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 :)
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.