QuoteThe problem has been growing for a long time due to how housing has been viewed in our society, not as a fundamental need that all people have but rather as an economic investment used for profit and as a store of wealth.

As a store of wealth it was fine.  But stores of wealth are stable.  Any commodity that is appreciating or depreciating is not a store of wealth.  Regulation of housing to maintain it as a store of wealth vanished when housing was financialized.

If you don't think it should be a store of wealth than we disagree that owning a house or two is the ultimate expression of personal or private property.  Property that a worker can translate legitimate earnings (earned by selling personal time) from labor into.  That is different from common or public property.  Capitalists think all property is private.  What else do you think owning the means of production means.  Capitalists make no distinction between private and public property.  To them all things can be private with enough money.  The end result or limiting case of their line of thinking is a return to slavery and 100% exploitation.  This happens when rich capitalists have everything. 

You know you are talking to a dumfuck when they start talking about privatizing things.  And when Bezos buys the Luxor in Las Vegas we will be at 100% exploitation.  To him it will be Fair-Oh.

Socialists are not against the elimination of personal property.  That is madness.  Translating earned labor into personal wealth is a human right.  To do other is to endorse slavery.  There needs to be a way to store personal property, and stable housing can provide a means for a person to save the fruits of their labor.

Which can still happen in a mythical soft collapse.