A Home By All Means?

Paul Krugman dissects the conventional wisdom that home ownership is always a desirable goal and that should be an end of public policy. Unlike Prof. Krugman, I am neither a US citizen nor a home owner but I think that this obsession with home ownership is one of the enduring fallacies held by many reasonable people. Now, it is understandable that because a mortgage is perhaps a long-term commitment but also one of the largest loans that a family could take, it is not always in the interest of a purveyor of mortgages to let clients understand the fact that there are merits in renting property too. After all, what one gets in a home is shelter which is just another commodity.

As the fantastic piece states, it all starts with unquestioned assumptions that home ownership is a superior form of property and is then taken to mean that a home buyer is necessarily more patriotic. I have read comentaries stating that home owning households tend to be more engaged in civic affairs and vote more regularly than others. Stretching the argument forward, one sees clear biases in terms of rebates available for mortgages and not for renters. As first principles in economics would show, sooner than later, the field is tilted too heavily to the advantage of owners. Predictably, most families try to own homes because of that advantage which is essentially a subsidy. As Krugman states, notwithstanding the advantages to ownership it is possible that the US already has more homeowners than is ideal. I agree because there's no reason why every family's savings of a whatever size must be spent on brick and mortar. I bet that no property dealer will be telling this to clients.