The argument given above is flawed- it is the output of someone trapped in a fiat mindset.

People have come to see housing as a speculative asset, not primarily a place to live. People have come to expect capital gains from housing investment. In my country there are tens of thousands of ghost houses- homes owned by wealthy rich pricks who seldom if ever occupy these dwellings but rather hold them purely as a speculative store of value. This is in my opinion a criminal waste of economic potential- all the materials labour and capital tied up in these beautiful but unused ghost houses. Meanwhile there are growing numbers of homeless living on the streets.

But this is the logical response of wealthy people to fiat money - where debt leveraged asset price speculation is logical- even if it is parasitic and destructive of wider the economy.

In a Bitcoin Standard paradigm this misuse of housing would be much less logical and incentivised. People would instead be incentivised to invest in productive assets that would generate productive returns greater than the growth in overall economic output, or to hold their funds as liquid capital, in the form of Bitcoin, until an investment that could exceed general rate of economic growth presented itself.

People would hold more liquid capital- banks and other debt providers would be much less needed. The allocation of capital to investments would be much more driven by market forces rather than by bankers who create fiat money debt capital out of thin air.