[loeg]

I think your first argument can be summarized as "everything is uncertain, so the future asset value of anything should be assumed to be zero." This is not an especially useful valuation strategy, so nobody else uses it.

> [remarks on US promotion of homeownership] strikes me as a commonly-bandied, well-debunked talking point.

Please provide a "debunking" of the idea that the US government does not explicitly prioritize, as a matter of policy, and subsidize, home ownership. Here are some facts that run counter to that idea:

1. The US literally has a "National Home Ownership Month" (it's June).

2. The mission statement of HUD's Office of Housing includes "Maintain and expand homeownership."

3. FHA loans.

4. Mortgage interest deduction on primary residences.

5. Capital gains exemption on (a large portion of) primary residence sales.

[bsanr]

No, the first argument is that you, and others, are underestimating the certainty of the examples given coming to pass. Should they, the assumptions under which the market seems to be operating become falsified.

>Here are some facts that run counter to that idea:

Well, first, I'd like to see facts that actually run counter to that idea. What you've shown is that the government supports and promotes home-ownership for a portion of the population. They don't prove that the government prioritizes home ownership over other policy that could be contributing to asset value increases - say, signals to our national bank to manipulate the money supply. One way to check would be to compare the amount of funding vested in pro-home ownership policy to the amount related to the aforementioned.

Suffice it to say, I'd love the government to invest in the average American to the degree that they've invested in the people who can most directly access the benefits of liberal monetary policy.