The article clearly says that it is for the US but I still can not think of a reason why that would be valid for US and not Europe for example.
I'm not an economist but my math is simple. I compare the Mortgage rates with Rent rates and the fact is that Paying rent for 30 years is money sent down the drain. For an average difference of 10% you would be the owner of the house after 30 years instead of just wasting all your money on rent without anything to show for it.
The whole discussion that this is a bet that your property will still hold or improve the value is meaningless, because even if it loses value (very improbable in most cases) it's still better than 0 that you are left with after paying 30 years of rent.
Now all of my math is not valid anymore if you taking a mortgage as an investement and not for your first Home and maybe that is what the article is about but still the Mortgage is very helpful for many people and just because it doesnt make sense as an investment does not make it toxic.
I'm not an economist but my math is simple. I compare the Mortgage rates with Rent rates and the fact is that Paying rent for 30 years is money sent down the drain. For an average difference of 10% you would be the owner of the house after 30 years instead of just wasting all your money on rent without anything to show for it.
The whole discussion that this is a bet that your property will still hold or improve the value is meaningless, because even if it loses value (very improbable in most cases) it's still better than 0 that you are left with after paying 30 years of rent.
Now all of my math is not valid anymore if you taking a mortgage as an investement and not for your first Home and maybe that is what the article is about but still the Mortgage is very helpful for many people and just because it doesnt make sense as an investment does not make it toxic.