China and Singapore recognize the importance of land due to its inherent scarcity, hence most land is held by the state and foreign ownership banned or discouraged. Frankly, most countries should recognize the importance of keeping land ownership under domestic control. However, this prevents existing wealthy land owners from exiting their holdings easily by selling to the global market instead of just the domestic market, and money speaks loudly in politics.

One is a current account, one is a capital account. The US has been running a current account deficit, and the only way to sustain that is to have a capital account surplus, which means foreign investment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_account

Just like a business, a country can maintain short term losses by accepting outside investment, or debt. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Almost all companies take on debt and investment to fund their growth.

Also, just like a business, you can’t do this forever. At some point the debt comes due, and/or you end up selling the whole business.

Or to be the world's reserve currency. One of our major exports is dollars. We can keep running some level of deficit so long as that continues. With inflation, the world needs more and more dollars.

Outside investment in businesses is not a bad thing. Outside investment in land is.

Sorry, I should have consistently specified "urban" land. Urban land is not finite (cities grow) and is very high value-added.

American policy makers have chosen policies (eg zoning law) that make it easy to produce valuable urban residences. Now they have a massive competitive advantage in high-end residences, so of course they will become exporters.

> Urban land is not finite (cities grow)

“Capable of growth” and “not finite” are not the same thing.

I'm using 'finite' in the same colloquial sense as GP:

> there is a fundamental difference between finite, rent-generating resources like land, and value-added goods

But urban land is finite in every sense in which land is finite, so no matter what sense the poster was using it in regard to land, you are incorrect to say urban land is not finite.