The US bailout paid for itself... If you consider the equivalent of 0.6% growth, not adjusted for inflation, paying for itself. In practice the US's cost of borrowing the money was substantially more than that.
you need to compare the alternative. and also take into account the growth that happened thanks to cheap mortgages.
there was a nominal price bubble (especially visible in the rent vs buy graph) but rents did not show the same spike, there was no general shortage (as seen in vacancy rates), and since interest rates fell nominal prices went up, and the central bank overcorrected.
... the obvious problem is the low productivity of suburbs. spending a lot of money on building them is good for short-term GDP growth, but long-term it's a poor investment compared to the usual recommendations.
The US bailout paid for itself... If you consider the equivalent of 0.6% growth, not adjusted for inflation, paying for itself. In practice the US's cost of borrowing the money was substantially more than that.
you need to compare the alternative. and also take into account the growth that happened thanks to cheap mortgages.
there was a nominal price bubble (especially visible in the rent vs buy graph) but rents did not show the same spike, there was no general shortage (as seen in vacancy rates), and since interest rates fell nominal prices went up, and the central bank overcorrected.
https://www.fullstackeconomics.com/p/the-2000s-housing-bubbl...
... the obvious problem is the low productivity of suburbs. spending a lot of money on building them is good for short-term GDP growth, but long-term it's a poor investment compared to the usual recommendations.
Oh, sure, it was probably the right thing to do, no argument there.