I love when people try to explain financial concepts in ways that are understandable to a wider audience, but I feel like this piece misses explaining the _why_

I love when people try to explain financial concepts in ways that are understandable to a wider audience, but I feel like this piece misses explaining the _why_ behind any of this. One basic piece of information that is missing, for example, is explaining the difference between a car and a house. The land that a house sits on can appreciate over time, whereas cars will always depreciate over time. One can make money, the other will lose money. A lot of people need a car in the US, and both Sam and Mark have one in this article. It doesn't explain why an expensive car is a worse investment than an inexpensive one, and it is because it loses a more value per year than a more affordable car. it doesn't go into the nuances between leasing and owning, either. I feel like explaining how to use debt to secure future cash flow would need to build on top of those fundamentals, and it feels out of place in this piece without them.