> The dichotomy of housing as capital/investment good v. housing as consumer good is interesting, but again, I'm > unconvinced of how one function excludes the

> The dichotomy of housing as capital/investment good v. housing as consumer good is interesting, but again, I'm > unconvinced of how one function excludes the other, unless there is something countervailing the process of speculation. It's not a dichotomy; it's a dualism. The article does not address this directly, but it's sorta hanging there. Housing has a dual nature as a consumer good that looks like an investment. In the US, there are also direct and indirect subsidies. > I'm sensing a Georgist vibe from this whole thing, but the author stops short of advocating a land value tax. Indeed. > There's some issues with qualifying what an "unimproved" value of land would be, Not really - in real life. You'll see property tax assessments being pretty accurate in most cases. I say "pretty accurate", so long as there's dialogue between the taxpayer and the tax agency. You can get a long way with Zillow-like prices and square feet vs. land area. > and also on the valid uses of a resource being idle. This is a much larger problem. > I'm unfamiliar with the housing trends in countries that implement LVTs, but they're worth researching. A really weak but convenient example is Texas v. Florida from 1990 to the present. Texas never quite had a bubble.