Why should government bail out people in housing crisis?

Flannel Shirt · March 2008

cornnifer wrote:

The individual charitable donation argument sounds nice, utopian, and altruistic, but there is a huge, fat, hairy, Jeff Goldblum sized fly in that ointment.

thanks for making me laugh out loud

jeffbr · March 2008

cornnifer wrote:

They're already taking it from you.

That is true, but irrelevant and defeatist.

Why are we so worried about what the war costs? They're already taking it from us. Why are we so worried about the fed bailing out mortgage companies? They're already taking it from us. It is time to stop worrying about what the government is doing with our money. It has already been taken.

I suppose that's one way to look at it, but not my way. I will bitch everytime it is taken. I will bitch about what it is being used for - the war, bailouts, etc... It is still my money even though I have no control over it once the looters have it. I'm glad they manage to do good things with the money occassionally. But if I had $5,000 in my hand right now to give to the poor and the choice between giving it to the government or giving it to somewhere like the Union Gospel Mission in Seattle, I know which way I'd go, and I know which would be more effective at making sure that $5,000 actually went to help those in need.

know1 · March 2008

How about we reward the people who don't need the bailout by giving them another tax rebate?

Abookamongstthemany · March 2008

I posted this elsewhere but it fits here and he's just so awesome so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0BBKjllSlU

cheeseandrice · March 2008

anotherclone wrote:

From my perspective, this problem arose when the industry allowed "zero" down loans. People that couldn't save anything for a down payment, were already one paycheck away from disaster. Basically, they looked at it like "well, its about what I pay for rent, so I can afford this mortgage payment", but the reality of homeownership was something they did not even consider. Things like repairs or annual increases for property taxes. Or what would happen if the economy took a dive and they lost their jobs.

We bought a new house through one of these mortgages. We only needed $100 down. The loan was for 120%, 5.9 fixed. Looking back, we were definitely NOT qualified for a mortgage. There used to be a reason that banks required 20% down. It shows that you can save money and be disciplined, which are attributes that you need to maintain a home. The lender only counts a portion of your expenses. It does not factor in daycare, credit card payments (over the minimum), taxes, child support, or future energy bills. These things add up. They totally disregarded the "golden rule" which most renters go by....make the rent in a week. We made our mortgage in 2 weeks. It took almost 2 years and lots of credit card debt to realize that we were short EVERY month. Luckily we searched for better paying jobs and restructured our loan.

Lerxst1992 · October 8

Does this one work? Most forums I see shy away from new topics, iirc amt may not. In this case the OP is long gone, seems fair?

Lerxst1992 · October 8

This is from @benjs

“ Each time housing affordability comes up, someone points out that interest rates were far higher in the 1980s. It’s true — mortgages above 12% were common. But that point misses the forest for the trees. High rates back then applied to homes that cost a fraction of what they do today.

A house purchased in 1985 often sold for around three or four times the median household income. Today, in many cities, it’s eight to ten times. Even with lower interest, the math simply doesn’t balance out — especially once you add in property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and the near-universal expectation of dual incomes.

The deeper issue is how cheap credit reshaped the market itself. Instead of making homes more affordable, decades of low rates allowed prices to inflate dramatically. Borrowing capacity rose faster than wages, so demand pushed up prices far beyond what middle-income earners could sustain. The very policies meant to encourage homeownership ended up pricing out the next generation.

Meanwhile, wage growth has diverged sharply. A handful of high-paying industries have surged, but the broad middle has stagnated. When commentators say “aggregate wage data exaggerates the problem,” they overlook that the middle class isthe problem — it’s where the collapse in affordability hits hardest.

So while it’s fair to note that interest rates shape total home costs, it’s misleading to suggest today’s buyers are exaggerating their struggle. For their parents, high interest was temporary; for their children, high principal is permanent."

…

My reply…

Cheap credit is a very good point, but remember the horrors of trump1 led to a very “Socialist” law…guarantee of payroll during COVID and cheap cheap interest rates. It’s difficult for the housing market in the states to recover from what this did to real estate values. Once they are up, they don’t come down all that easy. If there is an overall warning as to my top point that this is part of, be very careful of madani/socialist polices, trump 2020 is a good place to include in the discussion, because it had a huge impact on housing. Imagine trump the socialist!

To try to figure out a ratio of wage growth to housing is impossible imo. Some industries/professions, etc have done remarkably well over time, many have not. Remember the majority of replies I get are jokes and unilateral declarations of “bunk!” Cmon!

On that $420k home, interest is 58% of total mortgage cost on a 7% loan and 73% on a 12% loan. Interest is more significant than the homes cost, yet it is commonly ignored by these media articles.

Regarding Chats point about middle class wages, it’s really difficult to analyze. AI and media results will provide data that we see about 1% income growth per year. I know from the companies I’ve worked at, from teachers I know, from local news articles about police, firemen, train workers (all the publicly available data) at least in metro NY that 1% is not close to reality. Again, it’s a difficult thing to quantify, unlike the impact of interest rates.

To take it a step further, and where I get needled by all the Netflix jokes, is the USA is not an employment based economy. It’s an investor based economy. And that’s my argument against mamdani-omnics. For those willing to tighten their budget by a few thousand a year, take employer 401k matches of a few thousand more, and tax breaks of even more, the tax breaks and tools exist to benefit those who watch their budget and invest. I hate risk, but this is our economy.

If we must make this about income, we need to recognize what the American economy is, and try to come up with methods to spread investor gains better throughout the population, like tax free loans from 401k to buy homes. I didn’t create this system, but it is important to recognize. The way to maximize income needs to include unearned income. Housing rises at about 5.5% annually, and the stock markets around 10%. It is what it is. We tried to fix economic problems during Covid with a socialist approach, and it severely hurt the housing market.

Bentleyspop · October 8

Congrats on digging up a 17 yr old thread 👏

benjs · October 9

Bentleyspop said:

Congrats on digging up a 17 yr old thread 👏

To be fair, I was asking the OP for thread integrity, and it makes sense to search for an existing thread prior to making a new one.

Bentleyspop · October 9

benjs said:

Bentleyspop said:

Congrats on digging up a 17 yr old thread 👏

To be fair, I was asking the OP for thread integrity, and it makes sense to search for an existing thread prior to making a new one.

Fair enough

benjs · October 9

Lerxst1992 said:

This is from @benjs

“ Each time housing affordability comes up, someone points out that interest rates were far higher in the 1980s. It’s true — mortgages above 12% were common. But that point misses the forest for the trees. High rates back then applied to homes that cost a fraction of what they do today.
A house purchased in 1985 often sold for around three or four times the median household income. Today, in many cities, it’s eight to ten times. Even with lower interest, the math simply doesn’t balance out — especially once you add in property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and the near-universal expectation of dual incomes.
The deeper issue is how cheap credit reshaped the market itself. Instead of making homes more affordable, decades of low rates allowed prices to inflate dramatically. Borrowing capacity rose faster than wages, so demand pushed up prices far beyond what middle-income earners could sustain. The very policies meant to encourage homeownership ended up pricing out the next generation.
Meanwhile, wage growth has diverged sharply. A handful of high-paying industries have surged, but the broad middle has stagnated. When commentators say “aggregate wage data exaggerates the problem,” they overlook that the middle class isthe problem — it’s where the collapse in affordability hits hardest.
So while it’s fair to note that interest rates shape total home costs, it’s misleading to suggest today’s buyers are exaggerating their struggle. For their parents, high interest was temporary; for their children, high principal is permanent."

…
…

My reply…
Cheap credit is a very good point, but remember the horrors of trump1 led to a very “Socialist” law…guarantee of payroll during COVID and cheap cheap interest rates. It’s difficult for the housing market in the states to recover from what this did to real estate values. Once they are up, they don’t come down all that easy. If there is an overall warning as to my top point that this is part of, be very careful of madani/socialist polices, trump 2020 is a good place to include in the discussion, because it had a huge impact on housing. Imagine trump the socialist!
To try to figure out a ratio of wage growth to housing is impossible imo. Some industries/professions, etc have done remarkably well over time, many have not. Remember the majority of replies I get are jokes and unilateral declarations of “bunk!” Cmon!
On that $420k home, interest is 58% of total mortgage cost on a 7% loan and 73% on a 12% loan. Interest is more significant than the homes cost, yet it is commonly ignored by these media articles.
Regarding Chats point about middle class wages, it’s really difficult to analyze. AI and media results will provide data that we see about 1% income growth per year. I know from the companies I’ve worked at, from teachers I know, from local news articles about police, firemen, train workers (all the publicly available data) at least in metro NY that 1% is not close to reality. Again, it’s a difficult thing to quantify, unlike the impact of interest rates.
To take it a step further, and where I get needled by all the Netflix jokes, is the USA is not an employment based economy. It’s an investor based economy. And that’s my argument against mamdani-omnics. For those willing to tighten their budget by a few thousand a year, take employer 401k matches of a few thousand more, and tax breaks of even more, the tax breaks and tools exist to benefit those who watch their budget and invest. I hate risk, but this is our economy.
If we must make this about income, we need to recognize what the American economy is, and try to come up with methods to spread investor gains better throughout the population, like tax free loans from 401k to buy homes. I didn’t create this system, but it is important to recognize. The way to maximize income needs to include unearned income. Housing rises at about 5.5% annually, and the stock markets around 10%. It is what it is. We tried to fix economic problems during Covid with a socialist approach, and it severely hurt the housing market.

ChatGPT's reply..

Here’s what the author of that post [Lerxst1992] is getting at, unpacked step-by-step:

1. They’re agreeing that “cheap credit” mattered

They start by acknowledging the other commenter’s point: very low interest rates (“cheap credit”) made mortgages easier to get and larger loans affordable. This pushed up demand for housing and therefore prices.

2. They link this to COVID-era stimulus and policy

The writer then argues that government responses during COVID—especially in 2020, under Trump—were effectively “socialist” in nature.
They’re referring to things like:

Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and other payroll guarantees (governments covering payroll costs so workers wouldn’t be laid off).
Near-zero interest rates from the Federal Reserve, meant to keep the economy afloat.

They call these “socialist” because they involved large-scale government support of private businesses and massive money creation—actions more commonly associated with social safety nets or state intervention.

3. Their main claim: these policies inflated housing prices

They argue that because of all this cheap money and guaranteed income support:

People had more access to cash and credit,
Mortgage rates were historically low,
Asset prices (especially homes) soared.

In their view, that created a lasting “reset” in real estate values: once prices go up due to cheap credit, they rarely fall back down significantly, even when rates later rise.

4. They’re warning against “socialist” or interventionist policies

By saying “be very careful of madani/socialist policies” and “imagine Trump the socialist,” they’re making a slightly ironic or sarcastic political point.
They’re implying:

Even Trump, a right-wing figure, presided over policies that had socialist-style economic effects (massive public spending, interest-rate suppression).
These interventions, they believe, distorted the housing market long-term.
Therefore, more such “socialist” measures (whether from the left or right) could make things worse.

5. In summary

They’re making this argument:

Cheap credit and COVID-era government support inflated housing prices. Those prices are now “sticky” and won’t easily fall. Ironically, even Trump’s administration—normally anti-socialist—implemented policies that had socialist effects, helping create this situation. So we should be wary of repeating that kind of intervention.

Would you like me to contrast that with what economists actually say about how much the COVID policies vs. long-term credit trends affected housing prices?

You said:

Yes please

ChatGPT said:

Excellent — here’s a clear, evidence-based contrast between the poster’s argument and what economists actually find about housing prices, cheap credit, and COVID-era policy:

🧩 1. What the poster gets partly right

A. Cheap credit really did fuel higher home prices

The Federal Reserve cut rates to near zero in early 2020 and bought trillions in mortgage-backed securities.
The average 30-year mortgage rate fell below 3%, the lowest in modern U.S. history.
Buyers could suddenly afford much larger loans for the same monthly payment, bidding up prices.

➡️ Result: Home prices rose ≈40–45% nationally from 2020–2022, far faster than wages.

B. Asset inflation can become “sticky”

Once home values rise, they rarely revert unless there’s a deep recession, because:
- Homeowners resist selling at a loss (“nominal rigidity”).
- Local governments depend on property taxes.
- Builders’ costs (labor, materials, zoning) don’t fall proportionally.
So yes, prices are “sticky downward.”

⚖️ 2. Where the poster’s framing overstates or misattributes

A. “Socialist” COVID policies weren’t the main driver

Economists separate monetary policy (Fed interest rates, QE) from fiscal policy (stimulus checks, PPP, unemployment support).

Monetary easing did lower mortgage rates, yes.
But fiscal transfers (like PPP loans and stimulus checks) mostly stabilized short-term consumption, not long-term asset purchases.
Housing inflation primarily followed rate policy and pandemic shifts in demand, not “socialist” spending.

B. Trump’s 2020 role was incidental

The biggest monetary driver—the Fed’s decision to slash rates—was independent of the White House. The Fed would have acted similarly under any administration, because:

The global economy was collapsing.
Central banks worldwide took identical actions.

Calling this “Trump the Socialist” is ironic political spin, not a literal description.
His administration’s PPP and direct payments were bipartisan and continued under Biden.

C. COVID-era housing demand wasn’t just cheap money

Other structural shifts amplified the spike:

Remote work increased demand for larger homes or new locations.
Supply shortages: Construction halted, materials spiked, zoning remained tight.
Investor activity: Institutional buyers entered suburban markets aggressively once rates dropped.

So cheap credit enabled demand, but these pandemic lifestyle changes created it.

🧮 3. Quantitative perspective

Factor	Approx. contribution to 2020–2022 price surge*
Fed rate cuts & QE	30–40%
Supply constraints	20–30%
Pandemic migration / remote work	20–25%
Fiscal stimulus & savings	10–15%

*Estimates from Fed, IMF, and Brookings studies, rounded for clarity.

So “cheap credit” really mattered — but it was one among several reinforcing forces, not a purely “socialist” policy effect.

🏡 4. Why prices haven’t fallen much since

Even as rates rose above 7%:

Inventory collapsed (owners won’t sell homes with 3% mortgages).
New construction lags.
Households deleveraged during COVID — they aren’t forced sellers.

So the market froze instead of crashing — high prices, low transactions.

💬 5. The reality check

The poster’s warning (“be careful of socialist policies”) confuses emergency Keynesian stabilization with ideological socialism.
Economically, what mattered most was:

Federal Reserve rate policy (cheap credit),
Housing supply elasticity, and
Behavioral stickiness in prices.

If we removed politics, the neutral version would read:

“The combination of near-zero interest rates, supply bottlenecks, and pandemic-driven demand permanently reset U.S. housing prices upward. Reversing that will take either much higher supply or a severe recession.”

Lerxst1992 · October 9

benjs said:

Lerxst1992 said:

This is from @benjs

“ Each time housing affordability comes up, someone points out that interest rates were far higher in the 1980s. It’s true — mortgages above 12% were common. But that point misses the forest for the trees. High rates back then applied to homes that cost a fraction of what they do today.
A house purchased in 1985 often sold for around three or four times the median household income. Today, in many cities, it’s eight to ten times. Even with lower interest, the math simply doesn’t balance out — especially once you add in property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and the near-universal expectation of dual incomes.
The deeper issue is how cheap credit reshaped the market itself. Instead of making homes more affordable, decades of low rates allowed prices to inflate dramatically. Borrowing capacity rose faster than wages, so demand pushed up prices far beyond what middle-income earners could sustain. The very policies meant to encourage homeownership ended up pricing out the next generation.
Meanwhile, wage growth has diverged sharply. A handful of high-paying industries have surged, but the broad middle has stagnated. When commentators say “aggregate wage data exaggerates the problem,” they overlook that the middle class isthe problem — it’s where the collapse in affordability hits hardest.
So while it’s fair to note that interest rates shape total home costs, it’s misleading to suggest today’s buyers are exaggerating their struggle. For their parents, high interest was temporary; for their children, high principal is permanent."

…
…

My reply…
Cheap credit is a very good point, but remember the horrors of trump1 led to a very “Socialist” law…guarantee of payroll during COVID and cheap cheap interest rates. It’s difficult for the housing market in the states to recover from what this did to real estate values. Once they are up, they don’t come down all that easy. If there is an overall warning as to my top point that this is part of, be very careful of madani/socialist polices, trump 2020 is a good place to include in the discussion, because it had a huge impact on housing. Imagine trump the socialist!
To try to figure out a ratio of wage growth to housing is impossible imo. Some industries/professions, etc have done remarkably well over time, many have not. Remember the majority of replies I get are jokes and unilateral declarations of “bunk!” Cmon!
On that $420k home, interest is 58% of total mortgage cost on a 7% loan and 73% on a 12% loan. Interest is more significant than the homes cost, yet it is commonly ignored by these media articles.
Regarding Chats point about middle class wages, it’s really difficult to analyze. AI and media results will provide data that we see about 1% income growth per year. I know from the companies I’ve worked at, from teachers I know, from local news articles about police, firemen, train workers (all the publicly available data) at least in metro NY that 1% is not close to reality. Again, it’s a difficult thing to quantify, unlike the impact of interest rates.
To take it a step further, and where I get needled by all the Netflix jokes, is the USA is not an employment based economy. It’s an investor based economy. And that’s my argument against mamdani-omnics. For those willing to tighten their budget by a few thousand a year, take employer 401k matches of a few thousand more, and tax breaks of even more, the tax breaks and tools exist to benefit those who watch their budget and invest. I hate risk, but this is our economy.
If we must make this about income, we need to recognize what the American economy is, and try to come up with methods to spread investor gains better throughout the population, like tax free loans from 401k to buy homes. I didn’t create this system, but it is important to recognize. The way to maximize income needs to include unearned income. Housing rises at about 5.5% annually, and the stock markets around 10%. It is what it is. We tried to fix economic problems during Covid with a socialist approach, and it severely hurt the housing market.

ChatGPT's reply..

Here’s what the author of that post [Lerxst1992] is getting at, unpacked step-by-step:

1. They’re agreeing that “cheap credit” mattered

They start by acknowledging the other commenter’s point: very low interest rates (“cheap credit”) made mortgages easier to get and larger loans affordable. This pushed up demand for housing and therefore prices.

2. They link this to COVID-era stimulus and policy

The writer then argues that government responses during COVID—especially in 2020, under Trump—were effectively “socialist” in nature.
They’re referring to things like:

Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and other payroll guarantees (governments covering payroll costs so workers wouldn’t be laid off).

Near-zero interest rates from the Federal Reserve, meant to keep the economy afloat.

They call these “socialist” because they involved large-scale government support of private businesses and massive money creation—actions more commonly associated with social safety nets or state intervention.

3. Their main claim: these policies inflated housing prices

They argue that because of all this cheap money and guaranteed income support:

People had more access to cash and credit,

Mortgage rates were historically low,

Asset prices (especially homes) soared.

In their view, that created a lasting “reset” in real estate values: once prices go up due to cheap credit, they rarely fall back down significantly, even when rates later rise.

4. They’re warning against “socialist” or interventionist policies

By saying “be very careful of madani/socialist policies” and “imagine Trump the socialist,” they’re making a slightly ironic or sarcastic political point.
They’re implying:

Even Trump, a right-wing figure, presided over policies that had socialist-style economic effects (massive public spending, interest-rate suppression).

These interventions, they believe, distorted the housing market long-term.

Therefore, more such “socialist” measures (whether from the left or right) could make things worse.

5. In summary

They’re making this argument:

Cheap credit and COVID-era government support inflated housing prices. Those prices are now “sticky” and won’t easily fall. Ironically, even Trump’s administration—normally anti-socialist—implemented policies that had socialist effects, helping create this situation. So we should be wary of repeating that kind of intervention.

Would you like me to contrast that with what economists actually say about how much the COVID policies vs. long-term credit trends affected housing prices?
You said:
Yes please
ChatGPT said:
Excellent — here’s a clear, evidence-based contrast between the poster’s argument and what economists actually find about housing prices, cheap credit, and COVID-era policy:

🧩 1. What the poster gets partly right

A. Cheap credit really did fuel higher home prices

The Federal Reserve cut rates to near zero in early 2020 and bought trillions in mortgage-backed securities.

The average 30-year mortgage rate fell below 3%, the lowest in modern U.S. history.

Buyers could suddenly afford much larger loans for the same monthly payment, bidding up prices.

➡️ Result: Home prices rose ≈40–45% nationally from 2020–2022, far faster than wages.

B. Asset inflation can become “sticky”

Once home values rise, they rarely revert unless there’s a deep recession, because:

Homeowners resist selling at a loss (“nominal rigidity”).

Local governments depend on property taxes.

Builders’ costs (labor, materials, zoning) don’t fall proportionally.

So yes, prices are “sticky downward.”

⚖️ 2. Where the poster’s framing overstates or misattributes

A. “Socialist” COVID policies weren’t the main driver

Economists separate monetary policy (Fed interest rates, QE) from fiscal policy (stimulus checks, PPP, unemployment support).

Monetary easing did lower mortgage rates, yes.

But fiscal transfers (like PPP loans and stimulus checks) mostly stabilized short-term consumption, not long-term asset purchases.

Housing inflation primarily followed rate policy and pandemic shifts in demand, not “socialist” spending.

B. Trump’s 2020 role was incidental

The biggest monetary driver—the Fed’s decision to slash rates—was independent of the White House. The Fed would have acted similarly under any administration, because:

The global economy was collapsing.

Central banks worldwide took identical actions.

Calling this “Trump the Socialist” is ironic political spin, not a literal description.
His administration’s PPP and direct payments were bipartisan and continued under Biden.

C. COVID-era housing demand wasn’t just cheap money

Other structural shifts amplified the spike:

Remote work increased demand for larger homes or new locations.

Supply shortages: Construction halted, materials spiked, zoning remained tight.

Investor activity: Institutional buyers entered suburban markets aggressively once rates dropped.

So cheap credit enabled demand, but these pandemic lifestyle changes created it.

🧮 3. Quantitative perspective

Factor Approx. contribution to 2020–2022 price surge*
Fed rate cuts & QE 30–40%
Supply constraints 20–30%
Pandemic migration / remote work 20–25%
Fiscal stimulus & savings 10–15%

*Estimates from Fed, IMF, and Brookings studies, rounded for clarity.

So “cheap credit” really mattered — but it was one among several reinforcing forces, not a purely “socialist” policy effect.

🏡 4. Why prices haven’t fallen much since

Even as rates rose above 7%:

Inventory collapsed (owners won’t sell homes with 3% mortgages).

New construction lags.

Households deleveraged during COVID — they aren’t forced sellers.

So the market froze instead of crashing — high prices, low transactions.

💬 5. The reality check

The poster’s warning (“be careful of socialist policies”) confuses emergency Keynesian stabilization with ideological socialism.
Economically, what mattered most was:

Federal Reserve rate policy (cheap credit),

Housing supply elasticity, and

Behavioral stickiness in prices.

If we removed politics, the neutral version would read:

“The combination of near-zero interest rates, supply bottlenecks, and pandemic-driven demand permanently reset U.S. housing prices upward. Reversing that will take either much higher supply or a severe recession.”

IMO GPT is splitting hairs on the bit about interest rates, to pretend trump didn’t pressure the fed is not accurate. I agree the fed would have acted anyway, but in hindsight, cut rates too far. The warning remains, the reply to Covid contained socialist features, and it’s clear what occurred as a result. The concluding paragraph is not including the payroll guarantees. My cheaper version of ai on interest rates and then overall ideology of policy in 2020,
…
” Donald Trump's role was indirect, as the president does not directly set interest rates (that is the Federal Reserve's responsibility), but he did frequently and publicly pressure the Fed for lower rates throughout his term. However, the massive, near-zero rate cuts in 2020 were an emergency measure by the Fed in response to the sudden and severe economic impact of the pandemic, aligning with the President's desire for low rates but primarily driven by the crisis itself.”

…

” Yes, the USA government's economic reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic—specifically the combination of very low interest rates and programs like the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)—can be viewed as having socialist-like or socialistic characteristics by some observers.

Here is a breakdown of why this perspective exists:

* Massive State Intervention in the Economy: A core characteristic of socialism or socialistic policies is a high degree of government intervention and control over the economy. The US government's actions involved unprecedented levels of spending, debt accumulation, and direct involvement in business and individual finance, which sharply contrasts with typical free-market, laissez-faire capitalism.

* PPP (Payroll Guarantee):

* Direct Business Subsidy: The PPP was essentially a massive government-funded program providing loans that were forgivable if businesses maintained payroll. This amounts to a direct government subsidy of private-sector wages, a measure intended to save jobs and maintain economic stability.

* Prioritizing Labor Over Market Forces: By guaranteeing payroll, the government was intervening to suspend the typical capitalist mechanism where businesses facing a severe drop in revenue would be forced to lay off workers or fail. This prioritization of retaining labor through government funding aligns more closely with the social welfare goals often associated with socialism.

* Low Interest Rates and Monetary Policy:

* Central Planning of Credit: While the Federal Reserve is an independent body, its decision to drop interest rates to near zero and engage in massive asset purchases (quantitative easing) is a form of central planning of the cost and availability of credit. This kind of broad, decisive intervention in the financial markets, designed to steer the entire economy, is sometimes critiqued as an anti-capitalist distortion of market forces.

* Bailout or Guarantee of Financial Stability: Propping up the financial system and suppressing the cost of borrowing to avoid collapse can be seen as socializing risk—using public resources to prevent failure in the private sector.

Counterarguments (Why it is still fundamentally Capitalist):

Despite these socialistic characteristics, most economists and observers classify the total package as a series of emergency capitalist interventions designed to save the capitalist structure from collapse.

* Saving, Not Replacing, Private Ownership: The goal of the PPP was to keep private businesses (the means of production) solvent and in private hands, not to nationalize them or convert them to worker-owned co-ops, which would be a true socialist goal.

* Temporary and Reactive: The measures were primarily temporary and reactive to an external crisis (the pandemic), not a permanent shift toward a planned economy.

* Benefit Distribution: Critiques of the PPP noted that a significant portion of the funds ultimately flowed to business owners and shareholders, and that the distribution was sometimes regressive, which is not a typical characteristic of egalitarian socialist policy.

In summary, the response included socialistic measures (massive state intervention and direct wage subsidies), but the underlying purpose was to stabilize and preserve the existing capitalist market economy. It highlights how, in a severe crisis, governments of all ideological leanings often resort to exceptional state-centric tools.”

cincybearcat · October 9

Not to derail a thread brought back to stop derailing 5 other threads...but man I miss some of these names...

Know1, Even Flow?, Abook, the jeffs.....

Halifax2TheMax · October 9

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Hey, but if you just cut out your Starbucks and streaming/subscription services and invest in the stock market, you too can buy a home someday.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/oct/09/gen-z-face-job-pocalypse-as-global-firms-prioritise-ai-over-new-hires-report-says

Lerxst1992 · October 9

Halifax2TheMax said:

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
Hey, but if you just cut out your Starbucks and streaming/subscription services and invest in the stock market, you too can buy a home someday.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/oct/09/gen-z-face-job-pocalypse-as-global-firms-prioritise-ai-over-new-hires-report-says

AI is certainly a concern for the future and when unemployment starts to skyrocket that's certainly something that can be analyzed, but it doesn't disprove the historical fact that finding a way to invest a few thousand dollars a year by keeping a close eye on budgets is not only smart economics but it's smart economics

It's an absurd argument you continually have mocking this point, where every single one of your posts document hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, spent in travel and entertainment.

Well deserved and I hope it was enjoyable. But every single one of your comments is proof that you are not correct making fun of smart budgeting

Halifax2TheMax · October 9

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
Hey, but if you just cut out your Starbucks and streaming/subscription services and invest in the stock market, you too can buy a home someday.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/oct/09/gen-z-face-job-pocalypse-as-global-firms-prioritise-ai-over-new-hires-report-says

AI is certainly a concern for the future and when unemployment starts to skyrocket that's certainly something that can be analyzed, but it doesn't disprove the historical fact that finding a way to invest a few thousand dollars a year by keeping a close eye on budgets is not only smart economics but it's smart economics

It's an absurd argument you continually have mocking this point, where every single one of your posts document hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, spent in travel and entertainment.

Well deserved and I hope it was enjoyable. But every single one of your comments is proof that you are not correct making fun of smart budgeting

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

I didn’t need AI to explain “smart budgeting” or some financial theory regarding the value of money 40 years apart when I bought a house in 1997. I also didn’t need AI to explain stock market returns when I started investing in a pension through my employer in 1989 and 401K plans through subsequent employer sponsored plans with matching up to a percentage. OMG, I must have bought my mother’s house as I’m still in the basement!!!

Which of my posts have “where every single one of your posts document hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, spent in travel and entertainment.” Are you shadow quoting?

gimmesometruth27 · October 9

cincybearcat said:

Not to derail a thread brought back to stop derailing 5 other threads...but man I miss some of these names...

Know1, Even Flow?, Abook, the jeffs.....

yep.

Lerxst1992 · October 9

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
Hey, but if you just cut out your Starbucks and streaming/subscription services and invest in the stock market, you too can buy a home someday.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/oct/09/gen-z-face-job-pocalypse-as-global-firms-prioritise-ai-over-new-hires-report-says

AI is certainly a concern for the future and when unemployment starts to skyrocket that's certainly something that can be analyzed, but it doesn't disprove the historical fact that finding a way to invest a few thousand dollars a year by keeping a close eye on budgets is not only smart economics but it's smart economics

It's an absurd argument you continually have mocking this point, where every single one of your posts document hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, spent in travel and entertainment.

Well deserved and I hope it was enjoyable. But every single one of your comments is proof that you are not correct making fun of smart budgeting

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
I didn’t need AI to explain “smart budgeting” or some financial theory regarding the value of money 40 years apart when I bought a house in 1997. I also didn’t need AI to explain stock market returns when I started investing in a pension through my employer in 1989 and 401K plans through subsequent employer sponsored plans with matching up to a percentage. OMG, I must have bought my mother’s house as I’m still in the basement!!!
Which of my posts have “where every single one of your posts document hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, spent in travel and entertainment.” Are you shadow quoting?

Your signature. Over 100 shows, and what do we have... about 15 out of town trips? And five or six overseas trips?

Congratulations that's an impressive list. Let's agree to figure out the future value annuity of all the tickets and airfare hotels lodging transportation incidentals, all goes into the logistics of that. It's an impressive list and I congratulate you for the dedication and ability to do that.

We're on a website here where there are tons of fans that have impressive lists traveling the globe to see this phenomenal band and many others. But yet we have to criticize and nitpick each other because we can't figure out a way to teach younger folks to save a few Gs a year towards the future. There's some bizarre dynamics going on this forum

Edit
And please don't claim that I'm saying don't go and treat yourself. That's not what I'm saying.

Halifax2TheMax · October 9

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
Hey, but if you just cut out your Starbucks and streaming/subscription services and invest in the stock market, you too can buy a home someday.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/oct/09/gen-z-face-job-pocalypse-as-global-firms-prioritise-ai-over-new-hires-report-says

AI is certainly a concern for the future and when unemployment starts to skyrocket that's certainly something that can be analyzed, but it doesn't disprove the historical fact that finding a way to invest a few thousand dollars a year by keeping a close eye on budgets is not only smart economics but it's smart economics

It's an absurd argument you continually have mocking this point, where every single one of your posts document hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, spent in travel and entertainment.

Well deserved and I hope it was enjoyable. But every single one of your comments is proof that you are not correct making fun of smart budgeting

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
I didn’t need AI to explain “smart budgeting” or some financial theory regarding the value of money 40 years apart when I bought a house in 1997. I also didn’t need AI to explain stock market returns when I started investing in a pension through my employer in 1989 and 401K plans through subsequent employer sponsored plans with matching up to a percentage. OMG, I must have bought my mother’s house as I’m still in the basement!!!
Which of my posts have “where every single one of your posts document hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, spent in travel and entertainment.” Are you shadow quoting?

Your signature. Over 100 shows, and what do we have... about 15 out of town trips? And five or six overseas trips?

Congratulations that's an impressive list. Let's agree to figure out the future value annuity of all the tickets and airfare hotels lodging transportation incidentals, all goes into the logistics of that. It's an impressive list and I congratulate you for the dedication and ability to do that.

We're on a website here where there are tons of fans that have impressive lists traveling the globe to see this phenomenal band and many others. But yet we have to criticize and nitpick each other because we can't figure out a way to teach younger folks to save a few Gs a year towards the future. There's some bizarre dynamics going on this forum

Edit
And please don't claim that I'm saying don't go and treat yourself. That's not what I'm saying.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Sorry, but it’s not 100 shows. Your math is fuzzy again. You’d be surprised what Starbucks Rewards will get you. I’d like to get 100+ but believe it might be out of reach given the lack of a drummer, shorter tour lengths and a dwindling number of countries and cities I’d like to visit. Oh well.

The issue I have is that your theory does not fully explain the challenges this generation faces in both the housing and job markets. Even if the millennials forgo pleasurable things like Starbucks, happy meals and streaming/subscription services and invest in the stock market and employer retirement plans, of which only 401K plans allow borrowing, they have to pay it back within a certain time frame or face steep tax penalties. So on top of student loan debt from the cost of education,also something that increased at a faster rate than inflation, they have a mortgage payment for a higher cost house, again outpacing inflation, and now the 401K loan to repay. As has been illustrated time and time again is that wages/salaries haven’t kept pace. There’s a reason the median age of first time home buyers has risen to 38. The class that’s benefitted the most? The top 1% and one tenth of 1% in particular.

My advice of staying in mom’s basement and buying it from her before/after death would be just as valid as your advice. Neither reflect the reality of the housing/job markets faced by millennials.

What do you think the demographics of the ten club reflect? Maybe they should include a survey by gender, household income, race, gender and sexual orientation. It’d be interesting but I doubt there are too many millennials reading the forums for how to get ahead. Regardless, “if they just do as you suggest”, they too can buy a house. Sorry, it’s much more complicated than that despite 40 years of the value of money.

Lerxst1992 · October 9

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
Hey, but if you just cut out your Starbucks and streaming/subscription services and invest in the stock market, you too can buy a home someday.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/oct/09/gen-z-face-job-pocalypse-as-global-firms-prioritise-ai-over-new-hires-report-says

AI is certainly a concern for the future and when unemployment starts to skyrocket that's certainly something that can be analyzed, but it doesn't disprove the historical fact that finding a way to invest a few thousand dollars a year by keeping a close eye on budgets is not only smart economics but it's smart economics

It's an absurd argument you continually have mocking this point, where every single one of your posts document hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, spent in travel and entertainment.

Well deserved and I hope it was enjoyable. But every single one of your comments is proof that you are not correct making fun of smart budgeting

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
I didn’t need AI to explain “smart budgeting” or some financial theory regarding the value of money 40 years apart when I bought a house in 1997. I also didn’t need AI to explain stock market returns when I started investing in a pension through my employer in 1989 and 401K plans through subsequent employer sponsored plans with matching up to a percentage. OMG, I must have bought my mother’s house as I’m still in the basement!!!
Which of my posts have “where every single one of your posts document hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, spent in travel and entertainment.” Are you shadow quoting?

Your signature. Over 100 shows, and what do we have... about 15 out of town trips? And five or six overseas trips?

Congratulations that's an impressive list. Let's agree to figure out the future value annuity of all the tickets and airfare hotels lodging transportation incidentals, all goes into the logistics of that. It's an impressive list and I congratulate you for the dedication and ability to do that.

We're on a website here where there are tons of fans that have impressive lists traveling the globe to see this phenomenal band and many others. But yet we have to criticize and nitpick each other because we can't figure out a way to teach younger folks to save a few Gs a year towards the future. There's some bizarre dynamics going on this forum

Edit
And please don't claim that I'm saying don't go and treat yourself. That's not what I'm saying.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.
Sorry, but it’s not 100 shows. Your math is fuzzy again. You’d be surprised what Starbucks Rewards will get you. I’d like to get 100+ but believe it might be out of reach given the lack of a drummer, shorter tour lengths and a dwindling number of countries and cities I’d like to visit. Oh well.
The issue I have is that your theory does not fully explain the challenges this generation faces in both the housing and job markets. Even if the millennials forgo pleasurable things like Starbucks, happy meals and streaming/subscription services and invest in the stock market and employer retirement plans, of which only 401K plans allow borrowing, they have to pay it back within a certain time frame or face steep tax penalties. So on top of student loan debt from the cost of education,also something that increased at a faster rate than inflation, they have a mortgage payment for a higher cost house, again outpacing inflation, and now the 401K loan to repay. As has been illustrated time and time again is that wages/salaries haven’t kept pace. There’s a reason the median age of first time home buyers has risen to 38. The class that’s benefitted the most? The top 1% and one tenth of 1% in particular.
My advice of staying in mom’s basement and buying it from her before/after death would be just as valid as your advice. Neither reflect the reality of the housing/job markets faced by millennials.
What do you think the demographics of the ten club reflect? Maybe they should include a survey by gender, household income, race, gender and sexual orientation. It’d be interesting but I doubt there are too many millennials reading the forums for how to get ahead. Regardless, “if they just do as you suggest”, they too can buy a house. Sorry, it’s much more complicated than that despite 40 years of the value of money.

Based on the trajectory of travel costs of the “ten club generation “ vs the “Swifties generation,” it’s plainly obvious it’s trending in the right direction both in assets invested to travel the world and excessive ticket cost as well as the diversity Taylor’s fans bring to the concert industry. They are likely keeping their Netflix, drinking their Starbucks, and spending record amounts going to shows and traveling. Kudos to the kids!

It’s comforting to know, based on concert investment and related travel, that the younger generation has the means, intelligence and will to travel the world to see their star, and pay record prices.

Why should government bail out people in housing crisis?

Comments

1. They’re agreeing that “cheap credit” mattered

2. They link this to COVID-era stimulus and policy

3. Their main claim: these policies inflated housing prices