[autosharp]

> in the long term you need to worry about war or terrorism destroying your property

True, although in that case you continue to own the land.

On the other hand, countries also default. So the question is which one is more common. E.g. Argentina used to be a serious economic force with 5% of world GDP. Owning property there (even with all the violence) may have been safer going through the series of government defaults. Greece, Cyprus, Russia, too.

Rent doesn't have to be all from buildings. You can combine with farm and forest to be even more resilient. Low leverage also adds to your ability to recover.

> Even if you’d lived in Merthyr Tydfil from it’s best days to its worst and therefore influenced by the local (as opposed to national) inflation rate, you’d have been made worse off by its decline.

I promise you that back then, people spent between 10% and 50% of their income on rent, as they have done forever, and continue to do today.

You happen to track a declining area. If the area had seen 10x more development, rents would have developed by that order of magnitude.

[ben_w]

> I promise you that back then, people spent between 10% and 50% of their income on rent, as they have done forever, and continue to do today.

We agree on this.

I’m just saying that that the economy immediately surrounding the property isn’t necessarily the one driving the landlord’s costs or lifestyle. It certainly isn’t in my case.