The market for land is created in law, it can be changed in law. This is different to cars or corn or bricks, - if you invest of those the world is richer one brick, car or bit of corn. IF you invest in land the money just sits there and that piece of paper means you can call the police if challenged. The question of land distribution is a social and legal question independent of the real economy. The beginning of land rights is only about 400-600 years old and began with enclosure in the UK. Meanwhile there's other parts of the world that sustained a larger population that didn't have them yet. e.g China. I'm not saying to get rid of land rights but perhaps the worst excesses of people subsidizing the rights of a 1% to own like 30% of land is a bit radical. Less radical would be "people can invest to 3 houses max" For instance Germany caps the size of corporations with inventives for smaller and medium size corporatinso - this makes a large ecosystem of mutually independent compannies that also reduce existential risk in supply chains - also allow for the highest productivity per hour in the world. Also the cost of housing is relatively lower so it has quite a high proportion of part time workers.
Imagine if we had some "instrument" such as a "repossession lottery" where 1/100 land assets of individuals who own more than 3 properties were siezed at random each year. Have the rate controlled by the federal reserve or reserve bank of respective countries. Change the charter to ensure the goals of each is 100% housing. We can still have the free market and competition in the world of commodities.
Unfortunately to the american imagination to make some crique of capitalism the way the education system works is they assume you are advocating the soviet union. There's many situations where the state can make laws that are on the socialist end of the spectrum and it contributes to economic growth so businesses and investors are happier too. The US already does this with the military, military assets are publicly owned "socially owned" if you want to put it that way, there's no reason education or health or housing couldn't also be the cash cow.