Seems people are talking past each other.
On the face of it then yeah you can own land in most non nomadic cultures (which is most of the ones around today, mainly as farming is far easier to sustain a large industrial population with than being nomadic herders or hunter gatherers that have to carry everything with them or build anew). People will make money from anything and as land is a thing then you can use it to make money but more on that later.
There are some hippies, communists and blendings of the two that reckon the land is owned by/ought to be owned by the people and thus can only be shared out (possibly on an as needed basis -- each according to their need and all that) or possibly leased (though this can be dubious too). Private ownership of land, which is a sharply limited resource as well*, then being anathema to that. Some will go further and try to construct rights to land but eh.
Economically speaking this is troublesome for some people as owning land and passing it down can be one of the better ways to create generational wealth, or fund retirements as the case may be. American Indians and the Indian reservations being a great case study in the removal of such things. Equally land used for living on is not very productive either -- most of the time it just sits there doing fuck all and not adding to production, increased value chains or anything like that.
*not like more of it is being made, and most of the best spots are already taken (do also look at the US federal land map) as it has now been several hundred years of industrial production and population growth. The US also does really awfully at housing density as well --
single family suburban homes are awful on so many levels but that is a different discussion.
Buy to let. Not as popular as it was, mainly as many incentives for it were removed, but still a thing in various capacities.
Lenders want their money back, if you are a person earning 10000 a year you can probably get a second mortgage for another house a few years after your first starts to be paid down. Rent that out and the rent you get (plus earning a lot from your main job) means you have further income that counts for the purposes of getting a third mortgage. Rinse and repeat and suddenly one guy can own a lot of houses with them all paying off the other, gets even better with more houses still as risk is even more diversified and assets under management similarly so.
This creates an upwards pressure on price (buy to let guy, housing investment trust or big bank does not care as it is generating money almost regardless and will accordingly pay more for the base good) that might price more conventional "buy one house, live in it" peeps out of the market.
Couple this with further upward pressures from not building enough houses - be it immigrants (many countries people want to live in have a lot as a percentage), be it migration to cities, be it wage decreases (women joining workforce, everything moving out of industrial to service sector which requires higher and higher intelligence that not everybody has), cultural reasons/dating reasons (100 clones of the same decent dude, 50 with houses, 50 without, do we want to be on which will be more successful, and that is not counting things like China), be it because the natives are fucking like rabbits (not really anywhere at present but was still within living memory -- they call it the baby boom for a reason), be it because "ew not in my back yard, I want to look at the hedge rather than a housing estate" aka nimby/build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone aka banana, be it because some sacred toad lives on this field, be it because retail is profitable, be it because industry is profitable, be it because farmland is useful to grow food to eat (don't want to be a food importer if you can help it), be it because people voting for you like to see their house prices rise**, be it because pointless restrictions in building (and most places have loads of these, creeping safety, conservation and insulation types always driving a wider wedge), be it because single people need single people houses rather than couples taking 2 people out of the population needing houses).
Not everything is this though and many times it is just someone inherited a house, had a house from when they were each two single people and figured out a way to consolidate, split an existing house into flats/apartments (nominally actually increasing the supply), bought a house as a retirement asset of their own, rather than leaving it empty to bugger off around the world for a few years decided to rent.
**can be idiots that don't realise a rising tide lifts all ships and they are not going to live in a tent, can be their retirement fund with some kind of reverse mortgage/equity release.
On the flip side I like to roam around and renting somewhere allows that vs having to sell a house, and maintain it in the meantime, every time I feel like buggering off for a few years or seeing if the supermarkets 5 towns over are better. Rental arrangements allow for this and while I do it for decadent reasons others actually want to pursue financial opportunities and hop from city to city or place to place to do it.
@
Psionic Roshambo:
