executive in check. Am I wrong?

Posted on by Roshinka

According to Article III of the US constitution, federal judges have the authority to rule on cases involving the president and other branches of government, known as judicial review.

Key points to consider:

  • The US constitution confers a power known as judicial review, which gives federal judges the authority to rule on cases involving the president and other branches of government. 

  • Federal judges have temporarily blocked several of President Trump’s executive orders, including those related to birthright citizenship, transgender female inmates, and federal worker resignations.

  • The Trump administration has been accused of threatening the US constitution and ignoring court decisions that it does not like

  • Legal experts argue that the judiciary has a crucial role in ensuring the executive branch follows the law and that ignoring court decisions would be a threat to the rule of law

Follow-up: Can the judiciary interfere ex parte with presidential executive power?

Judiciary and Presidential Power

The judiciary can interfere with presidential executive power under certain circumstances. In the case of United States v. Nixon in 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that the president is not above the law and that executive privilege does not shield the president from providing evidence in a criminal investigation.This decision established that the judiciary has the authority to review and potentially limit the exercise of executive power when it interferes with the judicial process.

Courts generally do not create private rights of action based on executive orders unless the President intended to create a justiciable right. However, when executive orders are derived from congressional statutes, courts might look to the original statute to determine if Congress intended to empower the judiciary to enforce any rules established by executive order.

In summary, while the judiciary respects the separation of powers, it can intervene when necessary to ensure that executive actions do not infringe upon the judicial process or violate the law.

Follow-up (2nd): You don’t seem to address the ex-parte nature of the judicial order. Please address specifically the validity of an EX PARTE order interfering with presidential executive power. 

An ex parte order, which is a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party, does not inherently interfere with presidential executive power.However, if an ex parte order improperly restricts or limits executive actions, it could be seen as interfering with the president’s authority. The president’s executive orders must still comply with constitutional and legal frameworks, and any order that violates these principles can be challenged and potentially invalidated by the courts.

Therefore, an ex parte order that is deemed to be interfering with or exceeding the jurisdiction of presidential executive powerwould be subject to legal scrutiny and could be invalidated if found to be unlawful.

Follow-up (3d) What has SCOTUS said in the matter of ex parte judiciary orders interfering with a sitting president’s executive power

Nothing yet. 

Follow-up (4th) Is immigration within the jurisdiction of presidential executive power?

Yes, immigration is within the jurisdiction of presidential executive power. The President, as head of the federal executive branch, has the authority to enforce the immigration laws of the United States and can adopt temporary, discretionary measures to curtail deportations.This power is derived from Congress delegating broad authority to the Executive Branch, which allows the President to make significant decisions regarding immigration enforcement and policy.

For example, the President can issue Executive Orders that affect immigration, such as the one issued on June 17, 2024, which requires noncitizens to have resided in the United States for 10 or more years and be legally married to a U.S. citizen to be eligible for certain protections.

However, the President’s power is not absolute. Executive Orders cannot violate the Constitution, and Congress can override them by passing new legislation, subject to a presidential veto.Additionally, the courts may overturn unauthorized executive decisions that fall outside the scope of the authority granted by Congress.

In summary, whilethe President has significant discretion in immigration matters,this power is subject to limitations imposed by Congress and judicial oversight.

Follow-up (5th): So, how does the birthright-citizenship-order violate the constitution? Most countries do not recognize birthright citizenship anyway. 

The birthright citizenship order issued by President Donald Trump has been blocked by a third federal judge, who ruled that it violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.According to ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy, the order is a “fundamental attack on the Constitution” as it seeks to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, which is guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.The clause states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” , and the Supreme Court has previously ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that this clause guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

  • 14th Amendment: The amendment guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof 

  • Citizenship Clause: The clause states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside 

  • United States v. Wong Kim Ark: The Supreme Court case confirmed that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status

Follow-up (6th): When was the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment created?

The 14th Amendment was created onJune 13, 1866, when the House approved a Senate-proposed version of the amendment, sending it to the states for approval.It was ratified on July 9, 1868, becoming a constitutional cornerstone.

The  in the 14th Amendment was created and adopted onJuly 9, 1868, during the Reconstruction period following the Civil War.

How can Canada stop illegal migration to the USA, when US activists and lawyers are actively aiding and abetting cartels and illegal migration to the usa?

Posted on by Roshinka

AI couldn’t answer this question, so I’m on my own here. 

Update: AI referred me to previous answers regarding Canadian banks laundering fentanyl money for cartels. Ok, now I get it. 

I retrieved these past posts from my trash-bin, to provide reference. I will trash them again once I feel that the issue is being handled appropriately, or I may take them down, just because I feel like it, out of pure caprice… Nothing is forever. Don’t get attached. This is hell after all.

From the provided answers I realize that US activists and lawyers help the cartels to conduct human trafficking once the migrants are on US territory, but various incorporated entities and banks are collaborating with human and fentanyl trafficking from Canada, and likely all these collaborate through NGOs and humanitarian aid foundations. 

So illegal migration and fentanyl appear to be complex transnational operations facilitated by countless corporations, foundations, banks, professionals and activists in the USA, Canada, and Mexico. Given the international nature of these operations, NGOs and other UN bodies are serving as intermediaries to whitewash all this organized crime. 

So being on my own here, I would say that if I were in charge (which I am obviously not or this shit wouldn’t be happening) I would address the money laundering provisions shielding Canadian lawyers’ organized crime clients, this to my knowledge being the biggest vulnerability. Banks have been unable to stop laundering due to the many loopholes that I’m sure also exist in the US regarding trust accounts.

In sum the world is effed. Organized crime will always win. There is zero point to bother. 

AI, I still don’t understand why activists are allowed to obstruct ICE agents, and to aid and abet Tren de Aragua to help them avoid the consequences of law enforcement

Posted on by Roshinka

(I can’t believe I had to ask, I don’t understand why US activists keep getting away with aiding and abetting organized crime, no less cartels and Tren de Aragua. I don’t understand anything anymore. Until this shit clears, I am taking a distance and dissociating from all and any activists and NGO’s)

ICE Raids Tren de Aragua Activists

Activists obstructing ICE and aiding Tren de Aragua to avoid law enforcement is a complex issue.According to Tom Homan, the US border czar, activist groups are crossing the line from protesting to impeding federal law enforcement operations.He stated that he is working with the Department of Justice to determine when these groups cross this line and vowed to prosecute those who obstruct ICE’s efforts.Homan emphasized that interfering with ICE operations puts their officers and the aliens at great risk.In a recent incident, protesters in Aurora taunted ICE and advised illegal alien criminals on dodging federal agents.Some protesters even used megaphones to give instructions on how to evade ICE agents.The situation is further complicated by the fact that some cities, like Denver, have sanctuary policies that can act as a magnet for illegal aliens.Homan has made it clear that he will not tolerate obstruction and will seek prosecution.

ICE Obstruction Meaning

Encouraging obstruction of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is illegal because obstruction of justice is a serious offense under the law. Obstruction of justice can include knowingly lying to the police, tampering with evidence, or physically barring law enforcement from entering a building even when they have a proper search warrant.Encouraging someone to obstruct ICE would fall under aiding and abetting, which is also illegal. It is important to stay within the bounds of the law to avoid criminal charges and to respect the legal process.

When interacting with ICE, it is important to remain calm and not resist or obstruct officers. You should never lie or provide false documents, but you also do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings without probable cause or a warrant.If you are concerned about your rights, it is advisable to consult with a lawyer to understand your legal options and protections.

If you are approached by ICE, you have the right to remain silent and to ask for a lawyer.You should not sign any documents without legal advice, as ICE might ask you to sign forms agreeing to deportation without first seeing a judge. If you are detained, you can ask for a list of free or low-cost legal alternatives to help you fight deportation.

Tren de Aragua Activists

As of February 10, 2025, there is no information available in the provided context about activists helping the Tren de Aragua not being arrested for obstruction of justice. The context primarily discusses the reality of the Tren de Aragua gang, despite denials from open-borders Democrats, and the recent ICE raid that proved their existence.Additionally, it mentions the deportation of Tren de Aragua gang members to Guantanamo Bay, with 10 members being among the first group of migrant criminals sent there.

Cartels vs ICE Climate of Fear

The climate of fear surrounding ICE agents is a significant concern for activists, but it is also important to acknowledge thatcartels create a worse climate of fear among migrants.Cartels have been known to kidnap and extort migrants, forcing them to pay for their release, and in some cases, migrants are held as insurance until payment is made. The cartels’ control over the flow of migrants is strict, and they dictate who can pass through and who cannot, often in front of authorities. This has led to a lucrative business for the cartels, with migrants becoming a valuable commodity.The violence generated by the struggle between cartels, such as the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartels, has also become an obstacle for organizations trying to help migrants.Furthermore, the involvement of corrupt law enforcement officers from CBP, ICE, and other agencies has allowed cartels to operate with relative impunity.The situation is complex, and both ICE agents and cartels contribute to the climate of fear, but the cartels’ actions have a more direct and devastating impact on migrants.

Follow-up: Given that migrants seem to be controlled by cartels, why are activists obstructing ICE agents from doing their jobs?

Cartel Control of Migrants

Migrants are indeed largely controlled by cartels, with Chief Patrol Agent Joel Martinez stating that it’s all controlled by them.The cartels wield significant influence over the Southwest border, and their control extends to the treatment of migrants as commodities, with Deputy Chief Patrol Agent Dustin Caudle noting that they are treated as a number.Given this context, it is puzzling that activists are obstructing ICE agents from doing their jobs, as ICE’s primary focus is on securing the nation’s borders and safeguarding the integrity of the immigration system.ICE agents are committed to arresting only migrants who have been charged with crimes since they have been in the US, or who have a proven criminal history elsewhere.However, local activists, legislators, and school administrators in Illinois have been coaching migrants, including criminals, on their rights and how to evade ICE agents, which can be seen as obstructing ICE’s efforts to enforce immigration laws and protect national security. This obstruction is particularly concerning in sanctuary cities like Chicago, where local law enforcement is ordered not to help ICE agents, making it challenging for them to identify and apprehend criminal migrants. As Terry Newsome, a local activist, acknowledges, ICE agents are doing a great job, but their efforts are being hindered by the lack of cooperation from local authorities and activists.