3 ms·
That would only be a true analogy if I rented a car for 10+ years. At that point, it would likely make more sense to buy. In fact, it often makes more sense t
by tristor 4y ago
That would only be a true analogy if I rented a car for 10+ years. At that point, it would likely make more sense to buy. In fact, it often makes more sense to buy corporate real estate as well, however because these commercial landlords already own it and refuse to sell (or only will sell at a price far beyond the actual legitimate value of the property), businesses must either /build/ new real estate or lease, and building is far more expensive than buying due to the regulatory capture of zoning and permitting. It's a mere coincidence that major commercial landlords are good buddies with everyone at the zoning and planning office in $metro.
If you want to be honest, the service commercial landlords provide is managing zoning/permitting with the city by proxy, which is mostly a corrupt institution, so it's corruption management by proxy.
- seti0Cha 4y agoIt would be a closer analogy, but analogies aren't true or false, they are more or less useful in making a point. As it happens, my analogy was not that useful because apparently many people didn't understand it. The point I was trying to make was that flexibility, cost and location are actual things of value being provided in both cases. The fact that the duration differs is no more germane to my point than that one of them is mobile and the other not. And in no wise does the consideration of when it becomes more prudent to buy a car bear on when it is prudent to buy a piece of property.