It's good for the community but not the wisest investment.
In America we draw a connection between owning a home and being a good citizen. We've evolved from a feudal society, in which those who didn't own land were almost like slaves, to one in which homeownership is linked to social mobility, as well as civic virtue. In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that America "stands alone" in the equality of distribution of property and that "nations are less disposed to make revolutions in proportion as personal property is augmented and distributed amongst them, and as the number of those possessing it increases." In fact, studies like one done by Edward Glaeser at Harvard University and Bruce Sacerdote at Dartmouth have shown that homeowners are indeed better citizens—they are more likely to vote in local elections or to know the name of the head of the local school system. Speaking to a group of people at the much-maligned Fannie Mae recently, I said that I believed the work that they do contributes to the generally good feelings that Americans have toward each other.
But what's ironic, as any classical economist would tell you, is that homeownership is actually not a great idea from an investment standpoint. A better strategy would be to diversify as much as possible—put your money into stocks, bonds, many different geographies—and then use the income to rent whatever you like, which allows for greater flexibility and efficiencies. The popular argument that renting is equivalent to throwing money down the drain is really fallacious, since the money you save can be invested to produce dividends. Instead of you tinkering with the plumbing and breaking something, a professional can do it. The lawn guy who has the right equipment can come and mow all the lawns faster and better than individuals would, and so on.
Still, behavioral economics tells us that the emotional lure of homeownership is strong and would be difficult to break completely, even if that were desirable. I think that what's really needed at this point is some restructuring of the model for homeownership. Let's allow people to continue becoming homeowners, but find better ways to manage the risk around these investments. Perhaps we need to reconsider some of the tax benefits that encourage homeownership. We might also create new types of mortgages that reset depending on the ability of people to pay. We could also elevate the status of renting, by increasing the rights of renters relative to landlords.
Broad home- and stock-ownership in the United States and overseas is a good thing. But limits need to be set. To the extent that an equity culture leads to entrepreneurship and investment and wealth creation, I'm for it. But I was not, for example, in favor of George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. Can you imagine what would have happened to people retiring today if that plan were in place? I like to think of capitalism as a game. We need to make sure we structure the rules of the game in such a way that we don't get injured while playing it.
Shiller is the Arthur M. Okun Professor of Economics at Yale University and cofounder of MacroMarkets LCC. His most recent book is “The Subprime Solution.”
© 2008
And to top it off......when I sold it,I pocketed ALL the money and paid not ONE CENT in federal taxes since being single and the house was under 250k. All the property tax was a deduction along with interest on the loan. Home ownership,especially if one does some or all the maintenance yourself is a no brainer..
You'll NEVER convince me that owning a home is not a good investment. I recently sold my home in Oregon with a average year to year gain of 5.7% for 17 years. In that area>>>>>$9600 would have been spent on yearly rent for that home. My mtg. payment was NEVER more than $333. Now how is that again that paying rent is NOT throwing money away? INSANE!! In all>>>>my home gained 275% in those 17 years. This,in just a small rural community mainly in agriculture.
Obama in this video, addressing his work with ACORN litigation relating to the community reinvestment act and the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as they relate to the current real estate and financial crisis, states that, and I quote:
"Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously could not afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out among investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky, and more diversified."
He further states:
"The original idea was a good one, which was, lets see if we can distribute risk more broadly, and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might not be able to get one."
Listen for yourself. You cannot dispute the mans on words recorded live:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related
Obama in this second video is campaigning at a convention of Acorn and I believe two other "Community Activist" organizations. Ask if he will be their ally if he becomes President, Obama says, quote:
"Yes, but let me say that before I even get inaugurated, during the transition we are going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America."
See and hear it for yourself. Obama promised that Acorn and other groups like it will setting his agenda if elected:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vJcVgJhNaU
See also: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972
Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."
See also:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=808692&boardsparam=Page%3d2
Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
See also
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 from this web site. (oops!) stating that Freddie Mac was spending tax payer money to target Republicans in 2005 who were trying to regulate Fannie and Freddies fraud. Democrats were not targeted, as the were all in the tank with Fannie and Freddie to kill the regulations. Hear that, the article admits that Republicans were trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie, and Democrats were trying to stop it from happening as a means to facilitate the Community Reinvestment Act.
The crisis has forced the United States to confront bad habits developed over the past few decades. If we can kick those habits, today's pain will translate into gains.
MEDIA Just a year after buying The Wall Street Journal, the press rapscallion has revitalized the fusty paper.
Sponsored by
|
Loading Menu
Discuss