This theory predicted inflation should have soared back in 2009 when QE began. The fact that it took 13 years and additional crises (pandemic, Ukr war) for inflation to surface is pretty good disproof of the theory.
Anyone trying to save up for a home in the US could probably tell you inflation has been around since interest rates plummeted and then more-so since QE. It isnt an uncommon scenario that families would save more money each year to buy a home with a decent down-payment...only to have homes go up in price more than they saved.
Housing as an investment is problematic, because it disincentivizes new builds, people want to keep seeing their asset value go up, never down, and constraining supply is an easy way to do that. Renting out can also be more lucrative than selling if you have the capital. Also the ability for markets to offer housing at commodity prices seems like it would require a drastic oversupply of a very resource intensive asset. How sustainable is that really in the long run?
You're right that the issue is multi-factor, but i'd argue that the factor at play in the past two decades specifically was ZIRP+QE. That is the new factor at play.
Houses being seen as an investment has been an issue for a long time, I remember even in the 80s this was a big topic of discussion. Same for NIMBYism -- that has been an issue ever since forever (step into any home owner's shoes -- once you've put all your life savings into a house, most people dont want to dilute value.) I'll agree that the more leveraged you are to finally purchase a home, the more vehement the NIMBYism is...because now more housing is ruinous to existing owners' giant investment. The whole system is @#%!@#%
I think ZIRP/QE made things worse because houses started going up in value faster than incomes. This encouraged yet more leverage and lesser house. And now we're all left with a shell of the dreams our grandparents enjoyed with normal jobs.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/10/home-prices-are-now-rising-m....