1 Comment

I thought Josh Barro's piece responding to Jerusalem Demsas' one was useful:


They're both good pieces that I agree with solidly on substance, but I quibble with the frame that each of them take. They're right that the US absolutely puts a heavy thumb on the "pro ownership" side of the scales, and I've never found a sound articulation of why that's justified. They're also both right that even if we accept that there should be *some* bias that way, it's pretty clear that what we're actually doing is bad for most people (renters, aspiring owners, middle-class owners) and exists explicitly to provide unmerited benefit to the fortunate.

And I think both of them agree to some extent that all of this special treatment (as part of broader economic manipulation) has given general impressions that are wildly out of whack with reality and has caused people to have deep emotional connection to policies that aren't doing what they think they are.

Jerusalem's piece probably does understate the degree to which the normie homeowner's motives aren't primarily about the finances, though I think she's right that you can't disentangle them from it. Josh, on the other hand, undersells the degree to which given the thumb on the scales that does exist, there needs to be some attempt to rebuild the system rather than just stopping to push. Both of them have reasons for choosing their framings, so I don't think they're wrong per se, just only addressing part of the issue.

Expand full comment