Ok if you dislike technically "savings", call it "incentivized regular investment" - the point remains. As a policy issue countries are stuck a bit because the

Ok if you dislike technically "savings", call it "incentivized regular investment" - the point remains. As a policy issue countries are stuck a bit because they are reliant on the asset value of these houses to help support non-working people later in life (that is, they have "saved", in some sense). Does that make it a ponzi scheme? No, of course not. Is there risk in the investment? Absolutely, and more than most people like to think about. I don't think we are really disagreeing here, which is why I described it as a "trap". Governments will go to great lengths to keep this market stable, probably more than they should, because they are in a bind. People will respond to the incentives and keep buying when they can - probably more than they should. So long as there is net growth in economy and population on the whole they can keep the plates in the air, if either or both of those fail to be true, harder. And of course this is only on average, individual areas are not all protected. Detroit has houses for sale for $0 (or near enough) for the same reason as some places in Japan and Italy (and others). Namely, fewer people want to live there than housing and infrastructure exists for. Same deal with unfinished subdivisions in Florida, essentially worthless.