This is zero sum thinking -- however many people this helps, it will take just that many getting hurt in order for it to happen. Doesn't solve the root of the problem in the least, it's just a wealth transfer.
Yup. But how many of the people who might be able to afford a home if it comes down 20% will care about the others.
This is what a market does. Risks are taken and the result is that some will lose out. People are not guaranteed profits. Until you are a corporation with enough influence in government it seems...
> however many people this helps, it will take just that many getting hurt in order for it to happen
This presumes that the number of people this helps is equal to the number of people this hurts. That's unlikely, given how wealth concentration tends to work in capitalist economies (that of the US included).
But yes, we need to address the root of the problem - the root of the problem (as applied to housing) being the fact that land is treated as ownable property in the first place. That's fine and dandy, but that produces rather nasty externalities that are long overdue to be internalized - specifically, via land value taxation.
There are lots of people with zero shares and a simple dream to own their home. This is looking hopeful for many.