4 ms·
Again, this is silly. I can't tell what kind of counterfactual you're even comparing to. Is person A who has a plot of real estate in a valuable location like
by aetherson 3y ago
Again, this is silly. I can't tell what kind of counterfactual you're even comparing to.
Is person A who has a plot of real estate in a valuable location likely better off than person B who is exactly like person A, but has no real estate? Well, like... no duh, dude. Real estate has positive value, and nobody has ever suggested otherwise.
Is person A who has a plot of real estate in a valuable location likely better off than person B who is exactly like person A, but instead they have a non-real estate asset that has the same nominal value as person A's real estate? Maybe, maybe not! It is not a law of nature that real estate outperforms other assets.
- fooker 3y ago> It is not a law of nature that real estate outperforms other assets. It is, over long time windows. This is the core point I am making here.
- aetherson 3y agoAnd you're simply wrong. Go find out the price of any random lot near you over a long time period, if you don't believe me, and compare to index funds.
- fooker 3y agoThat's not the comparison you have to make here. Instead consider : price of the lot + compounding (regular income from utilizing the lot + rent you would have otherwise paid) Nothing will come anywhere close.
- aetherson 3y agoAs it happens, I'm an officer of a family business that has a number of real estate investments (some residential, some commercial, some industrial). We've had the properties over a timeframe of decades -- in some cases like 10-20 years, in other cases 30-40. We're now selling them. Some of them have been basically good investments. Others have been iffy. You do of course accrue rents from them, but there are also costs. There is no law of nature that they outperform other investments.