[9rx]

> no one talking about housing prices wants a useless condemned house husk.

Nobody is talking about housing prices, so... They are pointlessly squabbling over whether or not a house and land are the same thing, when it is obvious that they are not.

[ty6853]

>>I’d argue most of the cost of scare housing is supply limits imposed by ridiculous over regulation of new construction

>Nobody is talking about housing prices

Actually we were?

Nobody but you thought land and a house is the same thing. House prices include the land they are on. Unless you are living on the space station or sea steading, the land and infrastructure is part of housing prices.

I have no idea why you took such offense to the infrastructure of the house being part of house prices.

[9rx]

> Actually we were?

We were earlier talking about the cost to build a house. I suppose that is close enough to satisfy your historical observation, but we also moved on from that a long time ago.

> House prices include the land they are on.

It was recognized that we are in different jurisdictions, so maybe things are different where you are, but around here you effectively need to own the land[1] before building the house. How, exactly, can the price include something that doesn't even exist at the time of the land purchase?

Perhaps you are suggesting that once the house is standing and all the bills are paid one might sum it all up and say that is what it cost to get them into a house? Perhaps, but the prices (e.g. the price of the land and the price of the contractor) will still have been observed independently.

> I have no idea why you took such offense to the infrastructure of the house being part of house prices.

I have no idea how you think someone could take offence to a comment on the internet. It is an emotionless venue.

[1] It is not entirely unheard of to build a house on someone else's (e.g. a family member) land, but in that case it is even clearer that the price of the house is not included in the price of the land.