That statement assumes interest rates are irrelevant. Sure, if you have a 4% interest rate (the going rate these days), you'll pay 72% more than the value of your house, but that completely ignores the time value of money. A 4% interest rate is pretty great (especially when it's tax deductible!), and just saying that because the undiscounted cash flows that you spend are greater than the initial value of the house means very little.
No. Nobody on here would take a loan on a house with "effective annual interest rates of more than 100 percent" as mentioned in the article. It's true that people spend much more on a house than if they bought it outright, but they do so at interest rates low enough to where it makes financial sense because the expected return from investing the rest in a low cost index fund beats out the loan interest.
Not that this makes it much better, but the house at least has a chance of not being a depreciating asset. The $1500 sofa is worth $800 the day after it's delivered.