Source: Carpe Diem |
The layman's definition for inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods". The demand for housing outpaced the available stock of new and used houses fueled by "easy money" from the Federal Reserve and multiplied by the creative financial instruments developed by Wall Street firms. All designed to get more money into the hands of more people to buy more housing.
Three simple observations can be made about the data: (1) homeownership rates increased dramatically since 1995 (a VERY steep increase year over year after 1995), (2) lagging behind, yet increasing at an increasing rate and keeping pace with homeownership rates, is the price of housing in general and (3) while prices as measure by the whole CPI have increased, they have increased at a modest rate over time.
There have been a myriad of reasons hypothesized for the "bubble" in the housing market which contributed to the meltdown in the banking/financial markets. I believe history will be a much better judge as time passes and more objectivity is inserted into the analysis than there is presently. However, the President AND Congress are responsible for over-sight in these matters. One cannot underestimate the power these two entities exert over the process. This letter sent to Pres. Bush in 2004 by members of Congress provides some insight into the thinking at the time. There seems to be a suggestion that there is a favorable trade-off between "safety and soundness" of the financial system and "affordable housing". Please read the whole letter but here is the operable paragraph: (note: GSE are "Government Sponsored Entities" such as "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac". They hold a majority of mortgages in the US and are implicitly guaranteed by the Federal Govt.--this is a whole other blog entry).
"...We write as members of the House of Representatives who continually press the GSEs to do more in affordable housing. Until recently, we have been disappointed that the Administration has not been more supportive of our efforts to press the GSEs to do more. We have been concerned that the Administration's legislative proposal regarding the GSEs would weaken affordable housing perfonnance by the GSEs, by emphasizing only safety and soundness. While the GSEs' affordable housing mission is not in any way incompatible with their safety and soundness, an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing....""There are many parties to blame in the meltdown and I don't blame politicians exclusively, but for the political class to deny any culpability, as some of the signatories have claimed in public forums, is less than disingenuous and borders on dishonesty...I will let you make the call there...
Hello Gene. Can I play?
ReplyDeleteWhat you are really asking here, I think, is whether economic policy is effective or not. Clearly it is effective.
But I hope you are not trying to suggest a relation between the June 2004 letter to President Bush and the June 2004 peak in the Homeownership Rate! I do agree with John Cochrane that even a speech can change economic trends. But it would not be right to ignore 40 years of economic deterioration and then, in the mid-2000s when things are ready to fall apart, say LOOK! Look how easily this cow can be tipped!
More and more economists these days it seems are saying fiscal and monetary policies don't work. They are wrong, of course. That whole 40-year deterioration is the result of blind adherence to policy.
Regarding dishonesty, I refer you to Milton Friedman, who quoted Pierre DuPont: "It is necessary to be gracious as to intentions; one should believe them good, and apparently they are; but we do not have to be gracious at all to inconsistent logic or to absurd reasoning."
Art
Art--Thank you for the comment...No, I would not suggest that the timing of the letter and peak homeownership are related. I warn my students of the pitfalls of linking "correlation vs causation". I use this in talking with my students because almost ALL students believe the housing crisis was primarily Wall Street driven. Given that much of the media coverage is directed that way, I can see why. I certainly don't minimize the role Wall Street played, but I also ask students to examine the behavior of all the players in the market who have significant input in determining policy. On a personla level, it does irk me that most of the same signatories of the letter who did indeed have a role in formulating housing policy that lead to the crisis are the same ones reforming the system...I guess the most fascinating part of the letter for me was the "safety vs affordable housing" line...I immediately thought of Ben Franklin's famous quote along those lines. In the end we had neither saftey in the housing market nor liberty from housing (no liberty in being underwater!)...
ReplyDeleteI really like your blog. I will link to it from mine and visit often...Thanks again.
Gene Hayward