There is nothing legally wrong with it.

I also disagree, it isn't right.

While real estate is commonly accepted as one of the prominent investment type of asset, it has been challenged with excellent arguments against it.

> Housing should not be an investment or a profit source at all

Who would build housing, then?

The soon to be occupiers would build them. Like they did in most places for most of human history

We're well past the age when someone can do a reasonable job of slapping together some logs.

It's fine if people make a profit at providing essential goods as long as there's enough surplus to redistribute to those who markets can't reach.

No one complains about farmers profiting from farms. We care about people going hungry, so we buy some food from tax revenues and help feed them.

It was an answer to the rhetorical comment that if housing stopped yielding a return on investment then there would be no housing.

I don't see the possible parallel with farmers, all there is in common is land potentially owned as property. Farmers bear fruits through labour. Real estate investors bear returns on capital.

That's interesting you mention some people going hungry, most people's inability to slap logs together to make shelter, and resorting to tax collection and distribution.

> Real estate investors bear returns on capital.

There have been many attempts to eliminate bearing returns on capital. They all resulted in a prostrate, non-functioning economy. There are two input requirements for a functioning business:

1. labor

2. capital

Neither can come for free.

People who need housing? It's what they call a necessity good. We get it, you have rentals - maybe it would do you some good to read more and write less.

You built your own housing?

> We get it, you have rentals

Nope.