this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
62 points (97.0% liked)

Asklemmy

49861 readers
679 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Starting off--ink jet printers

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 71 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

Diamonds. Anyone who has tried to sell jewelry will tell you: gold retains value but the money you get for diamonds is abysmal. Which is why I urge everyone to buy synthetic diamonds. In many cases they look purer than natural diamonds, are free of conflict, and hold just as much sentimental value.

[–] NKBTN@feddit.uk 9 points 3 days ago

The only reason they're expensive is artificial scarcity. De Beers only let a limited supply on the market each year. Diamonds themselves really aren't that rare at all

[–] floo@retrolemmy.com 26 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Moissanite is also very lovely

[–] overload@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

A moissanite is an artificial diamond, Lincoln. It's Mickey Mouse, mate. Spurious. Not genuine. And it's worth.. FUCK all.

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 days ago

iunderstoodthatreference.gif

[–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They don't just look purer, they are purer!

The problem is that rich people have been fleeced by diamond sellers for so long that they over value the "story" of a diamond (IE, carbon forged into a diamond over millennia etc etc. as a symbol for love blah blah).

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Which come from extinct volcanoes, super romantic!

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 67 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (12 children)

Cars. Cars are stupidly called an asset, and I guess they retain some value, but not really. It loses 50% of it's value the second you drive it off a lot and continues depreciating the longer you own it. It requires maintenance and gas, tags, insurance. It's a liability. If you need one, then purchase it knowing that you are purchasing an item. A car is never an investment.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 51 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Bruh I wished cars lost 50% of their value when they drove off the lot. Have you tried to buy a used car recently?

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I still wouldn’t call a car an “investment” or anything, but 100% agreed. The whole “cars lose 50% of their value when you drive off the lot” thing might have been true before the Cash for Clunkers program, but it isn’t anymore. Or maybe it’s true if you’re trying to trade-in the vehicle.

If I wanted to buy the (fairly popular) car I’ve been driving for over 6 years with the same mileage, it’d cost me over 2/3rds what it cost new When I bought it, new cars were less expensive than used cars (i.e., like less than two years old with less than 25k miles) thanks to how much better the interest rates were on the loans. A couple years later, I was getting offers for more than I paid for it. And none of that is a unique experience.

I went with a friend to look at used cars at CarMax. They had a 1 year old Subaru that was going for only $1k less than a brand new one.

I know CarMax is shitty and expensive. But that was even more ridiculous than I was expecting.

[–] GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 11 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The trick is to buy a 25 year old car in good condition, and then store it in a dry place under a tarp for at least 10 more years.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Assets and investments are not the same. End thread

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And I argue that they should be considered neither

[–] huquad@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Is your argument that an asset doesn't (or shouldn't) depreciate?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago

I bought a 2015 Mitsubishi in 2018 for like 12k USD and it’s worth more now than when I got it.

That’s not usual though, it’s because of COVID. And the fact that somehow it’s fully loaded and low mileage for that price—I think that might have been a mistake.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Maybe if you buy a Kia. Most cars barely depreciate in the first 3 years. Once leases turn in they drop a bit, but still not to 50% of their value. Shit during the pandemic my 3 year old car was worth more than what I bought it for. Things have improved, but they’re not to pre pandemic pricing.

Kia’s and Hyundais also aren’t depreciating as badly as they used to. But they’re still pretty bad, only being rivaled by the high end luxury cars.

Fine maybe not 50% immediately. I just ran the numbers and a Ford F150 purchased 2 years ago for 42k would today be worth (max) 30k. I wouldn't exactly call that an investment, or an asset even. I would definitely call the loss of 12k in value depreciation.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago

I see a crapton of Kias in northern Maine. No idea if that is even slightly relevant.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Iamsqueegee@sh.itjust.works 49 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Vegetables. Purchased with all the intent of eating them before they go bad. I don’t eat them quickly enough and they go bad. There’s no in between stage. They were edible and now they are not.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

The struggle is real

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Vehicles. They break down and rust but are priced like a new home when they are new.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 4 days ago

Vehicles are durable goods but hard to call them an asset either unless it is a collectible type thing

[–] SGforce@lemmy.ca 20 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Among vehicles, boats and RVs are notorious

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago

It is wild to me that anyone would call those things assets.

They are toys.

Wonderful toys, but still toys.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 8 points 4 days ago

Calling a consumer product product an "asset" is some gymnastics...

Up there when you are calling primary residence an investment lol

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

A majority stake in Twitter.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

He wasn't buying twitter, he was buying the presidency and it worked.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] Delphia@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

99.999% of used sex toys by owner absolutely.

That 0.001%... massive increase in value.

I guarantee you theres a guy out there who would bankrupt his family for something thats been in Keira Knightley.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Bad Dragon dildos can be resold for 80+% of their normal value. Cleaned and boiled, not just used ones to pervs!

[–] burrito@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Can confirm. I've bought and sold tons of Bad Dragon and other high quality sex toys on used markets.

[–] DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz 3 points 4 days ago

Could go either way depending on the seller.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Storage (tech), bike tires, many consumable parts. Almost all digital goods, too.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Eh Diamond is okay, as long as it's artifical. Better clarity and color, not contributing to the blood diamond trade, and a fraction of the price.

That being said, there are a ton of other prettier gems anyway, diamonds are boring as fuck.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago

Anything tech. It'll be obsolete before you know it. Some products go "obsolete" before it's actually too old to be usable because the company wants you to buy the new one.

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 10 points 4 days ago
[–] Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

Men's underwear.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

really small rocks

[–] Soapbox@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

DSLR / Mirrorless camera bodies.

Lenses less so, until the manufacturer switches mounts.

[–] s3rvant@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago

Board games :(

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 0_0j@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Gentlemen, there are Facts, and there are Opinions.

you HAVE to know a difference between them for your own goodness sake.

facts are always backed by numbers, while opinions are given based on feelings, word of mouth (which is often NOT based on numbers)

FACT is, and asset lands cash directly into your pockets (after deducting all the bills for operating the asset). If not, that's a liability.

BASED ON ABOVE:

  1. you can call anything an asset, even your bed; so long as numbers tell you so.

  2. You can make anything an asset if you are an excellent salesman.

NB: yes, companies like Samsung make the new device obsolete when they launch new lineups. But you don't see BestBuy or Microcenter throwing the just-obsolete devices out of the stores.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

facts are always backed by numbers*

9/10 bolded statements are true.

* this fact isn't backed by numbers

load more comments
view more: next ›