3 ms·
You're only looking at one aspect - housing. What's missing in this analysis is that fuel costs had risen 400% in a very short time frame, and in an economy tha
by taylodl 3y ago
You're only looking at one aspect - housing. What's missing in this analysis is that fuel costs had risen 400% in a very short time frame, and in an economy that was much more fuel-dependent than it is today. Imagine if gasoline were to rapidly rise to over $12 per gallon? Natural gas was even worse, we had actual shortages, so you can imagine what that did to the market. I still remember the president of the United States addressing the nation from the Oval Office wearing a cardigan to set an example that it was okay to turn the thermostat down and bundle up. The speed limit on the interstate had been dropped to 55 MPH to encourage people to driver slower and conserve fuel.
Housing was just yet another problem at the time.
The problem with housing today is an amazing lack of foresight from our so-called leaders then. Everyone accommodated the Boomers (I'm Gen X). They didn't have enough houses for the Boomers - let alone the kids the Boomers would have (the Millennials) who would be living as adults at the same time as their parents. There was a rash of home-building in the 40's, 50's and 60's, and then it slowed way down, never to reach those levels again. Meanwhile, advances in healthcare increased people's lifetimes, exacerbating a housing shortage that all the experts were warning about even back in the 70's and yet nothing was being done about.
I say all this to say I see the same thing happening with the climate "debate" today. We know what's coming. What know what the economic impacts are going to be. But we sit and equivocate and do nothing. If you think today's housing crises is bad, wait until you see what hits us in 30-40 years!
Funny too how the ever-vaunted market failed to solve the housing issue...but that's a story for another time.