The funny thing is, this isn't a new insight at all! Early capitalist thinkers such as Smith and Ricardo already came upon the insight that the fixed supply of land means "regular" market forces don't work.
I'm not convinced the fixed supply of land causes the high housing prices. Here in North America all but the most developed places have a ton of undeveloped space and mostly < three story often detached housing.
Most of land isn't built on at all. Just go through west Virginia, even the stuff that is built is largely abandoned.
> Here in North America all but the most developed places have a ton of undeveloped space and mostly < three story often detached housing.
How many cities have both undeveloped space (that isn't protected land like parks), and high housing costs?
> Most of land isn't built on at all. Just go through west Virginia, even the stuff that is built is largely abandoned.
Sure, but land in West Virginia doesn't really do much for people who want to live in San Francisco or New York.
All land isn't equal, what's also important is where the land is. While land in the US as a whole is abundant, land in urban areas (where most people are wanting to live) isn't.
