Wait, I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The GP said that houses rent for expenses plus profit. I can't quite tell if he meant to delineate that to strictly rental income, but I understood it as meaning 'a land lord prices his property (the rent of a property, of course) so that he will make back his expenses, plus a profit, over the expected ownership time span'. So that includes things like expected appreciation, any tax benefits etc.

Is that what you are saying too? Because then there isn't much of an argument here :) I thought what you meant to say was that there is some factor other than financial that comes into play (or should come into play) when determining a rental price.

Housing is a consumable good, not an investment. That homes appreciate is a symptom that reveals the catastrophic government policies imposed on the market.

In a free market, homes would be very unlikely to appreciate in value. Indeed, they would be much more likely to depreciate as they degrade and fall technologically behind.