Tripe from Pete Peterson's think tank is passing for a reason NOT to be a home owner? Two things stand out: The first is the quote from Larry Summers.

...Lawrence Summers, the Harvard economist and former Treasury secretary, complained in a Washington Post article earlier this year that not enough mortgage loans were being made. “The clearest evidence is the growing number of lower- and middle-income families paying rents to the private equity firms that own their homes at rates far above what a mortgage would cost,” he said, taking it for granted that owning a home was a good idea.

While I am no fan of Larry Summers, he is quite correct that lenders have been very stingy in, well, lending. I have personally tried to help several folks (couples and singles) buy a home, only for them to be denied a mortgage. One was even denied a mortgage for not having enough debt! Thing is, the lenders went from one extreme to the other: loosey-goosey to Scrooge, there is little to no middle ground, but that is slowly opening up.

But, it's the actual quote we should take particular note of. the "growing number of lower- and middle-income families paying rents to the private equity firms that own their homes at rates far above what a mortgage would cost."

One of the draws to homeownership, is paying less than rent. One of the groups drawn to the foreclosure mess was private equity groups, that have bought up foreclosed homes by the hundreds and are now renting them.

So let's stop an think about this for a second. Is this Peterson think-tank tripe really about changing the "dogma of home ownership" or is it preparing us to become a renter nation, paying high amounts of rent to the private equity lords? (hmmm, sounds a lot like Landed Gentry)

Is becoming a renter nation being manufactured (ie through the foreclosure crisis), and to what extent should we become a renter nation?

The mortgage interest deduction has been under "attack" for quite a while. There are a number of groups that would love to get rid of the MID. Interestingly, the MID doesn't help all homeowners, but it largely helps middle-class homeowners. The NAR and the NAHB have fought against getting rid of the MID. Yes, the MID helps realtors and home builders market to potential home owners. And there is an interesting report on how the use of the MID varies by state.

At the simplest level, the authors of the study, released by the Peterson Institute of International Economics, point to the fact that the five states with the largest increase in homeownership from 1950 to 2010 — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and West Virginia — had a 2010 unemployment rate that was 6.3 percentage points higher than in 1950.

Wonder if these Brits knew if they were also studying some of our least educated states?

Homeownership should hardly be viewed as the "American Dream", but this study seems more than a reach.

Gotta agree with Petro... This is advocacy "research" that is not peer-reviewed. You must always keep in mind what is being 'advocated' and who it benefits. Considering its source, it is safe to say that it will not benefit the average American but, instead, the rentier class.

five states with the largest increase in homeownership from 1950 to 2010 — Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and West Virginia — had a 2010 unemployment rate that was 6.3 percentage points higher than in 1950

Correlation, not causation? Could the rise in homeownership relate to cheap real estate and the retirement relocation of boomers?

I can see where hot employment markets cause RE prices to rise so renting is a better option. I can see the young and mobile choosing to rent when they don't know how long the job will last. There can be some relation but I suspect there are a lot of factors at play here.