[chewz]

> [0] For "real estate will never go down in value" fans:

You realise that these properties in the picture (Plac Defilad right in the centre of Warsaw) are worth a lot nowadays. And descendants of the original owners get compensated (the land had been confiscated after WW2 by communist government). So I would rather say that real estate could be illiquid with temporarily depressed prices occasionally.

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Panorama_ul._Emilii_Plate...

[matkoniecz]

> the land

What about people who owned a flat? Have they got compensations restoring entire value? AFAIK no in general.

Or even a noticeable part of original value?

One of my friends recently got compensation (after 60 years old legal battle initiated by person who died before it completed). But that was for property that survived WWII and got confiscated after it.

> And descendants of the original owners get compensated

In other words value of original property went down (especially given opportunity cost).

And they were quite lucky, in similar cases many lost without recourse.

But overall I agree with the main point: real estate is one of best stores of value, some of it can survive even that.

But describing it as never, ever loosing value is not true - in many cases it lost part or all value, permanently, without compensation.

[chewz]

I agree with your arguments.

But there is another asset class beside real estate - arable land. People see gold as store of value which is false to some degree - gold was historically more of mean of exchange (of landed wealth) while the universal asset class paying regular dividends since Roman Empire until Industrial Revolution was arable land. And to a degree still is but since Industrial Revolution there are many alternative assets available that provide better/competitive returns (like government bonds)

Of course land could also be taken away but that happens very rarely (Communist revolutions in Russia, China, Central Europe). Historically land-owning class is stable. For example in largest wealth grabs in European history (Burgundians in France, Vandals in North Africa and best of all Norman conquest of Britain) there was generally sharing and mixing between old and new land-owners.

[matkoniecz]

Yes, that should be less fragile than flats/buildings and even more resistant.

As a city dweller posting on internet I somehow missed arable land in a comment about good stores of capital. Go me!

Despite that my cousin owns large farm. Staying for so long in my family that it was located in 5 countries since my family moved into that specific location.

But still, it is not a magic pixie dust: your land can be confiscated, or taken by sea/river or polluted by industry/salt.

Or it may be turned into wetland/desert by some other external changes beyond your control.

[CPLX]

> descendants of the original owners

Indeed. I believe that succinctly sums up the outcome of the investment for the actual person who did the investing.

For most people, the word temporary is not a good description for situations that persist until after you’re dead.

[HPsquared]

"In the long run we are all dead" -Keynes