The comparison is also weaker when it treats instalments as equivalent to a lump-sum purchase of shares. Paying for a motorcycle over time can include financing costs, and investing Rs3,000 each month buys shares at a sequence of different prices. That result cannot simply inherit the return from investing the full Rs63,000 at the assumed 2011 price. Likewise, the suggestion in the replies that a CD70 buyer might have chosen a used motorcycle and invested the balance is a plausible third scenario, but it requires its own used-bike price, repair and travel-cost assumptions. A proper comparison would show those cash flows year by year.
Perhaps the clearest response came from people who refused to reduce fifteen years of mobility to the resale value of metal. They were right to insist that a bike can help someone keep a job, support a family and build a life. Iftikhar was right to ask Pakistanis to notice the ownership opportunity behind products they see every day. Those observations can coexist without pretending that everyone purchasing a CD70 had another Rs63,000 sitting idle. For many households, the money that buys the bike is precisely the money that makes work possible.
The useful question for a reader in 2026 is therefore personal and forward-looking: after paying for transport and other necessities, what savings can be invested, how much risk can the household bear, and how should that investment be spread? The viral ATLH example shows why learning about shares is worthwhile. It does not prove that a rider in 2011 should have stayed home and watched a portfolio grow.
