Replies

I do not keep saying the same thing over and over. I've addressed a number of different aspects of this issue. You keep posting the same charts with no source for some of your data, and I'm not sure you even understand what your charts mean. When I talk economic principles, those are principles and concepts, not data, so I'm giving you my educated opinion about economic principles and not data. I don't have time to look up supporting material in my economics books, especially since most of this is fairly basic material. You're the guy who says that ratios of housing value to GDP should stay constant over time, with no rationale for that argument other than your own opinion. I gave you a good example of consumer electronics where this ratio has collapsed over the last 30 years. I explained how increasing commute times are driving the ratio of home values to GDP upward. You just respond with your opinions and the same unsourced data.

You are losing this debate with us because your opinions are too extreme, too vague, and too unsubstantiated.

I gave you nationwide statistics in chart form. A chart comparing housing to GDP is not limited to suburban metro areas. And besides, the same factors which drive up suburban metro prices have been in existence for a long time. Even if we just limited ourselves to suburban metro areas, it doesn't explain the spike in NATIONAL home prices relative to GDP.

Let's recap. I have demonstrated that housing has risen faster than GDP, inflation, and personal incomes on a nationwide basis. I have also demonstrated that there has been a spike in household debt as a percent of assets (in the face of falling interest rates!), a spike in household debt as a percent of GDP, and a spike in risky loans (interest only, option ARMS, etc). Your argument, is a shift in capital flows, and a limited supply of homes in suburban metro areas explains the nationwide bubble away. Do I have the current state of our debate correct?