This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The Economist doesn't seem to know economics.
I was presented this article by Reddit as an ad. Though the ad used the subtitle about Trump as the title. This article packs more "wrong" in a coherently-written article than I've seen in a long time. The actual title is "America’s huge mortgage market is slowly dying".
Right out of the gate, we're told mortgage debt has dropped over 30 points as a percentage of the GDP since the housing crisis, and now is at its lowest level since 1999, before the bubble. Wait a minute? Isn't that a good thing? We've finally returned to normalcy after the bubble? In fact, the graph appears to show just that. Mortgage debt is still higher as a percent of GDP than any time other than the bubble.
We're then told "mortgage debt has shrunk to just 27% of the value of American household property—a 65-year low". Uh, yes, but those of us who are paying attention realize that this isn't because mortgage debt has shrunk, it's because the value of American property has increased. Which doesn't have much to do with any dying of the mortgage market.
Then we get this howler:
Uh, how exactly is lenders' appetite for risk a measure of mortgage availability?
The article then goes on to call this a "collapse in credit", because in 2003 (peak bubble), 35% of American mortgages went to people with credit scores below 720, whereas now that number is 22%. But the attached chart shows total originations are fairly close to immediately pre-COVID numbers. There's no real drying up in credit since the end of the bubble, just extension of the same credit to more creditworthy borrowers. Note that more than half of Americans with a credit score have one over 720. American's credit scores have increased, and lending less to people who are higher risk just makes sense. The bubble lending DIDN'T make sense, that's how we got the bubble!
Did I call the previous one a howler? No, that wasn't a howler. THIS is a howler:
Uh, bitch, prices are high. Time on market is low. There's LOTS of buyers. It's a seller's market. If developers aren't building (and indeed they aren't) it's not a lack of prospective buyers causing it.
This is heart of the problem with the article: if there is indeed a mortgage drought preventing people from buying houses, house prices should be falling, not rising. Basic Econ 101 stuff. The article completely ignores this right up until the very end, when it notes
I don't know what G-S means by that, but "any policies meant to make mortgages more widely available will only push house prices higher" makes more sense than anything else in the article, and it contradicts the whole thesis of the article.
The housing market has plenty of problems. Unavailability of credit is definitely not one of them.
Reminds me of this viral Substack series: Part 1, Part 2..
...
The median age of first time homebuying has gone up from 28 in the 1990s to 40. First-time buyers now comprise just 21% of all home purchases.
Nothing about this seems sustainable to me. At least the younger generation will inherit the houses? Well, no. Usually inheritance passes down to the next generation, which currently owns their own homes. And many elderly are forced to sell their houses to pay for eldercare, meaning that all that home value goes to the health care system instead of anyone else.
Ok, but then who are the elderly selling to? People in their 40s able and willing to get into tons of debt. OK, but who buys when you exhaust that group? Property investment firms who are able to rent the houses out. Can that go on forever? Well, if they're buying houses at a certain price, they're hoping the rent will be more than the mortgage over the length of the life of the home. This happens when rents increase over time. Will we always have more people looking for homes than there are available?
To put a finer point on it, it seems like the system requires that there be perpetually fewer homes than desired, but this is not really desirable as a society because we like when everyone has a home and punish people who do not have a residence. And, regardless of what's good or bad or anyone's wishes, eventually the population will decrease as the boomers die off.
Home prices have to fall, right? And I wouldn't even be mad about it, though I'd be one of those holding the bag. I'd like for my kids to afford a home. I'd put me in a precarious financial position until the bulk of the principle is payed off. But I will pay the monthly amount I agreed to pay because I'm an adult, and I'll be happy to see my kids in a better position than me because I'm a normal human being.
But anyone who was hoping to trade their $800,000 home for 8 months in hospice care might be in for a rude awakening.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link