Awesome, I'd like to take one of my Lamborghinis for a spin.
Oh, wait, I can't, because I don't actually own any.
Paul Graham's Stuff essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/stuff.html) makes the case for not worrying about possessions far better than this hilariously bad analogy.
It's not that bad of an analogy. PG notes that 'stuff' is a highly illiquid asset, but the ebay analogy promotes liquidity by buying and selling used "stuff". This helps you not accumlate junk, and you get to consume a products utility for some time and return it. I think its consistent with the theme of use what you need.
Actually, by the same logic, you already own the money to pay the costs. You just need to perform the right actions and labor to convince people to take it out of storage for you.
If their market was as liquid as, say, shares of Berkshire Hathaway (current price: 121,000 dollars) then you could easily buy one in the morning, sell it in the afternoon and likely lose only the transaction cost.
PGs essay is great. To better understand how companies got good at selling us stuff I recommend watching the BBC special "the century of self." It goes over the how and the (amazingly recent) when of developed consumerization. It's available on google video :)
I've started trying to enforce conservation of clothing. If I acquire a free shirt, or have the "need" to buy something like a jacket, I will eject an older jacket from my inventory. It's a nice way to try to combat the endowment effect.
I've known for about a year that I was going to move November 2010, so that made me take a hard look at my possessions and what I had, and caused me to get rid of a lot. I've just moved with a suitcase and a few boxes, plus some boxes of books and camping stuff. Other than some electronics, I haven't taken any of my clothes out of the boxes, and I haven't needed them yet. I'm thinking about chucking them.
My rule of thumb is that I look at if I've used it within the past month (with the exception of seasonal use things like camping equipment or winter clothes) and if I haven't, it goes.
Bullshit, possessions allow you to have more liberty, because they allow you to do more in shorter time than you would otherwise be able to.
What ends us costing you your liberty is being stuff you can't afford with no plan to be able to buy it later. "because I am worth it" cost you your freedom
I suspect Arun was referring not to the efficient use of "stuff" but rather the irrational desire to own/control stuff rather than simply make use of it in the supply chain. It would be absurd to hand launder one's everyday clothing instead of making use of a washing machine. However, it might not be rational to own one's own washing machine when a laundromat or laundry service (fluff n' fold, etc.) could be used instead. Many people irrationally desire to own stuff and might opt for a washer in their homes when it would actually increase their net happiness level to just go to the laundromat or pay someone to do the wash.
It's a great analogy if for no other reason than that it frees your mind to think about more important things than stuff.
If we keep at hand only what we regularly need, and put the rest 'in storage', we'll probably be able to spend a lot more time doing the things we actually want to get done.
Take advantage of the division of labor and let someone else curate your stuff for you. Go do something interesting.
There's got to be a happy medium here. I don't want to be owned by my stuff, but I also think that anyone who says that material things can't make you happy hasn't owned a Mustang GT or a Fender Stratocaster.
If you don't have either of those things, then I think you're right to covet them. :-)
