38 ms·

So, moving the goalposts your new position is that houses depreciate over geological timescales? Got it. Instead of posting here, why not take your fantastic

So, moving the goalposts your new position is that houses depreciate over geological timescales? Got it. Instead of posting here, why not take your fantastic housing model (they depereciate) and go buy homes. you can show up at their house with your spreadsheeet and show them how you applied an appropriate depreciation factor and now they should sell the house because this is the fair market value. You can also explain to everyone how over longer times scales houses almost always appreciate. If you look at the SP500 for a week it may go down, but over a decade it is almost always positive. Houses are the same, so where exactly is the depreciation you speak of? Again, using your theory of depreciation and long time scales. From the linnk i sent you: "W. B. Yeats so much that he purchased it for £35 around 1917. From then on it became known as the Yeats’ Tower." What is the current value of this house, after factoring in your depreciation factors?

worik 4y ago
> Instead of posting here, why not take your fantastic housing model (they depereciate) and go buy homes. It is often true that the old house on a piece of valuable land would cost more to repair than it would cost to build a new house on that land. Often enough the added cost of removing the old house (the use of asbestos in the past often vastly increases that cost) added on top of everything means that the land itself can loose its value. We see this a lot with old industrial sites, but it happens to residential buildings too. As for "timescales", do not be mean. The time-scale for depreciation of a car that is in use is measured in seconds New cars loose a third (? I know more about property than cars?) of their value when driven off the lot. Houses take a bit longer, but not "geological time-scales"
MichaelZuo 4y ago
This is starting to sound like a lame attempt at trolling, or an auto-generated text. If you genuinely cannot understand that the concepts of depreciation, wear and tear, etc., can exist side by side with the concept of appreciation of the underlying land value, then I recommend you do some reading before engaging in conversations on HN that simply discredit yourself. In any case, since the last reply seems to not make any coherent points at all, I won't try to deduce if there's any further meaning.

worik 4y ago

> Instead of posting here, why not take your fantastic housing model (they depereciate) and go buy homes. It is often true that the old house on a piece of valuable land would cost more to repair than it would cost to build a new house on that land. Often enough the added cost of removing the old house (the use of asbestos in the past often vastly increases that cost) added on top of everything means that the land itself can loose its value. We see this a lot with old industrial sites, but it happens to residential buildings too. As for "timescales", do not be mean. The time-scale for depreciation of a car that is in use is measured in seconds New cars loose a third (? I know more about property than cars?) of their value when driven off the lot. Houses take a bit longer, but not "geological time-scales"

MichaelZuo 4y ago

This is starting to sound like a lame attempt at trolling, or an auto-generated text. If you genuinely cannot understand that the concepts of depreciation, wear and tear, etc., can exist side by side with the concept of appreciation of the underlying land value, then I recommend you do some reading before engaging in conversations on HN that simply discredit yourself. In any case, since the last reply seems to not make any coherent points at all, I won't try to deduce if there's any further meaning.