Except for the lack of readily available credit. For the most part, it seems the people paying the high prices are "able" to afford it. The problem is that home ownership (and the security that brings, particularly in Ireland) is not attainable for most young people and families anymore.
In short, no. It's not as if the EU lacks capital markets.
Also: "Is anyone really so naive to imagine that these balances are not already fully available to finance new investments by U.S. companies here? Do they think the global financial system is that unsophisticated? At present interest rate levels, a company needs only to issue debt at favorable rates in the U.S., invest the funds held abroad at floating rates, enter a fixed-floating interest rate swap, and voila, the company has access to the funds exactly as if they had been brought home. Indeed, this is just what many U.S. corporations appear to have done. So cry me some crocodile tears for companies that hold profits abroad." [1]
Not really. The problem is that building all but stopped in the aftermath of the 2007/8 crash. Meanwhile the economy recovered, Dublin in particular is booming now but we're still lacking enough homes to meet demand and building never recovered to the necessary levels. Add in a reluctance for "building up" and a growing population, that gets you higher and higher prices...
Irrational obsession would include things like when you prioritize homeownership over financial security and other basic necessities like healthcare or food. For example I know someone who gave up health insurance to buy house - and she readily admits this.
We do prefer to own our own homes, but that preference is not evidence of a national personality disorder.
If you buy once you factor in taxes, insurance, upgrades, maintenance, repairs, commission, closing costs, opportunity costs compared to other investments, interest, PMI, etc., assuming you were in a good financial position to buy in the first place so you don't default, you probably will come out ahead compared to renting if you live in your house for more than 5 or so years.
But! That's only if the cards fall just right. So if the neighborhood is still desirable, tax policy/political landscape doesn't change, your neighbors keep up with their maintenance, your HoA doesn't go into bankruptcy, a major employer doesn't leave town, tastes in housing doesn't change, the housing market doesn't crash, too many of your neighbors don't foreclose, nearby amenities don't leave, a major highway isn't built through your neighborhood, interest rates haven't soared, political housing incentives/programs haven't gone away, too many black people don't move in(1), etc., etc. You're taking on a very large risk if your buying vs renting, sure it has the ability to work in your favor (extreme example - buying in San Francisco in the 90s) or not in your favor (extreme example - buying in Detroit in the 50s).
I've seen people lose out terribly financially buying a house, and not just in 2008 recession, my parents house was bought in 1995 and hasn't even kept up with inflation. That doesn't mean it was the wrong choice for them to buy though, houses are really good at providing shelter.
You also have to have the ability and wherewithal to take care of a house - and tons of people don't.
I'm a homeowner, I'm not against home ownership.
(1) I'm not trying to be racist, but white flight does exist.
Unlike people, businesses do not reach a certain age then lose their capacity to earn (retire). A business can carry the cost of their leases as an operating expense, where individuals who do this will hit a roadblock when they retire as their operational funding is no longer able to cover the cost of rent.
There are of course exceptions for particularly high earners who manage to build up sufficient funds to be able to perpetually rent, even sometimes without drawing down on their principle savings. But this is far from attainable for most.
So equating the two is not valid.
Homeownership, for most, is a leveraged play on a politically-sensitive asset. Consider two companies. One goes all in—-with borrowed money—-on a deal that does well if the cards fall right but results in default if e.g. property taxes or zoning laws change. The other has higher fixed costs but diversifies its investments. It’s apparent which one is riskier.
Employer pays $6000 per month, nominal salary is $4565, and employee's income tax 35 % => employee gets $3000.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_property_bubble [2] https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/housing-index