Now, it doesn't matter which you do, either buy or rent. They are both wrong, because both are sky-high.
That's only true if your rent covers their payment, which tends to not be true in a bubble. Where I am, in the years leading up to 2008 there were more rentals available than the market could really support. People were buying houses and getting rents that only covered part of the payment because they were counting on capital appreciation to make them money. If you were a renter it was a great deal. For $1600 you could rent a house that would sell for $700k, which isn't even close to covering the payment.
After the bubble popped the price of housing went down dramatically, and the price of rentals went up dramatically as people stopped buying houses assuming they would appreciate forever.
Also, people who've never owned a house drastically underestimate the costs associated with owning one. I bought my house after the crash, for cash. My housing outlay (with no mortgage) is about 75% of what I paid in rent. And that's not counting maintenance, like painting and appliance repair, or major stuff like a new roof. If the bubble had never popped I would have come out far ahead just staying in the apartment and investing the savings.
You're not financing the bubble.. The bubble is based on valuations that assume much higher income than what you provide by renting at going market rates.
True. In relative terms, and in this context, you could say it 'contributes' to the bubble.
I still maintain that the concept of normal (organic, non-speculative) demand contributing to a bubble is generally wrong. I don't think it's accurate to say that any and all sources of support for the price are contributing to the bubble. This conceptual framework will mislead people about the cause of a bubble.
But in the context you're using it, it could be considered accurate.
PS. you don't need to get hostile. I was explaining how I interpreted your statement, not 'putting words in your mouth'.
To pop the bubble you must not exercise any demand at all. And to short, you have to construct a financial scheme that benefits when the price goes down.
For example, you could 'borrow' a home, sell it at market price, then 10 years later when prices are much lower, buy it back, then give back the home to the person you lent it from. Or in fact, housing prices could rise, as long as they do not rise more than another guaranteed investment, it makes sense to short this stock and reinvest it into the other investment, and you'd still make money, interestingly, without having to need money in the first place. Of course in practice all of the above is tricky and risky, and so I appreciate that within the opportunity set of a normal citizen, renting is preferable to buying, but let's not call it the equivalent of shorting.