My point, which you're still missing, is that once you address the costs of alternative housing (a.k.a. renting), buying (a right-size for your financial situation) house has de-facto significant positive return.

The way to see this is to run the numbers for the two scenarios, as I did, and the data show you that your financial outcome from buying a home is *significantly* better than not.

This means that your home is absolutely an asset, as it results in a more positive financial outcome.

This holds true even if you use your (Kiyosaki's) alternate definition of asset as something that improves your finances, as opposed to the "accounting" definition that an asset is simply something you own and can sell.