>Housing cannot provide return only at inflation, that would mean nobody would want to invest in real estate.
Well sure, but that's sort of the point. Housing is, ultimately, a durable good. It's more like a car or a refrigerator than like a stock. It has use-value, but its only capital appreciation comes from charging ground-rent on access to nearby economic activity in which the housing itself doesn't participate.
Fair point, but that's a different model than "buy a house and watch its value skyrocket". It's more akin to what you'd find in a place like Germany, where you buy a second housing unit, rent it out, and it pays for itself over time and you can sell it off, even if it may not have appreciated in value a bunch.
Calling houses a durable consumer good is too one-dimensional. If I have a laundromat with 20 washing machines, that's far more useful located in NYC than in the middle of Kansas since there's far more people around to utilize the machines.
A huge part of the context of a house (and its value) is what it's located around.
Buying a house with the expectation of it doing anything other than housing you reliably as long as you maintain it is just a bad decision.
A huge part of what a house is located around is predicated on zoning laws that can change at any time.
A huge part of the business of booming areas is predicated on large business in the area. For instance: being an Amazon employee and living in Seattle makes buying a house unappealing. As far as 'investments' go, housing is not a stable proposition, doesn't help diversify against risk for the average use case, and doesn't promote tangible economic benefits that support its own appreciation.
Regardless -- durable goods are often more valuable in certain situations. That doesn't make it an investment to keep one that's more valuable and hold it.
If you're going to invest, at least treat it like a poor speculative investment
Housing cannot provide return only at inflation, that would mean nobody would want to invest in real estate.