The post opens "Yes, you can sell your house to pay off the mortgage, then you’ll be mortgage-free. But you’ll also be minus a house."

Not necessarily. You could be mortgage free, but with a smaller house.

To simply rule out any asset sales carte just doesn't make sense. (Otherwise, logic would lead to the view that the government should purchase the rest of Air NZ and by implication, that would be a good use of government funds).

To build on the opening analogy, it's not just about having a house or not having a house, but the size and nature of the house. And it would be a fool that would not actively consider what is best along that continuum.