As the graph below shows, there has been a boom in the sale of new, single-family homes in the US since the late 1990s.

In recent weeks, common wisdom bandied about on financial talk shows is that this housing boom was somehow caused by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan’s reduction in short-term interest rates during the years 2000-2004.

But is this reasonable?

Might there not be some other explanation?

Consider Demographics Rather Than Interest Rates

The thing that strikes me about the graph of new home sales (besides the boom of the late 1990s) is that the addition of new homes to the US housing supply has been more or less stable for over thirty years, fluctuating around only 600,000 new homes a year.

New Home Sales Began To Take Off in the 1990s
New Home Sales Began To Take Off in the 1990s

In 1999, the stock of single family homes in the US was about 112 million units. That means that the supply of new homes, for over thirty years, was less that one percent of the number of homes in use at the end of the century.

New Immigrants and Internal Migrants Need Homes

Compare this to the statistics on legal immigration, which, since the end of World War II, has grown from about one million a year, to over nine million a year by 2000. See the graph in the article, “America Grows With Legal Immigration“.

More »

 
divider

Federal Reserve flow of funds table F105 shows that the cost of state and local government to citizens has been steadily escalating over the last five years.

Taxes and other receipts of state and local government increased 2.7% in 2002, 5.5% in 2003, 6.2% in 2004, and 6.7% in 2005.

Most state and local government are not allowed to run a fiscal deficit and increases in expenses are passed on to citizens as higher taxes and other receipts.

The government, in calculating the Consumer Price Index, does not include the cost of increased taxes.

The rising cost of state and local government is an example of ‘hidden’ inflation. (See: Fiddling the CPI)

Federal Reserve flow of funds table F105 does not include the cost of retirement funds for government employees and therefore inflation of state and local government costs is probably greater.

(See: Consequences: Rising Home Values, Land Costs, and Pension Benefits.)

divider

copyright | privacy | home

Powered by WordPress | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)