Not really, I am not saying to remove moneys entirely and use assets trading only, but the money printed or valued should be based on tangible assets, actual cost, not some made up speculation. As I mentioned above, a house that cost 100k to build and handover should never exceed that value plus profit markup, the older it gets, the cheaper it should be, just like any other assets and like how japan did it to solve the greedy banks/landlords. But obviously such thing needs to be done in an authoritarian manner as in normal democracy it will never be voted for, since most voters are owners. Other examples apply too on why things are waay over inflated for what they worth, including stocks.

This is because our glorious government makes it illegal to build housing. Japan doesnt force anything, their private companies built tons of housing because there is profit to be made and its not illegal without years of reviews, insane taxes, bribes to various orgs, etc.

Your policy doesn’t even work in CA, new housing is absurdly expensive to build and the profits aren't even high.

There are no moneys, only money. I don’t understand your reasoning. Why should a house never become more expensive? I built a house in s remote area, 20 years later the region is much more appealing, public transport, shopping, why should I charge less than the market is willing to pay?

> obviously such thing needs to be done in an authoritarian manner

The value of a house is determined by the Law of Supply and Demand. Endless attempts to legislate that away have all resulted in failure.

If there are 50 houses, and 100 buyers, the buyers willing to pay more will get the houses. No amount of authoritarianism is going to change that.

Did it cost 100k to build? How much was the cement worth? Etc. now to create a house from scratch, you must first invent the universe

> money printed or valued should be based on tangible assets

The US had such a system before 1914. Money was exchangeable for gold at a fixed rate. That system was destroyed in 1914 with the Federal Reserve Act, and the inevitable result was endless inflation and debasing of the currency.

The once common compliment "sound as a dollar" has vanished from the lexicon.

end the fed?

yes, your plan would require extreme levels of oppression. it's a non-starter in anything remotely resembling a democracy. and if implemented, the outcome would still not be what you expect.

houses get more expensive due to changes in scarcity, i.e. the number of people who want to buy houses (and can afford to) in an area increasing faster than the number of people who want to sell houses there.

the main lever a government has, is to make new construction easier and cheaper -- that increases the supply. commies don't seem to like that, often because they're NIMBYs, but also because new construction tends to be in the high end segment. commies don't seem to understand that people who move into newly built high end housing do so by moving out of existing, on average slightly less high end housing, which then becomes free, and so on... all the way down to the lowest end housing. increasing supply at the highest end increases housing supply in all segments, though with increasing delay.

an option that doesn't help much with existing scarcity, but with future changes in scarcity, would be a recurring land tax (proportional to the local value of owned land). in order to be democratically feasible this would have to be introduced very gradually (over the course of 30+ years) and combined with tax decreases elsewhere.