That doesn't strike me as financial advice; land is only more valuable than money if you care about a particular piece of land because of ties with it. Otherwise if you have money you can buy a piece of land. Having land takes effort, having money doesn't. You might enjoy the effort of course
back
3 comments
See threads on "The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015." Control-F "land."
We often make the mistake of equating money with wealth. Money is simply the currency needed to exchange for goods, services, or assets (which can include securities, commodities, real estate, amongst others), while wealth is control of something of both current and potentially future value to people who will pay for it (see assets previously enumerated, although the list is in no way exhaustive).
For example: Would you rather I give you $100? Or a share of SPY? If you intend to spend, probably the fiat. If you intend to hold for future wealth, more likely the security. And if you intend to be financially secure, you are very likely of the mindset of accumulating assets that will appreciate in value at favorable prices.
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/3/1225/5435538?logi... | https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz012
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40650326 - June 2024 (148 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584 - May 2019 (260 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16078059 - January 2018 (151 comments)
(additional threads exist, but without comment, therefore not cited)
No, land is illiquid, and that's a good thing.
People, as a group, undisciplined. Without discipline, money in hand is money spent. Land, land sits there, doing nothing, menacingly. In that sense, land is 'default alive' and money isn't. Generations can go by without any land-atrophy.
It helps with another human weakness too. It's impossible to get a person to save at rates of 30-40% of their salary. But make it a mortgage, and suddenly they've learned conscientiousness.
I think it's more along the lines of a bird in the hand.