Scarcity. FOMO. Scott Galloway is right. In this recent post, he talks about why humans are programmed to chase scarcity and why blockchains (specifically NFTs) could represent something incredibly meaningful for not just the art world but for many other asset classes. Here's an excerpt from the post:

People like scarcity — a lot. Owning something scarce makes one feel unique, and signals success and worthiness as a potential mate. Scarcity is also an instinctual trigger for obsession — when we sense a scarcity of something, be it food or a mate, we are programmed to become obsessed with finding it. Art auctions, the (pre-pandemic) lines outside Supreme, and the margins on a Panerai Tourbillon prove this point.

A Van Gogh and a Rothko are both unique, and therefore scarce, because they are made of atoms, and it is impossible to arrange a second set of atoms in an identical configuration. Print artists, whose lithographs are made to be reproduced without alteration, use a small "17/100" written in the corner, to distinguish each print and bestow scarcity upon it.

To hold value, scarcity must be credible. The dirty (not-so) secret of the art world is that art buyers, and even professional art appraisers, struggle to discern originals from forgeries. A well-made forgery provides the same practical value as an original — you can hang it on your wall and bask in its profundity. Yet the art world invests millions of dollars in identifying the "real" version of valuable works; once unmasked, forgeries are nearly worthless.

I have always found this fascinating about art (but really, it applies to most other things). Is the price you pay so that you can "bask in its profundity" or because the object in question signifies something -- it tells a story? In addition to scarcity, we also obsess over stories. They help create meaning for us.

The interesting thing about all of this is that it's really just a question of perception. When a work of art is discovered to be a fake that is, indeed, detrimental to value. But what changed? The art itself hasn't changed. We just no longer enjoy it and derive as much value from it because the story is not what we thought it was.

Professor Scott Galloway's recent post called "The Algebra of Wealth" makes the argument that there are four key factors in the creation of wealth: focus, stoicism, time, and diversification. Some of you may argue with his points around diversification. I've heard Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger say before that diversification is really just admitting that you have no idea what the hell you're doing. Because if you did, you wouldn't need diversification to protect you.

That said, I like a lot of the points that Galloway makes on his blog. For one, he calls bullshit on the age-old advice that you should just "follow your passion." Finding something you love to do is important and ideal. I feel incredibly fortunate that I found something (there were pivots) that I want to be my life's work. But that doesn't mean that I didn't and that I don't think about money. As I've said before, I never understood why money is often a taboo topic in architecture schools.

Galloway also takes a stab at defining, what is rich?

"I know a lot of people who make an extraordinary amount of money, but few people who are rich. Rich is having passive income greater than your burn. People on a path to money focus on their earnings; people on a path to wealth also focus on their burn. Joseph Heller said, "It takes brains not to make money." (Note: I think he was casting a favorable light on his starving artist friends). This may be true, but it definitely takes brains to hold onto it (i.e., money)."

"My father receives $48,000 per year from Social Security and his Royal Navy pension (he was a frogman). He spends $40,000, and it’s enough to make him happy. He swims every day, watches a shit-ton of hockey (Leafs fan), and on Fridays goes to The Taco Stand (an actual restaurant in La Jolla) where he orders something called a michelada. (Apparently it’s medicine delivered in a chilled salt-rimmed glass — he claims his hair is regrowing and that he’s sleeping better. I believe half of that so … I believe it.) Anyway, it’s not your income, but your income-to-expense ratio, that determines if you’re rich."

When I was growing up, my dad used to always tell me that it doesn't matter how much money you make, it matters what you do with the money that you make. That is another way of saying, focus on your income-to-expense ratio. Spend less than you make and be strategic with what's leftover. This is a good principle to follow for real estate as well. As a rule, it's generally a good thing when your revenue is greater than your operating expenses and your NOI is positive.

But there's another important message in Galloway's excerpt: you don't necessarily need a lot to be happy. (Sign me up for The Taco Stand on Fridays!) And if you're in position where your passive income is greater than your burn, then you also have something called freedom.

For Scott Galloway's full post about The Algebra of Wealth, click here.

It’s that time of year again. It’s time to make predictions for the upcoming year and time to look back on the ones we all got wrong from a year prior. I don’t recall many people (if any) predicting that a pandemic would cripple the global economy.

I like how Scott Galloway put it in his 2021 predictions post. It’s obviously better to be right than wrong, but it’s okay to be wrong. The value in writing down your thoughts is that it forces you to think. It’s the reasoning that matters. (It’s one of the reasons why some people write blogs.)

A key theme in Galloway’s predictions post is something that he calls “The Great Dispersion.” This involves two things: (1) The physical distribution of products and services over wider areas and (2) the bypassing of gatekeepers and other intermediaries (which is something the internet has always been good at).

You could interpret this as being directly antithetical to cities. Urbanism, after all, is all about agglomerations. But I think it’s more nuanced that that. Cities have generally always had both centralizing and decentralizing forces. The two can co-exist.

I will get into this in more detail in my own 2021 predictions post. But in the mean time, I would encourage you check out what Scott Galloway recently published, over here. And if any of you have any thoughts about what’s in store for us in 2021, please leave a comment below.

Don’t worry, it’s okay if you’re not right.