5 ms·

Since the mid-2000s house prices have risen less, on average, than disposable income in the US. https://twitter.com/MPelletierCIO/status/1522704947556483073/ph

• Retric 4y ago
  Notice you said disposable income rather than income, there is a huge difference. But I think people recognize the housing bubble that popped in 2008 as a bubble. Saying we haven’t reached the peak of the last bubble doesn’t mean we aren’t in a bubble.
  • pastaguy1 4y ago
    There were structural/regulatory reasons that helped the bubble grow last time, are there any indications of this now? If they are there we probably won't know until it's too late, but this housing bubble feels a little more like an everything bubble
    • redisman 4y ago
      Artificially low interest rates for a decade could have a similar effect
      • pas 4y ago
        the inflation target was barely met (and according to arguments about service degradation) it was undershot, so no, the interest rate was not too low. (there's no non-artificial rate in a central bank managed economy)
      • imtringued 4y ago
        You mean artificially high interest rates. If interest rates fell negative then the money supply would shrink and there would be less unneeded money to speculatively buy houses with. Alas, we live in a world in which negative interest rates were banned and therefore the money supply and economy must constantly grow to raise interest rates above 0%. I find it frustrating that people ignore basic market principles when it is inconvenient for them. Like, people get richer (everyone is saving incredible amounts of money), the population is no longer growing, there are fewer and fewer investment opportunities and yet for some reason, people think they have a god given right to high interest rates anyway, even when those are impossible to pay without inflation.