This argument is fine as far as it goes; but I think it trips over a conflation of two separate motives for "investing" (by which I mean the commitment of financial resources, whether "hard" or "soft," as in loaned or promised). The simpler motive is "acquisition for use;" and the other is "speculation." Most of us by real estate because we want to live in it, which has been a normative practice for about 50 years.
Speculative investing, on the other hand, is a gamble. It thrives on the premise that "anyone can play;" and those who run the gambles profit because, when anyone plays, most of them are going to lose. In other words investing in real estate for its future value is no different than buying stock for its "anticipated growth." It is risky, but it is promoted by those who do everything they can to get you to ignore the risk.
The real problem is that Blodget's "dreamworld" was imposed by predatory lenders, who forced homeowners into a speculative investment to support acquisition-for-use. Our Administration argues that the victims should have remembered CAVEAT EMPTOR; but does this really work for those who are being force-fed under pressure with deceptive information? I suspect that economic recovery is going to depend less upon a readjustment of housing prices and more on a general readjustment of the "rules of the game" under which the majority of our population can engage in acquisition for use.



Loading comments…

Posted March 26, 2008 | 09:38 AM (EST)