[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.