4 ms·

If you think about this for a moment, you'll see that one or more of three things must be true: 1. You and your potential landlord have access to significantly

If you think about this for a moment, you'll see that one or more of three things must be true: 1. You and your potential landlord have access to significantly different investment opportunities (ie, they have a lower interest rate than you would be able to get) 2. Your landlord is losing money (or potential money) by renting to you 3. You would be better off buying than renting This is an obvious derivative of the common-sense "the landlord's profit must come from somewhere". If you buy, the profit that would go to the landlord goes to you. So any financial argument saying that you're better off renting is really either an argument for #1 or #2 above. In other words, your maths are wrong.

jstummbillig 3y ago
Why could #2 not be true? (The generous interpretation here would be, that costs around a building are complex, running costs and depreciation are often invisible for long periods of time, factoring them in correctly is hard, and foresight is not our strong suite)
- hef19898 3y ago
  Because all those other costs are calculated into the rent? And if not, they quite often allow a landlord to simply increase the rent.
  - jstummbillig 3y ago
    Sure, if done correctly. I tried to make a case for why that might not be trivial. All it requires is a reasonably incompetent owners, that are as bad with foresight, as most humans, companies and even states are. The point is: It's easy to ignore costs that might get you in 50 years, because it makes stuff simpler now, and making stuff simple now is our thing.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      You probably find one idiot landlord, sure. In general so, landlords are in the business of being a landlord for making money. And guess what, they do! Because the only people stupid enough to get maths behind renting and real estate ownership are those who try tell you that renting instead of buyong makea you rich one day.
johngladtj 3y ago
Number 2 is true here

jstummbillig 3y ago

Why could #2 not be true? (The generous interpretation here would be, that costs around a building are complex, running costs and depreciation are often invisible for long periods of time, factoring them in correctly is hard, and foresight is not our strong suite)

hef19898 3y ago
Because all those other costs are calculated into the rent? And if not, they quite often allow a landlord to simply increase the rent.
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  Sure, if done correctly. I tried to make a case for why that might not be trivial. All it requires is a reasonably incompetent owners, that are as bad with foresight, as most humans, companies and even states are. The point is: It's easy to ignore costs that might get you in 50 years, because it makes stuff simpler now, and making stuff simple now is our thing.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    You probably find one idiot landlord, sure. In general so, landlords are in the business of being a landlord for making money. And guess what, they do! Because the only people stupid enough to get maths behind renting and real estate ownership are those who try tell you that renting instead of buyong makea you rich one day.

johngladtj 3y ago

Number 2 is true here