Re: [Pen-l] another one for David S.

[Shane Mage <shmage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 18, 2008, at 1:20 PM, raghu wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:28 AM, David B. Shemano  
> <dshemano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In an earlier post, Doug Henwood had distinguished autos from homes  
> > because "homes are supposed to appreciate."  Why?  Why should a  
> > home intrinsically be an appreciating asset?  It is essentially a  
> > depreciating consumption good, like autos, clothes, home  
> > entertainment systems.
>
>
> This is a great question: why are houses intrinsically a non- 
> depreciating asset?


Hate to sound so Georgist, but isn't it the *land*, not the house  
that's sitting on it, thats the "intrinsically non-depreciating  
asset" (at least in an economy experiencing
population and economic growth)?

Shane Mage

"Thunderbolt steers all things...it consents and does not consent to  
be called Zeus."

Herakleitos of Ephesos



_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l