[asfasgasg]

> But houses in all but a few markets are and remain "good investments" by any reasonable interpretation. To argue otherwise is to argue in bad faith. Stop it.

What about the interpretation that I don't want to be subject to price fluctuations of a single object that represents a large fraction of my net worth? The argument that I might not wish to manage a property? The argument that I don't want to avail myself of the opportunity to be foreclosed on because I would like to maintain my credit? All those seem reasonable enough to me as factors to consider in defining a good investment (obviously subject to any individual investor's utility function).

Personally I think what should stop is you accusing anyone who disagrees with you of arguing in bad faith.

[ajross]

> What about the interpretation that I don't want to be subject to price fluctuations of a single object that represents a large fraction of my net worth?

That only makes sense if you bought the house in cash or if someone is willing to loan you money at 4-5% to buy stocks. Investments aren't zero sum when the government is effectively underwriting your mortgage.

This article is total woo. Sorry.