I wrote a comment about the price action for housing from 2006 to 2012 but it is clearer with graphs so I made it a hastily put together blog post. The TLDR is that housing prices were heavily driven in that period by the over building of units, as seen by the vacancy rates plus the difference between housing starts and housing completions. We don't need idiosyncratic explanations for the housing market when supply and demand does an excellent job on its own. For those interested
The crony-capitalist corruption problem is made worse by our lobby-capitalist corruption and the idea that processed cereal is better than steak or ground meat is ridiculous. And dishonest.
Like so many college-educated elites' BS. Like so much COVID advice & mandates.
Normal folk need far better lifestyle guidance, and especially more truth about what is known and what is not known.
Sugar-water should NOT be paid for by taxpayers - tho limited milk and 100% fruit juices should be eligible. Inv Sun's "Rice & beans + a cot to sleep" might be the most healthy incentivizing policy, but that's too drastic a step for today's politics - tho it might be possible for homeless camp re-location.
They talk about a carbon tax - but where is the obesity tax talk? I'd much prefer taxing sodas or plastic straws over banning them. Miles Kimball (Noah Smith's econ advisor) has lots of notes that SUGAR should be considered a mild poison and lots of obesity is based on insulin changes.
.
On housing, Tim Lee's graphs seem excellent, better than most of Kevin Erdmann's, with Tim talking about 2006 overbuilding as seen by the drop in new starts after that. Tho he doesn't mention interest rates nor mortgage money availability. Also his FRED graphs end at 2016-ish so the last 5 years are missing. Arnold's use of "momentum" for the housing remains OK for me, tho Tim's note on 3 false bottoms is strong enough against to think he's also OK.
Sort of like chocolate vs pistachio taste, not whether the sky is lime green.
_I_ find political constraints more plausible that some unknown technical constraint. As for amounts, as Lincoln said, "A mans legs should be long enough to reach the ground."
Whatever "triggered" the Great Recession (housing?) is of little importance relative to the policy mismanagement of the Fed in allowing inflation expectations to remain below target (even when employment was nowhere near a maximum)
I think that is too strong. Bernanke and Yellen really felt they were politically constrained in taking more decisive action to raise inflation expectations.
What possible evidence could there be that a lack of Fed action wasn't the problem if ZIRP plus $3 trillion in QE isn't enough to make you believe the Fed's political constraints weren't the issue?
The answer would be to provide free rice & beans for food and a cot in a hostel for a bed. That would be my direct to person government welfare. Sufficient to allow a person not to starve, but insufficient to make it a desirable way of life.
Then focus the "system" on incentives to create and provide employment. People need to work not just for their self improvement but because it gives them something to do - idle hands create many social problems.
There is no perfectly efficient welfare system. But the system should at least try to create positive outcomes and minimize negative outcomes.
I appreciate you providing substance to my hand waving. The US is extremely generous with welfare. Evidence of this is the recognition that once on welfare it is very difficult for people to transition to earned income without becoming worse off, due to the income cutting of eligibility to benefits. And yet if you raise those caps it is the American way to game the system and double dip - and why not? The culture no longer looks down on those receiving "welfare" so why not take what the government gives and spend the "savings" on the things you want.
But my reason to fix the system is to reduce the corporate benefit from increased welfare. SNAP is a great, bad, example of this. I suppose you can't buy cigarettes with a SNAP card but it seems you can buy just about anything else. Just checked the eligibility list and it is curious. You can buy snack foods, but not vitamins. This only makes sense if you figure the snack companies have better lobbyists.
Government programs for lending and government programs for nutrition are more similar than not.
I wrote a comment about the price action for housing from 2006 to 2012 but it is clearer with graphs so I made it a hastily put together blog post. The TLDR is that housing prices were heavily driven in that period by the over building of units, as seen by the vacancy rates plus the difference between housing starts and housing completions. We don't need idiosyncratic explanations for the housing market when supply and demand does an excellent job on its own. For those interested
https://sebwassl.blogspot.com/2022/11/2000s-housing-price-drop.html
The crony-capitalist corruption problem is made worse by our lobby-capitalist corruption and the idea that processed cereal is better than steak or ground meat is ridiculous. And dishonest.
Like so many college-educated elites' BS. Like so much COVID advice & mandates.
Normal folk need far better lifestyle guidance, and especially more truth about what is known and what is not known.
Sugar-water should NOT be paid for by taxpayers - tho limited milk and 100% fruit juices should be eligible. Inv Sun's "Rice & beans + a cot to sleep" might be the most healthy incentivizing policy, but that's too drastic a step for today's politics - tho it might be possible for homeless camp re-location.
They talk about a carbon tax - but where is the obesity tax talk? I'd much prefer taxing sodas or plastic straws over banning them. Miles Kimball (Noah Smith's econ advisor) has lots of notes that SUGAR should be considered a mild poison and lots of obesity is based on insulin changes.
.
On housing, Tim Lee's graphs seem excellent, better than most of Kevin Erdmann's, with Tim talking about 2006 overbuilding as seen by the drop in new starts after that. Tho he doesn't mention interest rates nor mortgage money availability. Also his FRED graphs end at 2016-ish so the last 5 years are missing. Arnold's use of "momentum" for the housing remains OK for me, tho Tim's note on 3 false bottoms is strong enough against to think he's also OK.
Sort of like chocolate vs pistachio taste, not whether the sky is lime green.
_I_ find political constraints more plausible that some unknown technical constraint. As for amounts, as Lincoln said, "A mans legs should be long enough to reach the ground."
Whatever "triggered" the Great Recession (housing?) is of little importance relative to the policy mismanagement of the Fed in allowing inflation expectations to remain below target (even when employment was nowhere near a maximum)
🤡
I think that is too strong. Bernanke and Yellen really felt they were politically constrained in taking more decisive action to raise inflation expectations.
What possible evidence could there be that a lack of Fed action wasn't the problem if ZIRP plus $3 trillion in QE isn't enough to make you believe the Fed's political constraints weren't the issue?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
The answer would be to provide free rice & beans for food and a cot in a hostel for a bed. That would be my direct to person government welfare. Sufficient to allow a person not to starve, but insufficient to make it a desirable way of life.
Then focus the "system" on incentives to create and provide employment. People need to work not just for their self improvement but because it gives them something to do - idle hands create many social problems.
There is no perfectly efficient welfare system. But the system should at least try to create positive outcomes and minimize negative outcomes.
I appreciate you providing substance to my hand waving. The US is extremely generous with welfare. Evidence of this is the recognition that once on welfare it is very difficult for people to transition to earned income without becoming worse off, due to the income cutting of eligibility to benefits. And yet if you raise those caps it is the American way to game the system and double dip - and why not? The culture no longer looks down on those receiving "welfare" so why not take what the government gives and spend the "savings" on the things you want.
But my reason to fix the system is to reduce the corporate benefit from increased welfare. SNAP is a great, bad, example of this. I suppose you can't buy cigarettes with a SNAP card but it seems you can buy just about anything else. Just checked the eligibility list and it is curious. You can buy snack foods, but not vitamins. This only makes sense if you figure the snack companies have better lobbyists.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items