2010-05-12nytimes.com

One perspective says that most of the housing boom was a colossal market mistake: an unfortunate consequence of easy money, lax regulator oversight, subsidies to home ownership and irrationally exuberant buyers. In this view, public policy would ideally have pushed back, and housing construction would not have boomed anywhere close to the way it did. Let’s call this the “bubble theory.”

The opposing view says that there were good supply and demand reasons to significantly increase the amount of housing above previous trends. With the advantage of hindsight, we might have preferred to have stretched out the 2000-2006 construction activity over a longer period, or to have put some of the new houses in different locations. Still, much of the housing built in the 2000s will ultimately prove desirable. Let’s call this the “fundamentals theory.”



Comments:

tvsterling at 07:10 2010-05-13 said:
Had hoped for a real contrarian viewpoint here. Nothing but a RE industry puff piece in my opinion. It totally ignores the modern situation where most workers cannot command enough income to really afford a home. Twenty years of the 'Race to The Bottom' thru outsourcing & importing illegal alien workers & destruction of worker's rights have taken their toll. Add to this the instability of modern life; jobs are no longer real careers & marriages are generally treated as throwaways (two incomes are now needed to pay the mortgage payment). The whole business model for traditional home ownership is obsolete. I would say the future belongs to the landlord. Housing will be bought up & managed as rentals. Only the relative few will be able to stand the inherent risks of owning in our changed world. Permalink

add a comment | go to forum thread