Pops wrote:Again, there is no housing market without banks.
As I was taught here, banks invent money when they loan against land/home values, how could they be more in control?
That little teepee shaped plot doesn't signify a mysterious increase and then fall off in "demand" it signifies the banking system's control of economics - when given the chance.
OK, so what do you mean by control?
Is rapid housing price rise in, say SF, recently, which is so nasty it's recently been in the news with the average house in SF costing over $1.6 million, a banking conspiracy, or is it a matter of supply and demand?
I say it's supply and demand -- that things like massive numbers of good tech jobs, a highly desirable area to live (to many), a relative shortage of good space to build more housing, etc. are forcing SF housing prices up. NOT because mean bankers hate SF or treat SF worse than in some rural backwater in my home state of KY, where home prices are pretty flat since with few jobs, not many want to live there.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/06/san-fra ... -2018.htmlYes, the banks make the vast majority of mortgage loans (in a highly competitve market), and own almost all that market now that the S&L's are gone. And yes, the vast majority of people who buy a house use a mortgage loan from a bank. I still don't think that means they control the housing market. Now, they DO control mortgage rates to the extent they can get away with it, but of course, as long as it's a highly competitve market, there's only so much control they have over them.
When mortgage rates start having a spread vs. bank account interest rates of even half of the spread for credit cards -- THEN I'd want to take another look at whether banks are managing to do meaningful damage to the housing market via their "control".
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.