Why spend all your income today when you can save and invest some for the future, thereby allowing you to consume more later in exchange for consuming less now?

Investments, including land, are owned on the backs of consumption foregone in the past.

Just no.

All investments are not owned on the back of consumption foregone in the past.

Unless you believe that someone with 100 million dollars is "foregoing consumption" when they invest (particularly in real estate).

I do believe that. They can take that $X MM and put it into an investment xor into a yacht/airplane/supercars/vacations.

One is consumption; the other is investing.

Fancy-ass houses and condos are consumption. Most of these people buy up a place, then completely gut it, replacing everything with the new trendy kitchen or whatever. Even if they sold it for more than they paid, there's no way they made money on it after renovations, taxes, utilities, upkeep, and staffing.

But land is special in that it requires no maintenance. Its not the same as any kind of capital that requires care or maintenance in the long term,like a house itself.

There is a case to say that big money that buys land does something to make it more valuable, and hence there was care and investment. But most of the time, land is something bought long ago, that has benefit basically forever.

Does that then make unimproved land a particularly good long-term investment in your opinion?

No, but its still is an investment with an expected positive return. Otherwise nobody would have any and would tend to sell it at 0.

Land also has the chicken-egg problem capital doesn't have. The first one that built a house didn't consume his capital, the first one that got the property rights didn't consume capital whatsoever.

I am closer to your position than to the other commenter in this thread, just wanted to distinguish that land can capital do have some differences worth thinking about.

Most places have real property taxes (and to a lesser extent, adverse possession laws) that act as a beneficial (to society) drag on infinite holding periods of land. That tends to be a tax on the current (improved) value of the land, where others have made an argument that a tax on unimproved value would work differently (in some ways better, in some ways worse).

My apologies on the prior post; I meant to imply that buying unimproved land in the "right" place is a great long-term investment.