RESIDENT EXPERT

A World of Hurt

Are real-estate prices set to fall around the globe?

PHOTOS

The Bailout Felt 'Round the World

A look at how an American made crisis has shaken economies the world over.

Lower Credit-Card Limits Hit Holiday Shopping

Photos: What About Us?

By Daniel McGinn | NEWSWEEK

Published Oct 22, 2008

From the Editors (2)
Economy in Recession: The Starbucks Effect
What About Us?

See All

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

If declining home values have you down, and you'd like some company in your misery, here's a glimmer of good news: when it comes to the housing downturn, the United States is starting to have plenty of company.

It's been nearly three years since U.S. home values peaked at the height of what was, in retrospect, a bubble fueled by low interest rates, speculation and a general giddiness as millions of Americans began to look at their houses not only as a place to live, but as an asset that would make them rich. For years the experts assured nervous homebuyers that nationwide home prices had never fallen year-over-year since the Great Depression—a record that's come to a painful halt as the average U.S. home has now lost more than 15 percent of its value.

Meanwhile, a similar transformation has been taking place in other countries. In much of the world, home prices soared during the first half of this decade, rising far beyond the levels that you'd expect, based on traditional economic factors. In the last year, however, many of those markets have seen their housing bubbles burst, too. In fact, during the first six months of 2008, a host of economies—including that of Denmark, New Zealand, the UK, Spain, Sweden, Canada and Norway—have seen home prices fall at a faster rate than is occurring in the United States.

In a study published this month, economist Prakash Loungani of the International Monetary Fund examined how this boom-bust cycle is playing out around the globe. He and his colleagues looked at how and why home prices rose in a variety of countries between 1997 and 2007. They tried to figure how much of the rise could be explained by traditional economic drivers like income growth, population growth, interest rates, the availability of credit and the wealth being created by rising stock prices. In a host of countries, home price gains went well beyond the levels you'd expect based on those variables, and the IMF study looks at this "house price gap" as one indicator of just how bubbly each country's housing market became. In Australia, Ireland and the U.K., this gap ranged from 20 to 30 percent, and in France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain the gap ran between 10 and 20 percent. In the last year, home values in all those countries have begun to fall more quickly than they are in the United States.

"By now the U.S. has undergone substantial correction already, so that the other countries are experiencing much more profound changes in their house prices," says Loungani, who's based in Washington.

While optimists have begun looking for the bottom in U.S. home prices, in Europe the sense is that their roller-coaster ride is just getting started. "In Europe, we're in the more early stage of the downturn," says Ruth Stroppiana, the London-based chief international economist at Moody's Economy.com. Stroppiana says the overseas housing-bubbles were driven by many of the same factors that drove U.S. home prices so high—low interest rates and loose credit among them. (American lenders weren't the only ones offering mortgages for more than 100 percent of the value of a home.)

Member Comments

Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 11/03/2008 10:30:35 PM

In the exchange with "Joe the plumber" Obama unintentionally revealed that he really is as radical as his early political mentors and acquaintances, Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi etc., (gee, there sure seem to be a lot of them) and that he is into the failed economic policy of wealth redistribution. Now there is absolute proof. In 2001, Obama, the "community organizer" turned legislator, said in an interview:

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview.

Obama's tax and spending plans alone would be bad enough, but add Reid and Pelosi to the mix, with the three of them controlling both houses of Congress and the executive branch without any effective restraint, and you have something that should causes concern even among moderate Democrats.
See Wall Street Journal: A Liberal Supermajority:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

Indeed, some democrats are publically saying as much. See Barney Franks comments on the news, including face the nation last week, stating essentially that Democrats in Congress intend to greatly raise taxes and go on a spending spree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGnSAlqjoU

See http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23617.html

Obama's ill-conceived programs will require him to tax, and his health care plan alone is a substantial hidden tax on all business, large an small. In reality, it does not really matter who he taxes, those taxes are going to be passed through the economy. He has to tax, because it is they only way he can pay for his massive social engineering experiments. Any first year economics student knows that taxation is a tool used to contract an economy experiencing inflation, because it reduces demand by reducing the amount of money individuals and businesses have to spend. It is contractionary, which is exactly what you do not want to do when the problem is that the economy is contracting already into recession. Like Hoover and FDR, Obama's plans will only make it worse for longer.

See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/opinion/main4499465.shtml
And
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

The democrats failed social engineering policies in the housing market are what brought us to ruin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related
Even Bill Clinton says so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE
Obama and a supermajority of Democrats simply is not the change we need, nor is it change we can afford.
Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/27/2008 8:18:39 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

2001 Chicago Public Citizen Radio Interview criticizing the Warren Court as not radical enough for not pursuing redistribution of wealth.

Says that community organizing is for the purpose of assembling the political power to force redistribution of wealth.
Posted By: Nowforthetruth @ 10/26/2008 9:34:44 PM

The Kennedy tax cut.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

About half way through the article.

"President Kennedy proposed massive tax-rate reductions, which were passed by Congress and became law after he was assassinated. The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. The cut reduced lower-bracket rates as well. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax-rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue--adjusted for inflation--increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) increased by 2.6 percent per year . In the four years following the tax cut, federal government income tax revenue increased by 8.6 percent annually and total government income tax revenue increased by 9.0 percent annually. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate.
The Kennedy tax cut set the example that President Ronald Reagan would follow some 17 years later. By increasing incentives to work, produce, and invest, real GDP growth increased in the years following the tax cuts: More people worked, and the tax base expanded. Additionally, the expenditure side of the budget benefited as well because the unemployment rate was significantly reduced.
Using the Congressional Budget Office's revenue forecasts (made with the full knowledge of the future tax cuts), revenues came in much higher than had been anticipated, even after the "cost""of the tax cut had been taken into account. Additionally, in 1965--one year following the tax cut--personal income tax revenue data exceeded expectations by the greatest amounts in the highest income classes.
Testifying before Congress in 1977, Walter Heller, President Kenned''s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, summarized:
What happened to the tax cut in 1965 is difficult to pin down, but insofar as we are able to isolate it, it did seem to have a tremendously stimulative effect, a multiplied effect on the economy. It was the major factor that led to our running a $3 billion surplus by the middle of 1965 before escalation in Vietnam struck us. It was a $12 billion tax cut, which would be about $33 or $34 billion in today's terms, and within one year the revenues into the Federal Treasury were already above what they had been before the tax cut.
Did the tax cut pay for itself in increased revenues? I think the evidence is very strong that it did."