There is still the underlying point of resource distribution. When you have some people buying things they do not need, while other people cannot afford things they do need, that means that resources went into producing the things that are needed less. Becuase of the decreasing value of money, it is in your best interest to convert your money into stuff, wheather or not that stuff is a good use of resources. I think this inefficiency is invevitable in an economy based around a concept of money simmilar to our own, but we should acknowledge that it is sub-optimum in terms of societal interests.
> it is in your best interest to convert your money into stuff
Not necessarily. If by "stuff" you mean "real estate" -- since that is what this part of the discussion was talking about -- keep in mind that it's taxed annually as an asset, at least in most places in the US. Plus any structures get older every year, and things break, and needs heated in the winter even if unoccupied (if you live in the frozen northlands as I do, this is necessary to keep ice from forming in the pipes and causing them to rupture).
You have to have renters for real estate to become viable as an investment. And there are a ton of regulatory headaches to comply with. It can be difficult to get rid of problematic tenants because of Equal Opportunity and whatnot, in some places you have to deal with Rent Control, etc. If you've ever watched Judge Judy, you know that some tenants like to trash their place, use your property for illegal activities, make subleases which you wouldn't approve of if you knew about them...
In short, being a real estate mogul is a business like any other business: You have to have your hand on the tiller if you want to steer a successful course.
For set-it-and-forget-it investing, I'd stick to an index ETF.
How either real estate or stock investing is "suboptimum in terms of societal interests" is something I fail to follow.
