Nothing But Houses!
Megan McArdle starts off a post by summarizing a column:
James Surowiecki has a very interesting column arguing that this bubble was different because unlike the earlier banking booms, there was no point to the wild spending. The bubble didn’t bring us railroads and electrification; it brought us . . . houses. Lots and lots and lots of houses.
Megan goes on to argue that this bubble was more complicated that just houses. But taking Surowiecki’s premise at face value and presuming that all we got were, in fact, lots of houses, I offer the Paul McCartney Rebuttal: What’s wrong with that, I’d like to know?
While there are arguments to be made about suburban sprawl and negative externalities and so forth, houses per se are a pretty good thing. People live in them. They get pride of ownership, a place for their stuff, and so forth. People like houses.
Photo by Flickr user woodleywonderworks, used under Creative Commons license.