pull down to refresh

We have stuff EVERYWHERE... garage, attics, basements -- boxes and stuff.
It was not always like this. People had only a few things, and shared by allowing reciprocal borrowing. Often there was some communal arrangement for bigger things, as with the neighborhood bread ovens of medieval Europe.
Today, though, separate private ownership is the norm. To understand why, one has to understand transaction costs. Of course, I would say that, since I think the answer to almost every question in economics is “transaction costs.” But in this case, it’s actually true.
transaction costs slashed are amazing.

"If Coase were alive today, he might ask a different question: If renting is cheaper and more efficient for most durables, why do we own almost everything?"

TX costs... it's messy to get ahold of things when you need them!
ownership internalizes the costs of using rental markets or sharing arrangements. The transaction cost of renting a ladder, a car, a spare room, or kitchen appliance wildly exceeded the value to the potential user, or the revenue an owner could hope to earn.
...so economically speaking, it's cheaper to own a gadget or a car so that it's always available in the garage, then to figure out where to acquire it/rent it when needed.

"Amazon, Uber, Airbnb, and thousands of other platforms sell connections."

my knee-jerk reaction is the same as much Bitcoiners' when it comes to housing — that's a shitcoin, don't own it. The more things you can rent at convenience and with control, the less capital is needed to be tied up in that "venture" and the more hard assets you can hold. (plus, added benefit: you end up with fewer things in storage... fewer things that tie you down: the things you own end up owning you)
Basically, you will own no (tangible, depreciating) assets and you will be happy.

"Ownership was a workaround for high transaction costs. We purchased goods we barely used because we wanted reliable access to them without depending on others."

I like WeWork, too, happily paying up for a nice one-day-in-the-office day whenever I'm passing through a town with glamorous WeWork offices.
We “store to renew” future access: we want the option to use the thing immediately when we need it. But for most of our lives, we are simply paying a two-part tax — the opportunity cost of capital tied up in stuff, and the costs of storage — for the privilege of being able to get these two holes in this wall, right now, or for two extra chairs used only when company visits.

A FINAL, interesting Bitcoin-esque observation:
Fifty years from now, observers will look back on our era with incredulity. Why did people buy all their own tools? Why did cities devote up to 30 percent of their usable road area to storing empty cars? (In Manhattan, it’s more than 40 percent!) Why did we allow trillions of dollars of capital to sit idle for 95+ percent of its lifespan? Platforms are revealing that much of what we think of as “ownership” is really just expensive access insurance. Once platforms reliably provide that insurance, the original rationale for owning evaporates.
Love Munger. Love this topic.
I do tend to buy the things I need, but I don't really buy anything in advance of needing it. That's sort of a middle ground between the renters and preppers.
For me, what I'm paying for is avoiding the irritation of rental transactions. I believe this ties into how people tend to undervalue their time. Each time I rent something, I have to spend time acquiring it and most things are so cheap that it's not worth doing that more than once.
reply
69 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 3h
I'm a bit on the fence about the conclusion above, for exactly the "feature" you mention:
the irritation of rental transactions .. I have to spend time acquiring it.
But I've now spent 2 hours on formulating a response and I'm still unhappy, so I need to spend more thinking time on this. Maybe later.
reply
Maybe you just don't hate tedious paperwork as much as I do.
reply
69 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 2h
Hmm I guess even the short note came out wrong. I agree with your assessment, in fact, I feel that it weighs even heavier on me (as I on avg spend 9 months a year in short term rentals)
reply
True... I guess that also puts a strict limit on the sharing economy? Only pretty major things like Airbnb are worth spending time to rent...
(Though, Ubers work and nobody cares about the driver or the car quality and rides are pretty cheap, so I guess my hypothesis is screwed)
reply
Uber's an interesting case because I'm not sure what percent of its activity is actually sharing, vs. full-time professional driving.
To the extent that Uber was able to get such a quick foothold into the market for professional taxi services, i'd also argue that it was due to lack of competition / regulatory restrictions in the supply of taxis. So a second role of the sharing platforms is to circumvent traditional regulations via the amateur labeling of their suppliers.
reply
Good point, although the only Uber driver I know is an economist who does it occasionally on the side.
It got me thinking about whether I should look into that or similar things and only accept jobs that are basically on my way, anyways.
reply
So a second role of the sharing platforms is to circumvent traditional regulations via the amateur labeling of their suppliers.
That, too, is an extra important benefit!
reply
I recently tallied up how much owning our car costs us and it's several thousand dollars per year. We own it outright, so that's just gas, maintenance, taxes, fees, insurance, etc. Most of that shit is government mandated.
Then, add to that the frustration, time, and expenses involved in city parking.
A lot of door-to-door Ubers can be justified against those costs.
reply
"just"
reply
Right? But, it's that much without accounting for the actual purchase of the car.
@kr pretty much convinced me that an unregistered golf cart is where the money's at.
reply
What a life hack!
reply
Ah! I've actually published on this subject. The way I've characterized it is that Uber and Airbnb help small suppliers sell spare and under-utilized capacity. Which is efficiency-improving overall.
reply
aaaah woooaaah! Very nice... seems like a hip, economics-friendly thing to write about. Reality giving us illustration of theoretical concepts and informing our theoretical understanding!
reply
Yep! I wouldn't quite agree with Munger 100%, though. I think his analysis is overall correct, but only from a purely "rational consumer agent" perspective. I think what he leaves out is the feeling of dignity of owning something, versus having to rent everything. Even with hyper-efficient rental markets, part of me believes that people will inherently prefer ownership. This is why people reacted so strongly to the WEF's "You will own nothing, and you will be happy" messaging.
reply
"Ownership" means having the exclusive right to control. People like that property in the things they interact with.
reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 14h
Convenience is one of the big drivers of consumerism.
reply