Re: Not always joking, it seems

In article <ew1wj.12263$XI.2950@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 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.

The same applies for multi-unit structures. The cost of building it 
includes the cost of whatever land it requires.

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, in bookstores now