On 16/09/2011 04:37 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Though come to think of it, presumably /building/ a house will always be
>> more expensive than merely /buying/ one, so that gives us a lower bound
>> on price...
>
>    If that were true, then the builder would be losing money. It wouldn't
> make sense. Why sell at less than the cost of building?

Presumably building twenty identical houses is cheaper than building 
just one house. Cheaper per unit, anyway. And that's how commercial 
entities make their money.

Plus, the vast majority of all house purchases are for existing houses. 
It wouldn't surprise me if *new* houses are more expensive just because 
they're new.

Post a reply to this message