Also, the point about diversification is a valid concern. Would you put (50% of your net worth + loaned money) into only FB/AMZN/XYZ stocks, today (tomorrow)? Probably not.
Like I said, I actually am on your side that the US obsession with homeownership has led to all kinds of bad externalities with poor urban development and income inequality. I'd support all manner of regulation intended to decrease the subsidy we pay out to the middle class in favor of higher density rental environments.
But houses in all but a few markets are and remain "good investments" by any reasonable interpretation. To argue otherwise is to argue in bad faith. Stop it.
What about the interpretation that I don't want to be subject to price fluctuations of a single object that represents a large fraction of my net worth? The argument that I might not wish to manage a property? The argument that I don't want to avail myself of the opportunity to be foreclosed on because I would like to maintain my credit? All those seem reasonable enough to me as factors to consider in defining a good investment (obviously subject to any individual investor's utility function).
Personally I think what should stop is you accusing anyone who disagrees with you of arguing in bad faith.
That only makes sense if you bought the house in cash or if someone is willing to loan you money at 4-5% to buy stocks. Investments aren't zero sum when the government is effectively underwriting your mortgage.
This article is total woo. Sorry.