> the problem is not that housing is wealth, but that housing is a financial intrument. I agree that a house is a home and should always be seen as a home, it

> the problem is not that housing is wealth, but that housing is a financial intrument. I agree that a house is a home and should always be seen as a home, it is not a stock certificate. But perception aside, what would this mean? If something is wealth, how would it not be a financial instrument? > In the current system the housing subsidies are not structured to facilitate buying a house using debt by people that do not have access to enough capital, rather they are designed to be a profitable financial instrument to be repackaged and sold. Can you expand on what this means? I know mortgages are repackaged and sold, but a mortgage is not the house. > One solution for example is to build more cheaper less profitable housing Well, sure. But how to attract home builders to build at a loss?