> The fact is, they are doing it. You're right, there might be some good explanation, but just dismissing the fact is never a good look.

I didn't make any statement about whether or not they are doing it, I pointed out that it costs more to do so. That's the fact in this case: the selling price of a non-loss-leader item can't be lower than the cost of providing it!

That there are people doing it is no indication that it is at all cost-effective to do. They may have some good reason for paying more (poor credit so cannot buy a vehicle, need the "daily" for only 3 months, it's a temporary solution while their own vehicle is being repaired, etc).

The fact is, it costs more to rent daily than to simply buy. The theory you have is that it must be more cost-effective to rent daily than to buy.

No, you're the one with a theory. I'm the one with an unexplained fact. Don't confused data points with theory.

> No, you're the one with a theory.

Are you seriously claiming that "U-Haul is running a profit" is just a theory?

> I'm the one with an unexplained fact.

The explanation is not going to be "It's cheaper to rent than to buy", if you're looking at periods that ownership generally runs for.

"It's unexplained" does not mean "It's cheaper".

Just stop arguing. You've lost. We're done here.