Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Question for Economic Experts: Can You Say "Housing Bubble"?

By Dean Baker, TruthOut.org. Posted December 12, 2008.


Millions of people may lose their homes and life's savings, all because the economists who are supposed to know better didn't.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena Hincapié

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Dean Baker

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The answer for many economists is apparently "no." Many of the most important figures in economic policy over the last decade, including luminaries like Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson, could not see the $8 trillion housing bubble growing right in front of their eyes. As the bubble grew larger, and the financial system became ever more highly leveraged, these folks saw nothing but blue skies ahead.

Not only did these folks miss the bubble, even now, they still can't seem to understand the housing bubble as its collapse throws the economy into the worst downturn since the Great Depression. That is the only possible explanation for Henry Paulson's 4.5 percent mortgage rate policy.

The bubble has largely deflated in many parts of the country, however, prices in many of the former bubble markets still must decline another 20 percent to 30 percent to return to trend levels. It does not make sense to apply the same policy to both bubble and non-bubble markets.

In non-bubble markets, it might be appropriate to use aggressive measures, like extraordinarily low mortgage rates, as a tool to stabilize house prices. We want to avoid the scenario in which falling house prices create an expectation of further declines in house prices. This expectation can become self-fulfilling, as potential buyers defer purchases, causing house prices to fall further.

By contrast, in the bubble markets, supply hugely exceeds demand at current prices. The only way to restore stability to these markets is to have prices return to levels that are consistent with the underlying supply and demand conditions. The effort to sustain prices at their current bubble-inflated level will be no more successful than an effort in 2000 to keep the NASDAQ at its 5,000 peak.

Even worse, to the extent that we can artificially prop up house prices in these bubble markets, we would just be passing along the pain to a new contingent of homebuyers. We are not going to have 4.5 percent mortgage interest rates forever. Suppose the economy recovers in a few years and mortgage rates rise back to a more normal 6.5 percent to 7.5 percent level.

Whatever effect low mortgage rates had in sustaining house prices will be reversed. House prices will complete their correction and today's homebuyers may well be seeing losses of 15 percent to 20 percent when they sell their homes in five years. For a house selling at $250,000, this price decline translates into a loss of $38,000 to $50,000.

Losing $38,000 to $50,000 would destroy the bulk of most homeowners' wealth. That does not seem like very good policy.

Unfortunately, most of the promoters of the housing bubble still have not owned up to the harm caused by their policy. Millions of people are facing the prospect of losing their home, and tens of millions of people are losing their life's savings, because the people who are supposed to know better didn't. They encouraged people to buy homes and/or borrow against them in what was quite obviously a bubble-inflated market.

Before Paulson is allowed to carry through with his scheme to use public money in an attempt to reinflate the housing bubble, he should be forced to publicly explain how he thinks this policy will work. There are clearly people who will be badly harmed by temporarily reinflating the bubble. Unless Paulson can explain how the benefits will outweigh this harm, he should not be allowed to pursue his blanket policy of providing 4.5 percent mortgages everywhere.

As it is, Paulson and other people in policy positions have not even acknowledged that we have a housing bubble that is in the process of deflating. Paulson could not possibly be so incompetent that he still doesn't see the housing bubble, but for some reason he can't bring himself to talk about it.

If Paulson cannot bring himself to talk about the housing bubble in a serious way, then he does not deserve to be taken seriously in discussions of economic policy. The same is true of any other person in either the Bush or Obama administration. In this period of crisis, we can't afford to waste any more time with policymakers so clueless that they can't see an $8 trillion housing bubble.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy, housing bubble, foreclosure, economic experts

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Article Dead-on.
Posted by: NozzleDude on Dec 12, 2008 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article and one by James Galbraith hit the nail on the head. Of course, we'll never see level-headed folks like Baker, Galbraith, Krugman, or Stiglitz (spelling?) appointed to postions of power in the new administration to actually implement their solutions, because they're "too radical."
So, don't be surprised if Bill Clinton II (aka Obama) doesn't ever get beyond the stimulus stage. That or he implements measures that only partially helps: throws a few crumbs to the poor and middle class while only getting the overall economy back to where it was in 1999 and not back to 1960 where it should be.
Don't forget: NAFTA, the WTO, Welfare Reform, permanent Free Trade with China, and Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, were all signed into law and enacted by- that's right- a Democrat!
If we don't keep the pressure on for REAL Progressive changes we'll just keep getting Republican Lite.
Sidenote: Alternet, please stop accepting ads from Chevron and Catepillar if you really want your readers to think that you're not part of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The housing bubble was common knowledge
Posted by: highfeather on Dec 14, 2008 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The luminaries such as Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson and also including our corporate and political leaders were fully aware of the housing bubble; however, they may not have been fully aware of the level of deception that was part of the under-belly of corporate greed. Worse yet they just decided to let it run its course and look the other way.

I fully remember here in California, several years ago, local economists forecasting the eventual fall of the real estate market. Much like the over buying of tech stocks in the 90's and the dot bomb implosion; the real estate markets continued their path of greed until the eventual collapse happened. Both democrats and republicans share blame for allowing the excesses of unfettered corporate greed. Certainly, there is enough blame to go around and the question at this point is how to deal with the downfall of a system set-up for failure simply by the nature of weak laws and weak leaders who kowtow to corporations and the rich.

We all are aware the absolute power corrupts. In the US, our history of the robber barons in the 1800’s and the extent of our current economic dilemma shows us that unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is a failed system. This seems to be primarily due to, in simple terms, human desire and greed. What is demanded is an inward look at our ethics/morals and how it relates to polices framed by our lawmakers. Are we a society that purely strives for individual wealth and power or are we going to move in the direction of the common good of all our citizens?

Obviously, we must individually adjust to the reality of tough economic times and collectively we would be well served by becoming involved in the political process that will define the future of our nation. Americans need to make their voices heard in Washington and demand that polices change, that accountability happens, and oversight and regulations be but in place to protect the average citizen. Just because Obama was voted in, does not mean that we can simply take a back seat and let the political process run without our involvement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

4.5 Rates
Posted by: PublicEconProf on Dec 14, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The commentary on mortgage rates of 4.5 holding home prices artificially high is the first mention I have seen of this phenomenon.

Congratulations on the warning to those who are thinking of entering the home market.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement