Is this bail out the KEATING 5 all over again?

Source(s): the problem lies in the nature of command decisions. When any arbitrary goal is set for a system, such as the housing market in America, there is always the chance that the goal is either unattainable or extremely expensive. When the cost is measured in politics and not economics, the chance of adopting a goal that is "too far" is much higher. And since the goals set for the housing industry have been ratcheted upward, without a downward move at all, since 1933, the process is moving toward the inevitable point where the goal simply isn't workable. What goal was this? Increasing home ownership. While the middle class believes heavily in home ownership, that is not true of either the upper class or the working class. The upper class has far more renters than the middle class, according to census data. The working class also has more renters than the middle class, but it also has far more job and regional mobility -- both of which impose costs on owning the house instead of renting it. Owning a house is for people with stable jobs who aren't going to be moving any time soon. As the economy has asked more and more people to move, the added cost of selling your house and buying another grows -- it eats your capital. [unless your employer is paying and the working class' employers do not pay for them to move.] so -- i think the goal of "higher" home ownership is the problem. And the $1 trillion we've lost, or however much it is, is the price we're paying for setting a political goal and then warping our entire economy to try and make it come true. Fearless Forecast: The true, after inflation return to owning a house in most of America will be negative for much of the next decade, if not two decades. Renting will win.