Paul Krugman described the effect memorably in 2005. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/that-hissing-soun... "Then there are the numbers. Many bubble deniers point to average prices for the country as a whole, which look worrisome but not totally crazy. When it comes to housing, however, the United States is really two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone. In Flatland, which occupies the middle of the count…
Paul krugman has been wrong on almost everything
‘Housing in ‘07 wasn’t a bubble” is a true statement that almost no one believes
31–40 of 130 posts
Re: ‘Housing in ‘07 wasn’t a bubble” is a true statement that almost no one believes
#32Re: ‘Housing in ‘07 wasn’t a bubble” is a true statement that almost no one believes
#33Interesting view and great data crunching. But I am amazed how one can write a long article purportedly about the causes of the 07/08 crisis without ever mentioning credit quality. By my impression, the prevailing view is that the crisis was caused by poor credit quality of some home buyers (I remember the term NINJA borrowers - no income, no job or assets). This was masked away in complex financial products (CDOs,..…
Mortgages work differently in the fastest-rising areas of the US than most anywhere else, in that a borrower can have no equity or negative equity in the home… and just hand back the keys.
In the UK this involves a complex and lengthy bankruptcy proceeding. Honestly I think the US way is objectively better, but it massively changes the outcomes of how long someone will stay in a home that’s become a bad investment.
The article is also looking at the wrong numbers for rents. How much rents have risen is far less relevant than how many rent starts there are over mortgage starts. The first statistic tells you how much people are having to pay to live, the second tells you if there’s really a shortage of homes or not.
Some countries have implemented additional taxes on non-primary homes since the crash, but to my knowledge they’re not particularly punitive. I think this tax really is the solution (e.g. 5% value of the home in landlord tax per year).
Re: ‘Housing in ‘07 wasn’t a bubble” is a true statement that almost no one believes
#34Re: ‘Housing in ‘07 wasn’t a bubble” is a true statement that almost no one believes
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paul krugman has been wrong on almost everything
When you win a nobel prize in economics, I will listen to you more.
Re: ‘Housing in ‘07 wasn’t a bubble” is a true statement that almost no one believes
#36Re: ‘Housing in ‘07 wasn’t a bubble” is a true statement that almost no one believes
#37Paul Krugman described the effect memorably in 2005. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/that-hissing-soun... "Then there are the numbers. Many bubble deniers point to average prices for the country as a whole, which look worrisome but not totally crazy. When it comes to housing, however, the United States is really two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone. In Flatland, which occupies the middle of the count…
Which is crazy, because you would think that Australia was mostly Flatland! It's the size of the continental US, with a population lower than Texas. Everyone here lives in the capital cities, and last I looked there were almost no tech jobs at all further up the coast between Sydney and Brisbane. I wonder if pandemic working from home is going to change this, some of our devs have already moved up the coast...
Re: ‘Housing in ‘07 wasn’t a bubble” is a true statement that almost no one believes
#38The housing market didn’t “snap back” rather two unprecedented tax payer stimulus packages totaling just shy of $2T were given to the banks to finance millions of foreclosure cases and allow the entire industry to consolidate. That $2T resulted in the longest bull market in history, as well as the biggest transfer/consolidation of wealth in history.
It was unprecedented until the “stimulus packages” during Covid which is probably closer to a total of $7-8T, so far, once the federal reserve leveraging is included. Once again the policy response during this crisis was designed to benefit corporations and the wealthy. One of my favorite things to highlight was that following the Fed receiving taxpayer funds to prop up the stock market Disney had their greatest single day stock gains in history all while every single theme park, hotel and cruise ship were indefinitely shutdown and every single movie production was indefinitely suspended.
The very same way people look back and excuse the banks for their culpability for the financial meltdown resulting in “the Great Recession”, and even more bizarrely argue to some extent that taxpayers should thank the banks for allowing the taxpayers to bail them out (ie finance their foreclosure cases and major bank acquisitions)…its clear the people have once again been conned by politicians and are stupid enough that we will be reading future articles about how 2020-20?? wasn’t a stock market bubble and wasn’t inflation and that the people will once again be thanking politicians and the federal reserve for robbing them.
Re: ‘Housing in ‘07 wasn’t a bubble” is a true statement that almost no one believes
#39Paul Krugman described the effect memorably in 2005. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/that-hissing-soun... "Then there are the numbers. Many bubble deniers point to average prices for the country as a whole, which look worrisome but not totally crazy. When it comes to housing, however, the United States is really two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone. In Flatland, which occupies the middle of the count…
Paul krugman has been wrong on almost everything
He's more often worth citing than other of the standard talking heads of economics like Greg Mankiw.
Re: ‘Housing in ‘07 wasn’t a bubble” is a true statement that almost no one believes
#40Interesting view and great data crunching. But I am amazed how one can write a long article purportedly about the causes of the 07/08 crisis without ever mentioning credit quality. By my impression, the prevailing view is that the crisis was caused by poor credit quality of some home buyers (I remember the term NINJA borrowers - no income, no job or assets). This was masked away in complex financial products (CDOs,..…
Small detail but the wording here implies a causation, that it was the home buyers who were the makers of the crisis.
Whereas we now have ample evidence that it was the real estate companies and mortgage lenders who when faced with free money, became predatorial of people who had no capacity or understanding of the financials of becoming a home owner.
We can always argue that these were adults who have taken their decisions but again many of these people were promised pie in the sky and they believed it.