skeptical of the financial world and our currency, and therefore do not find investing in land unwise.
The price increase recently observed in agricultural land has a significant cause in our financial system and the prevailing investment shortage there ("interest rate crisis"). There is so much capital in the world and so few safe, attractive investments that precisely the prices of real estate increase.
If secure preservation of value is the goal, land is certainly clearly smarter than many other things.
In my opinion, the advantage of land is especially that it is not destroyed in war (probably devastated, but not directly destroyed*) and also hardly/late expropriations take place [In the GDR there was a land reform, yes, focused on the topic of this forum, but it can be noted that single-family houses and other real estate ownership were quite common and accepted]. Apart from that, other "real" assets (company shares) are also valuable. This is proven by various companies that also survived wars and other crises.
However, these are IMHO mainly arguments that apply very long-term and in certain catastrophe scenarios. Those who assume "normal" conditions and have normal (limited) means, in my opinion, do best with a bank savings plan or an ETF savings plan. Almost no effort and hardly any costs; attractive return opportunities. Why should one invest that little free capital in land, where first the notary and state take their share? In my opinion, this only pays off with larger sums, i.e., the upper (one?) percent of the population and serves there for further diversification.
*Exceptions: Fukushima, Chernobyl.