But the real estate market is a mixed bag consisting of many different players, each with varied motivations and goals, which tends to make the game unfair if the rules do not provide the necessary boundaries. For instance, using an analogy of a famous board game focusing on asset accruement, not everyone starts the game with $1500 in their pocket, and receive $200 when they pass "Go". Nor can everyone have that "special relationship" with the banker, or have that magic "flick of the wrist" when casting the die. And if you're entering a late game swimming with established players, then you can be sure the sharks will come circling swiftly. Affordable residence for new players is therefore not achievable under such a framework, as a mature game is naturally rigged to favor the apex predators. Not only that, but those with financial leverage will always use all available means at their disposal to shape the environment in their favor. They may even attempt to peg the supply demand curve such that is is disallowed to go below a certain value, because a market correction would destroy the old guard and threaten the established system. And if the argument is to be believed, then the destruction of the "Lords of the Land incorporated" would ripple and destroy more than just their interests, but it would affect the IOUs of the casinos and the "big deals" made by the suits behind gilded doors and shook upon the country club greens. Too much leverage, too much greed, too big to fail.
If such an environment did not exist and a new game were to be set up, one can make a few basic assumptions about how the asset prices would behave. One would expect that like with any tangible asset such as an old automobile for instance, the value of the property would diminish over time due to natural degradation. But unlike an automobile, a real estate property is statically restrained to a geographical area, and hence its price would rather be disproportionately affected by the virtue of its surroundings and of its perceived attractiveness. Therefore, even though the house itself may be a condemned hovel, the desire for the location would be the determining factor that drives the price. But what if that geographical demand did not exist or became a minuscule factor in determining that price? What if the price of the house and the price of the plot of land were to be disassociated? What if it would be just as easy for someone to move her house from one location to another without being heavily burdened by colossal financial commitments? Can that lead to something that may be a fairer housing market?
Judge the tree by its fruits. But remember to...
Wash the beam out of your eye with soap.