I'll reuse an argument from another comment I made: sure, let's accept that we need to treat housing differently because people need housing. Should we do the same for food? People need to eat as well. Does that mean we should factor in the cost of arable land into the CPI?
you'd asserted a simple statement that houses are (edit: only) assets, which is trivially rejected by showing just one of many other valid perspectives. that there is a spectrum of goods and diversity of economic intricacy among that range doesn't validate your original statement.
the broader point is that asserting a house is just an asset is more a value statement (and more abstractly, an aggression) than a truism. investment has generally become decoupled from its intended purpose of producing value for the many, not just the few (i.e., the efficient allocation of capital), and this kind of misguidance contributes to that kind of misallocation.
>you'd asserted a simple statement that houses are assets, which is trivially rejected by showing just one of many other valid perspectives. that there is a spectrum of goods and diversity of economic intricacy among that range doesn't validate your original statement.
Not exactly, because there are two definition of "asset". From wikipedia:
>An asset in economic theory is a durable good which can only be partially consumed (like a portable music player) or input as a factor of production (like a cement mixer) which can only be partially used up in production.
apologies, you'd asserted a statement that houses are only assets (as amended above). houses can act as assets in an economic sense, but that's not their primary or sole purpose or source of value.
