Yes

The benefit of the ability to borrow against it comes from being able to take part in other investment opportunities. Someone has a company they are starting, you can take a mortgage to invest in it and a year later potentially pay off the mortgage (depending on the size) and it can be empty or not. There are other financial vehicles that have a similar pattern. Even taking a mortgage on a property to take advantage of stock shorting or w/e.

Safe is the point. At least in the US, property taxes are substantially cheaper than anything you could do with liquidity, plus you can tap into the value partially or wholly without actually incuring much risk, or even taking that long. Owning property allows you to have collateral for loans and other financial investments which have larger yields, but require something up front. It is entirely possible to get a loan against a house for an investment, then pay it off with the yield of a previous investment so you don’t have interest accruing. As long as you are savvy and intelligent with the investments, it is reasonably sustainable, especially if you are profiting off the property anyway. Who cares about an extra loan payment if you aren’t the one paying it.

Yes, that is why the whole argument is a fallacy. I am all for eating the rich and taking down the corporations, but this one is off base. The “in the raw” generally means it is A. Made from sugarcane not sugar beats, and B. Unbleached.

Modern inflation is roughly a myth used in fear mongering propaganda and by apologists to excuse abusive behaviors. I’m not saying that there is no inflation, it exists and functions as an economic principal, but what is called inflation is decoupled entirely from the academic definition. Under academic inflation, a business who did not change prices should see a reduction in overall value, and price increases should even out to a neutral state where the value remains constant. If you ever hear “inflation” being used to excuse a price increase or a shrinkflation behavior and the company starts boasting about how much profit they are makeing or they start executing stock buybacks or give larger bonuses to executives, they are lying. Inflation had nothing to do with it. Also, if inflation is really the cause, when deflation occurs, prices should reduce to maintain the valuation, but again, it rarely if ever does.

Everything you said specifically excludes Valve and Steam from being a monopoly. The definition of monopoly includes the anticompetitive behaviors. They don’t give a fuck about competition. They don’t buy up everyone who could be a threat. They don’t push for exclusivity contracts on big upcoming games. They exist and work to continue to do so. That is how business is supposed to be.

I love dreaming up patent law reforms. I think my favorite so far is related to the purchase of patents.

When a corporation purchases a patent, they are put on a 5 year clock to bring a product to market which materially includes the content of the purchased patent. After 4 years they are able to appeal for an extension by showing demonstrable towards market, but only twice (so they have 15 years total). If they do not bring a product to market, or are not able to satisfy the extension criteria, the patent reverts to the original creator without refund.

No… More… Burying… Innovation… That… Threatens… Your… Profits.