By constraining the supply of loans, first and foremost you’d be cutting out those who need it most. Unfortunately, that’s how risk markets work - the riskiest (also usually the poorest) get cut first.
The interest rate argument isn’t actually very grounded in fact - in order to save from refinancing, the rates have to have declined from where they were before. If rates stay flat, there is no benefits in refi - whether they stay flat at 5%, 3% or 10%, as long as the rates stay flat. However, borrowing at a lower rate is better because you end up putting more into the equity. If you borrow at zero percent, everything you pay in goes to reduce the principle and so long as the property doesn’t decline, you are building wealth.
This is why arguing to reduce the loan supply to me is very counterproductive. What we need is better education and fewer predatory lending practices. Things like payday loans, etc, are currently predatory. Those could be reformed to serve the purpose they were originally intended for (emergency money), but until that happens, things like that create the actual problem, not the loan supply itself.
This seems true intuitively, but if you think deeper, where does that accumulated wealth/equity come from? They are paid by future generations of regular people, or generational wealth transfer as some call it.
Better more folks accumulate at least something.
This is completely true. Another example, in NL, the gov removed “transfer tax” on first-home purchases in 2021. This led to an increase in housing prices, as the “savings” just helped people bid higher on houses.
The world and its economy are absurd.
It's why China had to start building cities, eventually density stops being economically feasible either.
>the healthcare system in a market economy easily expands to the point where people are working their whole lives to the point where the healthcare system can ultimately confiscate all of that value back
is ludicrous. Healthcare systems in market economies expand to fill a respectable but manageable share of people's budgets. You can tell by looking at literally any other country with a market economy (most of them) and checking what they charge for an ambulance.
My point is: given a population of health-conscious, long-term thinking consumers, a free market to serve their needs is likely to work out pretty well… except for potentially getting flooded by long-term promises that aren't actually held up over the long-term. But if the population isn't focused on health and is short-term focused, we'd see market failure here, and yet the population and economy overall will still face all the costs of people not choosing to get the preventative care they need and thus spreading disease or other social costs long-term.
If pushing the "confirm order" button on your ecommerce site launches a nuclear-tipped ICBM, the fact that it's "to spec" doesn't really mean much.
It's an interesting dynamic of the more reckless moving the market for everyone and harming not just themselves, but also others, and the potential link to more money being available for lending due to inequality is very interesting indeed, because it suggests a nasty negative cycle.
Meaning that, if you've got any concerns that rates might go up in the near future, you're reasonably well incentivized to get into a bidding war in order to close now instead of later.
In some ways lower interest rates is actually better since higher home values mean you can spend more on amenities like high end kitchen and bathroom as a builder.
The issue comes when you start looking at sub-prime debtors like students. If you have a 300 bps risk premium for being an unreliable borrower but the interest rate for reliable creditors is only 2%, your risk premium is 150%, but if the reliable borrower rate was 6% then your risk premium is only 50%. Add to this the fact that refinancing student loans (issued by the government) causes them to lose benefits like the 0% interest pause we have right now. That means the government intervention has caused a market distortion: you can't fungibly exchange your loan for a refinanced one at the market rate but instead are stuck with the 5-8% rates from 5 years ago.
Government intervention also has other impacts: since you can't discharge student loans in bankruptcy, there's no incentive for universities to make students succeed or to discriminate admittance/cost by major (proxy for future earning power). That means we have a huge number of people stuck with high interest loans they can't discharge or refinance and useless degrees in majors that have 0 value to society. If you changed this to allow students to discharge student debt in bankruptcy and forced universities to assume the risk instead of the government, university incentives would be aligned with student incentives.
At scale, I can think of several that have negative value. But generally? No, every degree has value. Some are abstract and hard to quantify in ways that economists can track but that doesn’t mean the world wouldn’t be worse without them.
I think it's very unlikely most humanities majors are going on to produce culture defining works. Perhaps in the Ivy Leagues, but that's also where students are primarily wealthy and already capable of paying for college and therefore not subsidized by the state. I went to a highly ranked public school and most humanities majors ended up working either in low paying clerical work (data entry, event planning, on-site property management, etc.) or in food service (i.e. barista). These are jobs where you don't need a college education (or maybe just an associate's degree) and certainly not a four year degree in classics.
IIRC most European countries don't have anywhere near the size of humanities programs that the US does, most students that can't make it into a good humanities program or can't make it into STEM go to trade schools. Europe doesn't have quite the number of private schools offering these useless degrees to people who couldn't get accepted into more prestigious institutions.
As wages go up, the money available for people to pay for housing goes up.
If a given city employs people and pays enough that 1 person earning an typical wage can afford $1k a month rent, then that's what rent will be. It won't be lower (because landlords will charge the most they can), but it won't be higher (people will move to another city - perhaps one with lower wages, but lower rent).
When we switched to a society where it was normal to have 2 incomes in a given house, the money available to pay for housing increased dramatically (towards $2k, but for families you'd have to remove things like childcare costs which would normally have been done by 1 person), and thus rents increase to the point where supply/demand returns to an equilibrium.
Now aside from rent, you could also buy. A house costs whatever the maintenence is, plus the interest cost of the mortgage (there's also the capital repayment part and the likelihood of the house increasing in value in the future)
Rents are also capped by this - if the cost of buying (including the maintenence) goes below renting, then people will buy. That means house prices are constrained by rental - if the cost of buying/owning house is too much, people will rent. Ultimately they to can always move out of the city and leave their job.
When interest rates went down, people could spent more on buying a house, which meant prices went up.
Imagine a couple that have a budget for $2k a month for housing. If interest rates were to double, mortgage costs would increase. That wouldn't change rents (which would still be $2k), but instead of a house costing say $800k (2k/month allowing 800k loan at 3% interest), instead people could only borrow say 400k. That means that houses go down to 400k, but still cost the same per month.
This is great for people with spare cash, as they can buy up those cheaper properties without having to pay the interest, and still get their $2k/month rent coming in.
It's no change for people who want to buy for $2k/month, that's what they can afford, and it's going to be roughly the same as what it would cost to rent.
It's terrible for people who want to sell and repay their equity, as the house price has suddenly halved. They bought it with an 800k loan, have repaid 10% of that, and owe 720k, now they can only sell for 400k. So they rent it out instead and rent somewhere else.
Does anyone have a good source of this kind of data?
When I looked, non-conforming loans had slightly higher rates, but in a sub-3% world... it wasn't a huge difference. Sometimes down payment affected the rate, sometimes it didn't. Lenders seemed to have a lot of knobs to tweak on the backend to make it work if they wanted to make the loan for clients who were shopping around.
It brings us to a fundamental question, and that is, how many years should it really take for someone to buy anything with straight cash. For homes the market believes 15-30 years. For college, it believes something like 2 years to the day you die lol.
Dare I say the people that actually own this stuff before everyone else may believe you should never be able to afford it. That you will buy any number of these things and keep paying until the day you die. Life-as-a-service.
If we ever answer the question of ‘how many years of income’, we’ll have no choice but to come to the conclusion that sellers are operating in the realm of cruelty. That one can charge 30 years of your income and frugality for what they are selling. It’s unreasonable to ask for such a thing, so instead we don’t speak about it and hide the disgusting asking price behind financing.
This is true, when other regulations prevent people from creating more of the goods. Yes, a seller can sell a box of pasta for $100k... but who will buy it, if you can make your own pasta for cheap, and even sell it to people who want to buy it, but don't want to pay the first sellers house.
In my city, the housing prices are fscking high and rising, but we have literal cornfields and cows in places that are technically the middle of the city. We have right governments, who don't do anything about housing, we have left governments, saying they'll rais the rent taxes (so making rents higher) and build government apartment buildings (=too expensive) for people (=their friends), but noone stops to look at the satellite map and say "hmm.. we could build here, and there, and there...".
Look at San francico for example... there is a huge need for housing, but most of the houses are single family houses... there's no way to pack so many people there in such houses - you need to build huge apartments buildings, but regulation does not allow that, and housing is expensive.