I agreee that speculation on property solely as an asset is an issue, but don't really agree with the premise early in the article around the growth of cities. The argument strikes me as something like this:
* An increase in the size of urban areas would increase GDP by 4%
* Anything which blocks this growth is bad
* Home ownership blocks this increase
* Therefore, home ownership is bad
The implicit premise is that anything which increases GDP is good. Is it? An obvious counterexample is around environmental regulation. We could almost certainly bump GDP in the short-term by deregulating, but would suffer the consequences a few decades down the line.
I really like the economist and they make their bias clear, but I am a little frustrated with the rhetoric that ever growing GDP is an ethical imperative.
* An increase in the size of urban areas would increase GDP by 4% * Anything which blocks this growth is bad * Home ownership blocks this increase * Therefore, home ownership is bad
The implicit premise is that anything which increases GDP is good. Is it? An obvious counterexample is around environmental regulation. We could almost certainly bump GDP in the short-term by deregulating, but would suffer the consequences a few decades down the line.
I really like the economist and they make their bias clear, but I am a little frustrated with the rhetoric that ever growing GDP is an ethical imperative.