Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览迈克尔·哈德森(Michael Hudson)档案
另一个房屋泡沫?
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

SHARMINI PERIES: Just prior to the economic collapse of 2007-2008 there were several economic indicators which could have given us a clue of the impending disaster. If we look at the economic situation today in the US, we find many of these very same indicators. Housing prices are getting very high. Credit card debt has begun to rise again. Student loans are in default, many of them, and the stock and bond markets reached an all-time high.

Are we actually in another housing bubble just nine years later? On to talk about this with me is Michael Hudson. Michael is Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of 泡沫与超越Finance Capitalism and Its Discontent, 杀死主机:金融寄生虫和债务束缚如何摧毁全球经济. 他的最新书是 J是垃圾经济学的.

Michael, about 10,000,000 families lost their homes in the 2007-2008 crash, and many of these homes were bought by hedge funds such as the ones organized by Blackstone let’s say. The hedge funds didn’t really resell the housing that they bought, but rather hung onto them and rented them instead. But let’s really start off with the indicators that you had highlighted for me in an email, saying we might already be there in terms of another crisis. Give us the essence of what those indicators are and why you predict that.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Many of the indicators may be the same, but the character of the crisis is very different now from what it was in 2008. You mentioned, for instance, that real estate prices now age exceed their early 2008 levels. All that’s true, but as you just pointed out, 10,000,000 people have already lost their homes. That’s what economists call housing moving from weak hands into strong, and they applaud that because instead of poor families, minorities, African-Americans and Hispanics buying homes that are way beyond their ability to pay the mortgage on, these houses have already been lost or foreclosed and Blackstone and other hedge funds bought them. They bought them for all cash.

The reason they did that instead of debt leveraging, which is how people had been buying their houses in World War II, is that interest rates are so low. The Fed was plunging at zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) in order to try to re-inflate a bubble. But with these low interest rates, Blackstone and other hedge funds, Wall Street, could make more money renting out these properties than they could by actually selling them or speculating, or that they could make in the bond market.

The effect is very interesting. Leading up to 2008, rents were actually going down. The more real estate prices were going up, the lower rents were falling, because 17% of the market was by flippers, by speculators who borrowed to buy a home or apartment. They thought okay, we’re going to buy a condo, buy a house, we’re going to wait for the price to be inflated. They all were desperate to find somebody to live in these apartments, to at least help cover the interest expense of buying these things.

The result was that rents fell. Right now it’s the opposite. Rents are going way up because there’s much less property available either to buy or to rent. People can’t afford to qualify for the bank loan, so they can’t afford to buy housing, and they can’t find rental apartments because these have been monopolized, maybe 20% in some areas by the hedge funds and Blackstone and other people.

My friend Gary Null, for instance, had Blackstone buy his building, smashed the furnace, wouldn’t turn on the heat, and forced him to move out so it could empty out the property and try to raise the price. That’s on commercial real estate. So these guys are really putting the class war back in business.

Housing prices are going up in Canada and Australia, but again it’s not so much a bubble like it was before. The financial structure has shifted, largely because it’s being bought by very wealthy absentee owners instead of by the population as a whole. So the rate of home ownership in America has fallen by about six percentage points. That’s about 10% of the housing population, so you’re having housing way beyond the ability of most Americans to afford and beyond what banks are going to lend to buy a house.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. How does this benefit those holding the property, like hedge fund owners?

MICHAEL HUDSON: They can make a large return renting it out. They can make five, 10, 15%. That’s much more money than they can make in the bond market and it’s much more secure money than they can make in the stock market, because stock prices may go down and corporate sales may go down as the economy shrinks, but people are desperate to have housing. It’s the one thing they absolutely need, so rents now are rising as a percent of the American budget. They’re 40% to 50% of income in places like New York City, San Francisco, the high rent areas of the country.

SHARMINI PERIES: What are NINJA loans?

MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s the other thing that’s changed. What was powering and pushing up prices in 2007 and ’08 were loans to borrowers with No Income, No Jobs, and No Assets. As Bill Black has explained, these are largely fraudulent loans. The frauds were the banks. The frauds were the mortgage companies that just faked the incomes of the buyers and would lend for almost the entire mortgage.

立即订购

Now we only have one kind of NINJA left, and those are students. Student loans have been the most rapidly growing loans in the country. They’re no about \$1.3 trillion, more than credit card loans, more than most other kinds of loans. Everybody knows that students are not able to earn enough to repay them, because default rates on student loans are going way up. They’re not going up on mortgages. They’re falling on mortgages – home mortgages – but they’re rising on student loans.

But the banks knew that they couldn’t pay and the government knew that they couldn’t pay, so the government made a sweetheart deal with the banks: “You can make all the loans to students you want. You can lend them as much money for any education, even for junk education, for junk colleges, or for-profit colleges like Trump’s college, and we know that the students are going to default, but we’re going to guarantee your loans and we’ll guarantee a higher rate of interest than you can make on any other loan, because we know these loans are risky. We know they won’t pay, but the government will take all the risk and we’ll pay you 仿佛 you were taking the risk and 仿佛 you were making a real loan, thinking you’d get repaid.”

The whole student loan scandal is a corrupt. It shows the degree to which the universities and the government loan system have been taken over by banks writing the loans to give themselves a free ride at public expense.

SHARMINI PERIES: Michael, the federal government already guarantees student loans, so when they default on these loans, does paying it back come out of the public purse?

MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes. Not only paying back the loan, but paying the loan with enormous interest, higher than the banks can get on any other kind of loan, and very heavy penalty fees, so the banks are basically cleaning up on these. The ultimate beneficiaries, if you can call them beneficiaries, are the universities, because the basic principle in real estate that we learned in 2008 was that a house is worth whatever a bank is going to lend. Well, the same thing is true for education.

An education is worth however much a bank is going to lend against it. The bank will lend everything that it costs, because there’s no risk, there’s no need for the banks to ask whether this is a junk education? Is this an educational loan that the student is really going to be able to get a job from? Or is it a Trump University loan or a for-profit university loan that is not really preparing the student for making enough money at all? And does the student have a choice?

What’s happened is the price of education has gone way, way up because banks are basically funding an enormous growth in the price that universities can charge for an education. Now the pretense was that if universities charge more, like NYU charges maybe \$40,000 for undergraduate and \$200,000 a year in student debt for dental school … The idea was the higher price of an education, you’d learn more. But that’s not what’s happening at all.

The universities have been turned into profit centers and they’re not hiring more professors, they’re hiring more part-timers, and an enormous growth in middle management and upper management. So all these bloated university expenditure costs are going to the management system, not to the teaching, not to professors, and not to turning out a good product.

So the effect of student lending has been to distort the educational system, to turn universities like NYU into a big real estate company. They’re using the money to buy more real estate, to build up all sorts of extraneous things that don’t have anything to do directly with classroom teaching at all. So hardly by surprise, the students are not getting enough of an education to prepare them to earn the money to pay these loans.

SHARMINI PERIES: Michael, lastly I want to ask you, you are predicting, or you speak of a slow crash rather than a big crash like we experienced in 2007-2008. Tell us about that.

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the problem in 2008 was that the economy was over-indebted. The way to solve the problem was to do what crashes normally do: Most crashes wipe out debt, and so the recovery begins from an economy with a much lower level in debt, but the Obama Administration, although it had promised to write down the debts, never did. It supported the banks, and it left all the debts on the books, so the economy still has all of the debt that it had in 2008. And the debt is growing.

Over the weekend, for instance, the “纽约时报” celebrated, saying the economy’s optimism is going up because debt is rising. If you look at the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists call running into debt “optimism,” because they assume that all debt is a choice. People are choosing to be so broke that they have to run into credit card debt and borrow more from the banks.

The fact is that people are not borrowing because they’re optimistic about the economy. They’re borrowing because they can’t afford to break even and pay for their housing and pay for their education without running into debt. And, they’re having to pay so much money in debt service that they can’t afford to buy goods and services.

If you look around New York University, for instance, which used to be a thriving area, right now 8th Street and the big shopping streets are boarded up. The storefronts are closed. Nobody is in them because nobody can afford to go and eat out or buy books or even buy shoes and clothes that they used to buy on these shopping streets, because they have to pay so much for their education that’s been pushed up by the reckless student loan lending.

这是来自 The Real News Network 采访的编辑记录。

迈克尔哈德森 作者 杀死主机 (由CounterPunch Books以电子格式出版,由 )。 他的新书是 J是垃圾经济学。 可以通过以下方式联系到他 [电子邮件保护]

(从重新发布 反击 经作者或代表的许可)
 
• 类别: 经济学 •标签: 银行业, 财务泡沫, 住宿 
隐藏22条评论发表评论
忽略评论者...跟随Endorsed Only
修剪评论?
    []
  1. This new housing bubble in the US is caused almost single handedly by (largely illicit) money coming out of China. In CA, the number of homes sold in the \$1m+ range are at an all time high, and 31% are cash buyers. In the \$2m+ range, 48% are cash buyers. All over the country from Seattle to San Francisco, San Diego to Dallas, Houston, NYC, NJ, Connecticut, Boston, Denver, OH, Chicago…real estate sales are surpassing their 2007 record, and a large percentage are cash buyers. When you hear cash buyer, you know the buyers are from China and the homes will probably be left vacant.

    Canada’s housing bubble esp. in Vancouver and Toronto were red hot until they put in a 15% foreign buyer tax and an \$8,000 per night fine for homes left vacant. Since then, all the hot Chinese money have come into the US instead. Commercial properties in Seattle are also going up in record pace because of Chinese money going into the EB-5 visa scam. The Chinese are buying up the US at a never before seen pace and our authorities are either too busy grabbing the loot like Jared Kushner’s family real estate firm or still asleep.

  2. The way I see it, lenders in capitalist economies should 时刻 be obliged to assume risk. Otherwise, the money banks collect is pure rent – a “free lunch” in the words of Dr. Hudson. Heck, despite not having any financial experience, I could be a banker if I simply had the government act as my debt collector. We badly need to focus more on creditor responsibility.

  3. Well, when this bubble bursts, it may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back…

    • 回复: @Noah Way
  4. Craken 说:

    需要的是高等教育的范式转变,摆脱臃肿的传统大学和学院。 如果哈佛或斯坦福建立一所严肃的在线大学,收取当前学费的 30%,他们能赚多少钱? 本科生可以节省 120 万美元或更多——而且他们的简历上仍然会有哈佛(也许带有星号)。 在这个概念被证明 5 年或 10 年之后,它将传播并大规模破坏当前的结构,迫使传统大学的成本合理化。 这是一个改革创新的成熟领域。 扫清官僚! 让雄心勃勃的青年摆脱过度的负担! 退出精神控制迷宫。

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  5. Trump University was not an accredited educational institution and did not award degrees, so I’m going to venture the guess its attendees didn’t take out guaranteed student loans to pay for what amounts to a series of real estate-related pep talks. Trump University is a non-systemic risk for the dupes who bought Trump’s snake oil. It has nothing to do with the systemic risk and obscene rent-seeking generated by guaranteed student loans. Hudson is smart enough to realize this.

  6. Karl 说:

    If Michael Hunt really believed that the USA is starting (or is already in) a housing bubble, he’d be shorting Dewalt-Tools (and others in that entire category of companies dependent upon the rate of construction) stock. Or at least buying their out-of-the-money Put options.

    • 回复: @MarkinLA
  7. Patricia 说:

    Here in New Zealand we also have a housing bubble. Especially in Auckland but it is trending throughout New Zealand. Yes, I think that a lot of it comes from overseas but as the Banks know they will be bailed out they will lend any amount. To be fair there have been controls put on them to restrict their lending but, as yet, it hasn’t had much effect. I think there will be a crash but I have been saying that for years…..

  8. MarkinLA 说:
    @Craken

    A private university isn’t about educating the most people at the least cost. It is about growing the endowment. You do that by primarily making it exclusive to wealthy clients.

    • 回复: @Jim Christian
  9. MarkinLA 说:
    @Karl

    How much money are you prepared to lose before your correct hunch is right? Do you have that much? I know plenty of people squeezed out of the dot com bubble who were 100% correct that it was a bubble they just didn’t know when it would top out.

    • 回复: @Miro23
  10. Dan Hayes 说:

    It’s a race between the housing bubble or the car purchasing bubble bursting first!

  11. Miro23 说:
    @MarkinLA

    Ditto property speculators. I spoke to one in year 2000 who had the idea to sell at the current inflated price and buy back the same property 3 years later after the price collapse.

    In fact, 8 years later the price of the property had more than doubled (again) so they got that one wrong.

  12. Medvedev 说:

    They can make five, 10, 15%.

    Read up until this line, which is total BS. This so-called professor makes money by feeding public BS, just the opposite one to Wall Street. Our friends rent out condo in Seattle area (Bellevue to be specific) worth 550k for 2k per month.
    – HOA \$550
    – Taxes \$450
    – 5% of vacancy time (HOA + Taxes + utilities) \$60
    – Put away profits in case of tenants wrecking something \$50-100
    – And they rent it out on their own, so no need to spend on it.
    At the end they left with \$840-890 or 1.8-1.9% yearly returns, on which they have to pay taxes. On the bright side, they would be able deduct taxes on maintenance and remodeling.

    • 回复: @The Alarmist
  13. Medvedev 说:

    I don’t argue that we’re in a bubble. Where exactly in the bubble are we and when is it going to pop up? And how much the prices are going to go up before it bursts? and how much will it go down after? These are the real questions, which are hard to answer.
    To get a perspective, if a house currently costs 600k and the price is gonna rise to 900k before it pops up and then go down to 700k. Then it makes to buy a house now, even though we’re in a buble, and save tens of thousands on a rent. But if the bubble is gonna burst in a year or two then it makes sense to wait.

    • 回复: @interesting
  14. @Medvedev

    Dr. Hudson is either seriously misinformed or is engaging in a bit of class-warfare hyperbole. Rental real estate prices to yield something comparable to a risk-adjusted return comparable to other asset classes, e.g. much closer to the 1.8% to 1.9% your friend is getting for his rental, in the current rate environment.

    Having said that, I bought into a portfolio of distressed properties in 2010 and got 17% IRR over the last 7 years, so it is possible to get that sort of return in some corners of the market; to wit, in some shit-holes like Detroit, Blackstone undoubtedly picked up houses for a couple grand (one of my Brit colleagues asked in 2009 if he should take a punt on a Detroit house for \$4k) … renting these out to Section 8’s would give you the kind of returns he cites, but that would not be the case across the entire portfolio across the entire country.

  15. @MarkinLA

    Correct. A hedge fund with a university attached..

  16. Noah Way 说:
    @aceofspades

    Here’s hoping. Sooner is better than later. The longer this s#!t goes on the worse it’s going to be when it blows up.

  17. Anonymous • 免责声明 说:

    The universities have been turned into profit centers and they’re not hiring more professors, they’re hiring more part-timers…

    Most people have no idea how bad the situation is. A lot of those part-time university teachers are making less than \$10,000 a year.

    Parents pay \$50,000 a year to send their kids to colleges where the teachers are paid less than kindergarten teachers.

    Adjuncts are routinely paid less to teach a class than their students pay to take it. In fact, the income of a part-time adjunct will often be less than half of a teaching assistant’s stipend…

    http://100rsns.blogspot.com/2014/10/94-it-warps-your-expectations.html

  18. @Medvedev

    “save tens of thousands on a rent”

    I will continue to rent for 1/2 the price of buying and the luxury of paying twice the purchase price (if you have a mortgage) for a crap shack

  19. Agent76 说:

    I believe this will bring down Banking worldwide and housing will be a tiny part of it.

    20年2017月XNUMX日,为什么美国国债和总债务总是且总是增加?

    按以下顺序显示成堆的实物现金:\$100、\$10,000、\$1 万、\$2 亿、\$1 万亿、\$20 万亿。 美元的信心和价值取决于政府偿还债务的能力。 “视频里的钱已经花光了”

  20. Anonymous [AKA "This Space For Rent"] 说:

    College costs are skyrocketing for a myriad of reasons. My grad degree is \$60 grand (thank God my licensure comes with a bunch of avenues for repaying all in a lump sum). I can only imagine what other programs cost. Of course, my alma mater also just recently decided our basketball coach is worth 4\$ million dollars a year and that the football stadium needed millions in upgrades.
    When a college coach is making millions and college admin staff is making huge amounts, something is seriously wrong. I know I’m coming out with debt, it’s why I chose a degree that had multiple applications, mobility, and a licensure that qualifies for loan repayment as a medical service.
    There needs to be serious policing of what the article referred to as “Junk Colleges”. It like the government keeps trying to set itself up to fail.

    • 回复: @interesting
    , @Anon
  21. @Anonymous

    College has become the AAA team or “farm club” or “minor league” for the NFL.

    what a racket.

  22. Anon • 免责声明 说:
    @Anonymous

    Just one of the problems of “junk colleges” is that they help multipĺy the number of people who believe they should form and express opinions on matters which they will never understand.

当前评论者
说:

发表评论 - 不接受人身攻击和无端侮辱,作者将禁止此类评论者。


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有Michael Hudson的评论