Others have answered you far better. It should be noted that there aren't newspaper articles praising increases in the prices of food, gas or clothing, but the

Others have answered you far better. It should be noted that there aren't newspaper articles praising increases in the prices of food, gas or clothing, but there are for house prices. Heck increasing house prices are mentioned in the context of politicians and giving them credit for doing such good things (hence my wording of "triumph"). I don't know why you think the housing market is a free market. If it was then this headline would not be possible "Obama policies ended housing free fall". And what about all the tax credits - not a free market. And what about the government pseudo agencies (Fannie/Freddie) - again not a free market. Planning permissions and zoning regulations are also part of the discussion about a free market. Even relocation allowance being taxable or not is an issue. I'd be far happier with an actual free market rather than one favoured by tax and similar policies with the goal of increasing the prices and hence taking money away from other things. (I also believe in a separate social safety net - all residents should have shelter, food, health and justice.) Back to my original point, which scenario do you think is better for a household taking home $4,000 a month - one where they spend $1 of that on housing or where they spend $2,500 of that on housing? I think the former would greatly benefit the country. (Obviously the exactly $1/house wouldn't happen but this is about the general order of magnitude of pricing.)