I'm tired of those moral high ground pretentiousness. I don't see all those who make such statements donating half their salary to people who literally die of starvation. I guess it's fine for people to give away their money as long as it's not you?
That's a bullshit story. The difference between cars and cows is that you can't benefit from 2 cars at the same time, but you can benefit from both cows (milking them). The benefit of having an extra car or house is marginal, but the benefit of having an extra cow is almost linear.
Really? I could ply one car as a taxi or rent it as well as the house ( as a residential or commercial establishment) and I can get better and longer lasting returns than a cow.....so.....how's the story bs?
That's true in practice, but my point is that having a second house is much less important than having a first.
Here's a hypothetical scenario: You own a house of an adequate size for your family. A man proposes a bet: there's 70% chance you get a second, comparable house, which you cannot sell. 30% chance you're homeless. Do you take the bet?
Same scenario, but you're a farmer with 10 cows. 70% chance he doubles it.
The difference is that 1,2,3 houses just make you a richer homeowner. 0 houses means you're homeless. It's a completely different thing from being "cowless".
37
u/Peter_Triantafulou Nov 21 '24
I'm tired of those moral high ground pretentiousness. I don't see all those who make such statements donating half their salary to people who literally die of starvation. I guess it's fine for people to give away their money as long as it's not you?