Sure, but that should be land held in the commons, not private home ownership.
Private homeownership is just LARPing owning real capital to placate a new conservatized middle class, completely inefficient as rising prices cannot spur more land production and in fact preclude intensification use since the middle class homeowners don't have real capital to convert to apartments (even if zoning was relaxed), and historically tied up in all sorts of racist shit to boot (redlining, covenants, etc.).
> Private homeownership is just LARPing owning real capital to placate a new conservatized middle class
If you don’t own real productive capital and depend on it broadly ad much as sale of labor, you aren’t even in the middle class to start with, your in the working class—just LARPing, to use your term, being part of the petit bourgeoisie.
Of course, LARPing as a member of the petit bourgeoisie is the perennial pastime of a substantial portion of the upper income segment of the proletariat, especially the proletarian intelligentsia.
> rising prices cannot spur more land production
Sure they can, both literally (artificial land is a real thing, and its production is spurred by demand running into supply constraints) and more importantly economically (as “land”, the valued commodity, isn’t just raw square footage of the dry surface of the earth, but a product of access to infrastructure which makes it economically useful.)
I personally define middle class as the people with most of their wealth in the form of their home. So yes traditionally those people would be considered part of the working class as you say. I don't disagree.
(My division is supposed to reflect how those people do behave, whereas the traditional Marxist one is supposed to be how they should behave based on the real relations behind the smoke and mirrors. That's fine, different categorizations for different purposes.)
For the second part, well, we'll need to abolish SFH zoning and related things, which is very unpopular because it would undermine landowner's speculation in the short term!
(It's especially annoying because taller buildings would lead to more valuable land area in the end, just cheaper floor area.)
So nevermind there are efficient market-based things to do, like everyone rents land from the state at auction which pays out universal dividend. Our land markets are popular precisely because they are a speculative mess!
One way that the govt can keep the economy stable is for the Federal reserve to just give the big banks money they call it 'injection'. It's framed as 'lending' but at extremely low interest rates.
The expectation is that the banks will lend this out to companies to stimulate the economy.
Apparently instead of loaning this money out to to small/medium businesses big banks have mastered operating small/medium businesses at scale and are combining their banking with asset acquisition.
So banks having endless capital essentially given to them from the government in our tax dollars...while also having asset and business branches in their own closed system ultimately leads to massive banks owning the world.
People think the government is on their side but it's not.
Private homeownership is just LARPing owning real capital to placate a new conservatized middle class, completely inefficient as rising prices cannot spur more land production and in fact preclude intensification use since the middle class homeowners don't have real capital to convert to apartments (even if zoning was relaxed), and historically tied up in all sorts of racist shit to boot (redlining, covenants, etc.).