>
>The inversion of this response in the case of housing
>is an index of the fabulously successful use of house
>ownership as a means of social control.
>
>--
i think it is in some rather minor ways, but as a (mostly) lifelong renter (the ex owned a home, but it took 25 years to appreciate in value at all, going from 25k to 32.5k in value), I can't see how a mortgage keeps me any more in line than rent. christ. i had to come up with first, last, deposit in FL -- nearly 3 grand -- which, had I been buying, would have probably been zero down. :)
so, how does renting keep me somehow free from or less constrained by the grip of social control?
the thing is, years ago, when the government was starting to cultivate the "american dream" as a 3/2/2 with picket fence, the point was that a mortgage kept you _settled_ and in one place while you waited to having the mortgage burning party at 33 1/3 years. the point was that, as an investment, you had to stay in the thing to actually get something out of it. and mostly, what the folks taking up the line of reasoning said was, a mortgage was something you benefited once you paid it off: you wouldn't have a mortgage to pay, substantially reducing your living costs in your senior years.
etc. etc. you get my drift yes? The people promoting the idea that home ownership was a socially conservativizing force thought it was so because of exactly the _opposite_ of what the last 2 decades or so have been about.
that is the paradox (and it isn't really), that I find so fascinating in all this.