Re: Not always joking, it seems

David Friedman wrote:
> In article <13s1780ku01pndd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  David Harmon <source@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Feb 2008 13:19:16 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Keith F.
>> Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote,
>>> mike weber <fair****tfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> Seth <sethb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> If you could build a new house for 60K and sell it for 65K, or
>>>>>> build one for 120K and sell it for 150K, which would you do?
>>>>> Both.
>>>> "or", not "either/or"
>>> Why?  Keep in mind that in this context, I'm not just one person, I'm
>>> the whole construction industry.  I have the capacity to do both at
>>> the same time.  So why wouldn't I?
>> The property won't sell nearly as well with both houses on it.
>> It's one or the other.
> 
> The cost of building it includes the cost of buying the property. If you

> can build a house for 60K, that means you can buy land for it and build 
> it for that amount.


You're thinking of *houses* - detached villas standing in their own 
ground.  Not many of those being built at all around here.


-- 
Jette Goldie
jette@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)