>But that would still be an overall good thing, because asset prices are not what harm the greatest body of people

I think it takes a lot of gall to post this, considering that asset prices hurting people is the topic of the thread and the gist of GP's post. I would say it's certainly not an overall good thing; it's good for the landed class and hurts everyone else.

The OP talks about inflation indexes not taking into account house values, and thus somehow not reflecting what the actual situation of the people is.

Inflation typically doesnt take into account investable assets, it just accounts for the requirements of daily living. Rental prices is one of those, housing prices are more tangential. Its reasonable to exclude the last.

> it's good for the landed class and hurts everyone else.

If it were cheaper and more people purchased land, then the landed class would be bigger. There is some paradoxical notion to saying the rules you have favors the 'rich' and they should change so there are more 'rich'.

There is no paradoxical notion there. Expanding the landed class and benefitting the landed class are opposites. Homeownership brings freedom; making freedom accessible is a noble goal, while rewarding only those who already have it is counterproductive. That anyone could believe otherwise smacks of too much time in ivory towers and not enough time in shitty apartment complexes which teach through omission the value of homeownership.

Asset prices rising unsustainably hurts everyone. Almost every depression is preceded by asset bubbles.

Many types of loans are secured by assets, so when those bubbles pop, the loans get called, which depresses asset prices further and further.

Asset bubble != asset inflation.

Bubble implies it has to pop, inflation is just raise in prices overall.

To this moment its unclear if we have a bubble or not.