467,000 more jobs lost in June.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

TheRealMafoo said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:

TheRealMafoo said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:

TheRealMafoo said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:

What happy said didn't address my point, in fact he pretty much showed that it had nothing to do with government action.  Look at the chart that happy provided, home prices adjusted for inflation didn't exceed historical norms until 2001, that means that most of the activity in Subprime leanding and in housing price bubbling didn't occur until after the last recession which followed the dot com burst and 9/11.  This shows it had very little to do with anything the government did with regards to expanding housing back in 92.

Look at the chart again. House prices started to rise in 1993, and inflation adjusted in 1997.

Look closer inflation adjusted wasn't until 1998, inflation adjusted is all that matters, because the value of a dollar isn't constant, and it didn't pass historical norms until 2000-2001, notice that hump back in 89-90?  So like I said it wasn't until this decade that prices and subprime lending became an issue, and the liklihood was that rising home prices was due to much more low interest rates and bush's tax cuts generating demand and the banks loosening up their lending prices to make more money on that demand that was the cause, not any decision to expand housing.

So you're saying Clinton was wrong when he said he helped cause this?

I'm not really concerned with what he says, he's neither an economist nor a banker, etc.  The fact is that the jump in home prices and the subprime leanding is too late to really be attributable to anythig he did with regards to housing.

wow, ok, then I guess we are done. When the President of the US does something that is unheard of (takes responsibility for something that's gone wrong), and that's not enough to convince you, I am sure nothing out of my mouth will.

You have your views, and they are obviously unchangeable. See you in another thread :)

I would take more credence in your argument, if the evidence for it was more substantial, but when compared to things like low interest rates, speculation, high foreign investments, etc. etc. that sound much more likely and timely, something done almost a decade before any of the problems started seems pretty unlikely to be the cause.