> The idea that houses are appreciating assets doesn't come from some fundamental law or ideology. It comes from recognizing reality. Houses are not appreciati

> The idea that houses are appreciating assets doesn't come from some fundamental law or ideology. It comes from recognizing reality. Houses are not appreciating assets, in general. They are durable goods but tend to degrade if not maintained. Land is often an appreciating asset for the reasons you mentioned. And of course the "NIMBYism, zoning laws, permitting" play a part in that, by restricting the land available for various desired uses. Removing these factors would help, though of course it wouldn't completely negate the tendency for land prices to rise, especially in densely populated areas. > But, what you are really wanting to argue against is private property ownership. Removing private property ownership wouldn't make more land available, or cause it to be used more efficiently. Quite the opposite in fact.