Skip to main content

Affordable Housing Measures Yield Unaffordable Outcomes

As it turns out, the subsidized housing industry is effectively failing to achieve much more than artificially stimulating nominal demand in the rental market, supplying upward pressure to real estate prices that are a function of those rents.

The core obstacle to affordable housing is the vicious cycle of increasingly unaffordable units encouraged by government-guaranteed loans and the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy and artificially-low rates of interest which fuel speculation, combined with the regressive zoning laws, regulations and restrictions which oppose the expansion of supply. Sustainable growth in the housing stock follows substantive growth in household income. Otherwise it's purely speculative.

In the United States, real median household incomes are roughly 9% below their pre-dot-com-bubble peak, even when using the modest inflation figures of the Federal Reserve.

This intimates that the United States real estate market is being exercised as an illusory generator of false confidence, one that outstrips the productive capacities of those betting on its continued appreciation.

This type of wealth effect only inspires its beneficiaries to feel wealthy in the short run, failing to inspire the style of real investment that might engender infrastructural economic development  to sustain these leveraged speculative practices.

Much like the bubble in student loans, the middle and lower classes would benefit most widely from government's complete departure from the business.

This means abolishing government-guaranteed loans and grants, dismantling government-sponsored enterprises operating in the secondary markets, reforming the tax code that offers advantages to these investments, and allowing a market rate of interest.

This would enable the prices of homes and tuition to fall to reachable, merited levels.

This would surely bring pain to those speculators, but that is merely the price for a return to sustainability.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would