I said "can be", not "spontaneously cease to exist due to their non-appreciation". Homes don't explode the moment they stop appreciating in value. > An asset i

I said "can be", not "spontaneously cease to exist due to their non-appreciation". Homes don't explode the moment they stop appreciating in value. > An asset isn't necessarily an investment. E.g. cars, merchandise, foodstuff etc. um sure but the topic at hand is the rate of return on real estate assets, not "how to invest your money". Cars are a depreciating asset, and so what? That is not the topic being discussed. > People need somewhere to live ... Sure but again I don't know what about this statement is revelatory. Yes everyone needs shelter, we take that as axiomatic. > so they'll keep building houses ok but here's the thing: you actually can't take that for granted. Most people don't build their house, they buy one that already exists. The vast majority of people engage in real estate trade, not real estate construction. Real estate development is performed by a comparatively small number of actors, and they do it expressly for the purposes of profit. Yes, a majority of housing is owned for the purposes of residence, but that does not imply that a majority of real estate development is pursued for the purposes of occupancy by the person funding its development. People will only build houses for themselves if it's cheaper than buying on that already exists (or if they have some sort of requirements that can't be fulfilled by housing on the market, but again, the number of people hiring architects to design houses for them to live in is comparatively small).