3 ms·

There are A LOT of counterfactuals that would suggest some significant problems with the hypothesis presented in this article, even for those of us who think p

There are A LOT of counterfactuals that would suggest some significant problems with the hypothesis presented in this article, even for those of us who think property price inflation is generally problematic/ inefficient. May I suggest having the world's reserve currency, main military/economic power after ww2, the house prices/shortages/sizes in the wealthiest parts of the US (and the rest of the western world), and differences in distributions of wealth/ income/services/lifespans, natural endowments, etc as rather big elephants in the room in any discussion on this topic... All of which would suggest the true answer is far more complicated, and gives credence to the old saying about there being a simple and wrong answer for every problem.

throwaway-8c93 6y ago
As Solow put it - "once you have begun to think about economic growth, it is hard to think about anything else". After reading a lot of economic literature on this topic, my gut feeling is that endowments trump policy. Bad policy can ruin an economy, but good policy cannot make it boom. Factors like geography, historical path dependency, economies of scale, who your neighbors are, demography, cost of energy, technology or "brand recognition" - all matter far more than policies. Finland may just as well have the best policies and the best educational system, it cannot outweigh the fact that it's a sparsely populated sub-arctic island in the corner of the world. Economists are in the business of selling policy proposals. Clearly saying "policy actually doesn't matter all that much" isn't in their interest.