LyrArc Article Gist
Progressive caucus in the US House of Representatives led by Pramila Jaypal, a first time Indian American Congresswoman defeats an attempt by Josh Gottheimer of the Problem Solvers caucus to separate much of the president Biden's agenda in health, education and social policy and risk it being defeated by Senators Manchin and Sinema in the US Senate. Without the efforts on child care, education and health, climate change and social services part of the Biden Workers and Families Plan much of the Biden agenda would remain unfinished and Democratic party promises not kept. This also means that Manchin a Senator from West Virginia with a population of 1.8 million and Arizona with a population of 7.2 million, both conservative leaning Democrats could sink the entire agenda of president Biden to support American families and workers for a population of 331 million people. That two states with a population of less than 3% of the American population could sink the entire agenda of president Biden shows how fragile a situation has been created within the Democratic party to support workers and families even during the pandemic following the leadership of Carter, Clinton, and Obama Ms. Jaypal, a three term Congresswoman from Seattle, Washington state, was first elected in 2016 with an endorsement from Bernie Sanders who was the Democratic Party's leading candidate for president till the late stages of the 2020 US presidential primaries. Bernie Sanders says of Jaypal- "I think she is doing an extraordinary job. And I think the Progressive Caucus is doing an extraordinary job." Sanders founded the Progressive caucus after getting elected to the Senate from Vermont 30 years ago. Even though it is hard to imagine the Democratic party being the Democratic party without bold policies in climate change, affordable housing, reducing income disparities,  investing big in childcare, education and healthcare, attempts were being made to sink the entire Democratic party and national agenda going back to Franklin Roosevelt. Jaypal is described in the WSJ as diplomatic and firm, saying "I am so proud of our caucus; I have never seen our caucus so strong. And I am a very good vote counter also." Fifty members of the 100 member Progressive Caucus held firm in support of president Biden's original agenda without which the president would have little to show in keeping promises he made to the American people in the election and little to differentiate him from Mr. Trump who also supported infrastructure spending. Separating the infrastructure bill would have risked sinking Mr. Biden's plan for recovery of America from the pandemic and the devastating policies pursued by American presidents in the last two decades. Policies by previous presidents that have impoverished the country, created huge income disparities, weakened America in the world in trade and technological leadership, and wasted resources in foreign wars. There are no centrists or far left- these are just labels. When Ms Japal said "Let's just remember the Speaker (Nancy Pelosi) is a great champion of this agenda. I think she was trying to do as much as she could to get this done," she could have said it is Mr. Biden's own agenda pushed forward with conviction to help workers and families during the pandemic, and build a solid American recovery, restore American leadership in the world. Pramila Japypal is the first Indian American woman in the US Congress, and one of only two dozen naturalized American citizens in the US Congress. That she could play such a critical role for good in the US Congress shows that with the right convictions, determination, experience, much can be done for the common good in America and the world.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mr Leung, the highly unpopular Chief Executive of Hong Kong, and target of protesters demanding his resignation and universal suffrage in 2017 as originally promised, is a reserved man who does not interact much with the public. His secondary scholing was at Kings School in Hong Kong followed by studies at Hong Kong Polytechnic for a higher diploma in building surveying. He then studied valuation and estate management at Bristol Polytechnic in Britain graduating in 1977. He was a surveyor by training and worked in this field to help China open up its property markets in the 1980's. By 30 he was made head of the JLW real estate firm's Hong Kong branch, and in 1993 formed his own firm DTZ Debenham. Throughout his life he has worked for or had close ties to the authorites in Beijing in the property field, and has little political experience. In 1985 he was elected to the Hong Kong Basic Law Consultative Committee, and later became its Secretary General. This was followed by a position in the Chinese government as a member of the National Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference till 2012. His first political campaign in 2012 was itself of a limited nature because he only had to win support from members of a 1200 member pro-China, pro-business Executive Council that currently approves nominees and elects the Chief Executive. Albert Ho, one of three candidates in 2012, says Leung was completely insulated from political pressures, political give and take, and uses a "greenhouse" comparison to describe this isolation from the public. His progressive credentials for providing affordable housing involve ideas to open up housing development in territories near Hong Kong appear to be merely election period ideas. The large gaps between rich and poor, or rich and a struggling middle class in Hong Kong- becoming sharply accentuated in China to the point where China is probably one of the most unequal societies similiar to Brazil- are also keenly present in Hong Kong. How much part this plays in the protests is not clear in media reports, though the "Occupy Central" name for one of the protest groups suggests a connection to social issues as well. Protestors may see democratically elected chief executives as more responsive to voter concerns including social, income, housing and other issues, in sharp contrast to more than 1200 well heeled business executives who have prospered greatly in China's boom years. China's national leadership under Jinping and LiKeqiang appeared to sense this income divide as they focussed on extragavant displays of wealth in the transition, but may still have failed to grasp how big that gap has become and how the political processes of rigid control cannot keep up with the times even with the best of intentions. Especially when growth slows and the problems of the boom years such as hyperinflation in property prices and pollution remain unsolved. Bloomberg quietly let the Occupy Wall Sreet protests fizzle out clearing protestors at times, yet voters could peacefully elect Mr. Blasio as Mayor of New York in response, a level to which Beijing's political system has not evolved and to which Hong Kong offers both a challenge and an opportunity. As one protester quoted in the NYT put it- "we are not the enemy, we are the people."...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's GDP growth of 8.7% for 2009 is based on private sector investment in housing and infrastructure spending through the stimulus funds. Now with a asset price bubble developing from excesssive lending in 2009 the government is trying to slow bank lending. Experts see a situation similiar to Japan, as an asset price developed there in the 1980's after rapid industrialization. Even though China will still be a developing country after this phase of growth. Property prices are going up by 20% a year in the major cities. And with it making housing unaffordable for most people except the top 20% of the people who comprise about 120 million. This raises issues of equitable growth for Beijing. Much of the rest of the country is being left behind when it comes to housing and in other areas like health care.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Economist looks at real estate markets in the U.S., Canada, Britain, Germany, Hong Kong, India and other countries in May 2013. It looks at price to disposable income and price to rent ratios and sees if these ratios are higher than historical averages to determine if prices are based on sound foundations. Canada's real estate market looks set to face problems of a bubble bursting. The U.S. recovery is seen to be based on firm foundations. Property prices are undervalued in Germany and set to rise.

LyrArc Article Gist
Its incorrect to call a loan that has only slightly lower, same or higher monthly payment after modification, a loan modification. The intent is to make a loan affordable in monthly payments for the borrower, for it to be a meaningful modification. Says Tom Miller, the Attorney General of Iowa, "it should'nt be called modifications if people pay more or approximately the same." Many lenders and banks do not want to have to mark to market a whole set of loans of one type in one geographical region, as an accounting rule now requires, just because they have modified one loan of that type, because their reserves are severely depleted and most are already or nearly insolvent. So their way of discouraging loan modifications as a solution is to respond by saying that loans go into foreclosure even after modification, when the modification they are talking about is tacking on interest penalties and fees that accelerate the home into foreclosure in some cases, and in others by leaving payments higher or the same make foreclosure just as likely as before. Tom Miller, attorney general of Iowa, also says that " if you do real modifications, the default rate is significantly lower." Some mortgage companies say that default rates drop significantly, some to as low as 25%, when loan payments are reduced to the 30-40% of borrower income range, which is becoming the standard for a meaningful modification. Analyst Ron Dubitsky's research at Credit Suisse confirms this, showing lower payments reduced defaults to less than 50%. Research by Credit Suisse and Alan White, a law professor at Valparaiso University also show that at this time loan, 2 years into the foreclosure crisis, modification has mostly resulted in higher monthly payments. White says banks like Wells Fargo, a large servicer of loans, have done have modified few loans as apercentage of their delinquent mortgages. Sheila Bair and others have long advocated reducing loan payments to 30-40% of monthly income since early 2007, because foreclosure is costlier for banks than loan modification, but met resistance from the banks and lenders and their lobbying groups. The relevant question is that if the banks are misquided in pursuing this course, and its not in the interests of the banks or the country's economy- because accelerating foreclosures or not taking modification action in the middle of a huge wave of layoffs may result in a even bigger wave of foreclosures that threaten housing prices and effectively leave banks insolventleading to nationalization- then what purpose did all this serve except to exacerbate the crisis and increase the price tag of the government's and country's ultimate rescue of homeowners?...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Powell of the NYT shows what is wrong about the Olympics model of the IOC having host cities build costly facilities just for a two week period. Cities that have suffered paying for the Olympics in recent memory are most strikingly Athens, Greece, and some observers say the Greece crisis started about the time the Olympics were held there. In Greece as in Rio, corruption, and mismanagement, are major issues. In the case of Rio the Olympics were held following a time of widespread protests as the economy hit a recession, and corruption scandal at Petrobras and in the government led to public anger. Most striking is the fact widely reported that the Rio government does not have enough money to pay salaries and much of the investment in Olympic infrastructure is not going to be available to the working class, middle class, at a time when basic public services such as clean water, good bus services, environmental pollution, significant shortages in affordable housing remain unaddressed. Bolsa Familia program of the socialist Workers Party helped the poor, yet the middle and working class have suffered with misspent funds, and mismanagement of the economy. Powell does well to show how things could be done better than they are now. He says he applauded the Bloomberg plan to build swimming pools and kayak routes in different parts of the city, in city parks further away where the middle and working class could use these facilities. This did not happen at the Rio Olympics. It also shows that the IOC could also get into this instead of being some distant organization, that simply hands out this gift called the Olympics and stringent requirements. What if the IOC also says it wants to see ways in which the facilities will be later available to the broad public, so that swimming pools and other athletic facilities, including housing and transportation systems are then available to the people in different parts of the city. Rio de Janeiro University has seen large cuts in pay and services. It took Montreal decades to pay for the Montreal Olympics. Sochi facilities will not be used for the large part by the Russian public, more painful because of the Russian deep recession similar to the Brazilian deep recession. Olympic host cities should be required by the IOC to show that the facilities built will be usable to the maximum degree by the broad mass of the public, finances are stress tested for recession in a country. At this time citizens of cities such as Boston and Oslo have taken up these things- as the IOC takes no responsibility and host governments are giddy about showing off their country- and pulled out. Least valid of all is the notion that the developing countries are being discriminated against. Look at all the empy stadiums in the far north of the country of Brazil in the World Cup, and you realize there are better ways to take pride in a country- how about matching your transportation infrastructure with that of China, some bullet trains, some new subways in large and midtier cities, done so as to give broad access to the public at affordable prices for transportation? India is a large and now forward looking developing country, a young population with tech and infrastructure dreams and 4 medals in all in the Olympics. Does it make more sense to match China's success in transportation infrastructure with bullet trains, new subways and road building programs, and to build athletic facilities in every high school and college in the country matching the U.S. and Britain,  especially for girls, or to seek pride in putting up an application for a gift from the IOC? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Fitch Ratings Agency says that 65-75% of homeowners getting home loan modifications under the Obama administration's Home Affordable Loan Modification Program (HAMP) will default in 12 months. This is because the median ratio of total debt payments to pretax income is about 64% according to a Treasury Department estimate. Many of these homeowners have large credit card and other debt, and little is left for food, clothing and other expenses. By April 2010, 295,000 homeowners had taken loan modifications under HAMP, which provides interest rates of as low as 2%. And another 637,000 homeowners are in trial modifications, which require that homeowners show they can make the lower payments consistently and provide documets to show eligibility. The Obama administration has provided $50 billion for the HAMP program, with financial incentives to loan servicers and mortgage investors to modify loans. Critics say the program would have worked better if the government and HAMP dealt directly with homeowners- as homeowners complain about the long time, upto a year, it takes for loan servicers and mortgage companies to get the loan modified on a long-term basis....

LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times editorial page on the day following the passage of the second bailout or rescue plan of $700 billion in the Senate after it was voted down in the House of Representatives. It points out that the bailout bill does little to prevent a wave of foreclosures which the NYT estimates at six million people expected to default in the rest of this year and 2009. It faults lenders unwillingness to reduce the loan balances amount. At a Congressional hearing for the Hope for Homeowners program in which the governmet wold insure upto $300 bilonin new affordable loans for troubled borrowers if the lenders voluntarily refinance delinquent mortgages by reducing loan balances to 90% of the homes' current market value, lending banks were lukewarm about taking these losses in exchange for bigger losses in foreclosures. These lenders include Wels Fargo, Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup. The FDIC's Sheila Barr has also advocated reducing loan balances in her proposal for tackling the housing crisis presented after the Bear Stearns crisis. She is taking this approach to banks that like IndyMac were taken over by FDIC. But the numbers are not large letters were sent to 28,000 delinquent borrowers of IndyMac recently to reduce loan balances. This is a serious problem and either Congress and Treasury are leaving this problem to the next administration taking office 3 months from now as there is no real consensus on this issue even today or they are missing the impact this has in dropping home price values even further in neigborhoods across the nation as foreclosures drive prices down even further compounding the problem. For the financial institutions it would appear that they are letting this drag out because their capital is at frighteningly low levels and taking losses at one time is harder than taking the foreclosure losses dragged out over 1-3 years and they are also looking for a way in which they can let the government bear the burden of losses as the crisis intensifies which can make sense from the point of view of each institution. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal on September 29, 2008, Sheila Barr told Congress this month that in recent years troubled loan portfolios have yielded about 32% of book value, compared with more than 87% for loans in which the borrower is current. These are strong statistics in favor of lenders taking an informed decision to lower loan balances voluntarily with some government help along the way but the fact that this is not happening leads one to think that something is falling between the cracks, initial lender reluctance to take losses through voluntary balance reduction at the time of Bear Stearns crisis given taxpayer reluctance and lack of government initiative to help lenders in doing this, sort of what Martin Feldstein suggested in a series of articles during the time before and after the Bear Steans crisis. And then as the credit crisis worsened with collapse of Lehman, WaMu, Freddie, Fannie and Wachovia in September 2008 fear gripping the markets and LIBOR interbank lending rate at close to 8%, banks gripped by the fear prevailing in the market, frozen practically about any steps other than preserving their hammered capital, and reluctant to take losses which would further impair their capital. Also in the WSJ Sept 8, on help for homeowners, Deutsche Bank estimates 40% of homeowners or about 20 million households will owe more than their home is worth by the time the housing market stabilizes. This will lead to some homeowners making the rational decision as Martin Feldstein argued to walk away from their homes, leading to more foreclosure losses for th banks. This article Rescue Includes Steps to Help Borrowers Keep Homes by Ruth Simon also has some information that confirms the NYT editorial. An analysis it says of 144 mortgage modifications by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office found that none reduced mortgage balances and onoly a handful reduced monthly payments. Even with interest rate reductions, the study showed borrrowers wound up paying more because of missed paymmets penalties and fees. Another study by Credit Suisse mentioned in the same article points out that the percentage of borrowers who were behind 6 months after loan modifications dropped to 17% when lenders reduced the loan balances and 13% when mortgage companies froze the interest rate of adjustable rate mortgages. A bigger problem is the effect on consumption, if 40% of homeowners end up owing more to the bank than their home is worth as Deutsche Bank estimates, combined with higher unemployment and higher parttime employment, by the time things stabilize. And this is the big looming problem for a new administration in January even if the bailout plan passes Congress this week after revisions and eases the crisis in the credit markets. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The first significant action to help homeowners threatened with foreclosure comes from Sheila Bair, Chairman of the Federal Deposit insurance Corporation, one of the few people after Bernanke and Paulson who have shown initiative and foresight in the current crisis. Bernanke and Paulson had the foresight to open the Fed lending window to investment firms like Lehman Brothers and others but little has been done for homeowners to have significant impact. When interviewed on television in the days surrounding the Bear Stearns crisis Sheila has shown a good grasp of the issues and courage to take the initiative. This action is similiar in line to what Martin Feldstein has suggested on the pages of the WSJ for some time now. Martin wanted the Federal government to step in to loan homeowners the 20% of their outstanding loan and work towards bringing the homeowners payment to an affordable sum. According to Feldstein's calculation this would be about the right amount as a percentage of their loan so that homeowners rationally would not be better off walking away from the loan as the best possible decision under the circumstances. If the rational option was taken under a scenario that homeowners would get no direct help here is what would happen even though it may be intuitively read in one's mind. Homeowners would walk away in increasing numbers, it would become the popular option, one that has happened in prior housing crises in Colorado for example but this time it would be spread out across America, making it dangerous. This would launch a downward spiral or cycle in which the more homeowners walk way, or default the more house prices drop, and the more house prices drop a new group of homeowners who previously had enough equity in the house now because of the last price drop enter the category of homeowners who would be better off just walking away as a rational option. During the next wave this gorup would default and set the spiral or cycle moving again to lead to further price declines and another group of homeowners finding not enough equity in their homes to justify making payments and this group would walk away. At each turn of this spiral another cycle would be set in motion which is why it is so dangerous once it gets started, and the need for timely but also well thought out plan and good execution. This cycle is that of the economic system as a whole. As house prices drop at each turn of this cycle, it would have a serious impact on consumption for an already indebted American consumer. A drop in consumption means fewer product purchases by consumers, and the falling demand means factories would close as companies consolidate operations around the remaining factories to keep capacity utilization at reasonable levels, and this would mean layoffs and cuts in investment and other spending. The layoffs in turn would add another layer of homeowners leaving their homes through foreclosures adding to the pool of homeowners who have left their homes, and adding to the downward pressure on house prices. The pickup in inflation would bite at exactly the worst time as this would mean consumers would have to spend even more carefully. The price of oil which normally would respond to changes such as a fleet of cars with higher mileage on American roads would take a longer time to respond as this fleet change would take a few years to occur. It would respond to lower demand for oil in American factories but the considerable demand in Asia and other countries where the economies are likely to slow down but still be growing at rates to accomodate the large number of people who have not benefited from the market economy, would make the price decline in oil a gradual affair. The weaker dollar would add to the price of imports adding to the inflation. This bite from inflation would lower consumption even further in the economic cycle. And this would mean lower production in factories and even more layoffs at the next turn of the economic cycle. The Federal Reserve would find itself having difficult choices between maintaining confidence in the dollar, for which Capman and McKinnon argue on the pages of the WSJ recently and lowering rates but not achieving much in terms of stimulating either consumption or investment as this would take time to work itself out and all the Fed could achieve by its interest rate making tool is to buy time to weather these adjustments in an orderly manner. There is almost a consensus among experts that interest rate reductions in the current climate of inflationary movements in prices and the current currency exchange rates moving towards a loss of confidence in the dollar is something to be done very carefully and each action taken only with careful understanding of the possible consequences. A look at the proposal itsel shows that it gets around the whole issue of moral hazard by having the cost paid for in this manner. The mortgage investors will pay for the 5 years of interest on the 20% of the loan the government provides. The homeowner takes over after that. The mortgage investors cannot add deferred interest, prepayment penalties or other ways to make the homeowner pay some of the interest charges. And the homeowners payment has to be afforadable so mortgage investors have to show that the payment is not more than 35% of income of the homeownercalled the debt to income ratio (DTI). And only homeowners with mortgage payments above 40% DTI are eligible. And the government would raise the money needed through a $50 billion offering. To show there is no moral hazard that is the government bailing out any of the parties involved, the government will get back all of its money or intends to do so, the government will have the first rights to the money should a home foreclose and before anybody else is paid. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
About 680,000 homeowners applied for the Home Affordability Modification Program, or HAMP, and had their loans modified so that their mortgage payments are reduced. This is only one in four of the 2.7 millon homeowners who tried to to join the program. This according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data released by the Treasury Department. In 2009 the Obama administration launched the program to reverse the rising home foreclosures in the U.S., by reducing the monthly mortgage payments through lower interest rates and extending the term of loans. About $75 billion was estimated as the cost of the program at the time. Only $1 billion of this has been spent by the Obama administration. The program offered payments to 100 mortgage servicers as inducement to complete loan modifications. About half the applicants or 1.3 million were declared ineligible from the beginning, and the program used stricter qualification criteria than loan modification programs offered by individual banks. Applicants were rejected because the necessary paperwork was not submitted or it was lost by the mortgage company- 266,000 falling in this category. An additional 770,000 homeowners who started the program were later disqualified mostly for the paperwork and eligibility problems, with only a small number rejected for failing to make trial payments. Mortgages less than 31% of pretax income were considered affordable and considered ineligible-255,000 were in this category. Over 80% of homeowners in the southern states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee, received no loan modification....

LyrArc Article Gist
The National Association of Realtors reports that sales of previously owned homes dropped by 27.2% from June, to seasonally adjusted annual rate of 3.83 million homes. House prices gained ameasure of stability in 2009, after dropping since 2006. Now that measure of stability may be lost as house prices weaken. The expiry of a home-buyer tax credit was expected to dampen sales but not by this much. Paul Dales of Capital Economics expects a further drop of 5% in house prices. Combine this with sluggish consumer spending and prospects of deflation in 2011, a weak Obama administration HAMP homeowner relief program, fading stimulus and the likelihood of no further stimulus because of deficit fears; and the picture shows serious problems. The underlying picture of housing is not changing. One in four homeowners with mortgages owe more than their house is worth. Banks are handling over 5 million loans that are delinquent, if these loans are modified or short sales are permitted by banks, there would be support for housing prices. HAMP has failed in this regard, see the link to this....

LyrArc Article Gist
Applebaum talks to two researchers at the University of Chicago and Princeton, Prof. Sufi and Prof. Mian, on the record of U.S. president Obama and Fed chairman Bernanke in helping homeowners facing foreclosure and underwater borrowers, comparing that record with their record in helping the banks. The issue is relevant as the policy and handling of homeowners had to be part of an overall effective plan for recovery in the U.S. economy, because ultimately without the U.S. consumer any recovery would be weak in the long run- a situation the U.S. faces in early 2014. The response to the issue of irresponsible homeowners borrowing beyond the limit without an equally robust response to irresponsible bank management that allowed wildly excessive leveraging of assets, and successful aggressive lobbying by banks in a shortsighted policy of going through with a wave of foreclosures; besides creating questions of fairness and equitable handling of the problem, also had major ramifications for the future of the U.S. and global economic growth. Here Christina Romer and other administration advisors say Bernanke was right in tackling the problem from the perspective of the banks needing to be recapitalized. Thoughtful advisors looking at the entire problem, Martin Feldstein and Sheila Bair strongly pushed for providing the same help to homeowners without getting caught up in the issue of who was responsible home buyers or the banks, and looking at the interests of the U.S. economy and the U.S. people. Proposals by Feldstein and Bair were equally robust in helping banks as they were in helping homeowners, only the banks understood their interests narrowly and had more access to policymakers in the Bush, as well as the Obama administration, Paulson as well as Geithner. This leaves us with the ultimate irony of the Obama administration pushing for the minimum wage, even to the point of electoral posture, when lasting damage had been inflicted on homeowners from the weaker portions of America's middle class by a policy that went against what two respected financial and economic experts from the Reagan period, Sheila and Bair had strongly advocated. See links and groups on Feldstein and Bair. Applebaum has followed most aspects of this problem closely and continues to provide exceptional reporting including the piece on the thinking of new Fed chairman, Janet Yellen. Private enterprise rules that require management at banks just as for other companies to take responsibility for failures, and be replaced with new management, was largely avoided leading to a fundamental failure in how a free market economy such as the U.S. and western European economies are supposed to function. Rules aggressively pushed by Geithner's mentor Treasury Secretary Rubin for a vigorous cleanup at banks in South Korea during a similiar situation in 1997, were not followed in any way here, also setting wrong precedents for the long run. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman on the failure of the Obama administration to take steps to help homeowners in the foreclosure crisis. The serious problems created in housing markets by a wave of foreclosures and declining prices. The failure of regulatory agencies to take necessary action that would reduce the wave of foreclosures. The impact this has in hampering an economic recovery.

LyrArc Article Gist
Faces of the U.S. unemployment, foreclosure and housing crisis in Hagerstown, Maryland, in 2011.

LyrArc Article Gist
Keith Bradsher visits Guangzhou, China, just as prime minister Wen Jiabao tells the National People's Congress that China is changing its priorities from high growth to sustainable development. As recently as 2007 GDP growth reached 14%! The minimum wage is expected to rise 13% each year under the five year plan. Even with the increase in wages owning an apartment is unaffordable in Guangzhou- a 1000 square feet apartment costs upward of $300,000, showing the extent to which the bubble in real estate prices affects young people who cannot afford to own an apartment. A new graduate with marketable skills such as computer engineering makes about $6000 a year, putting owning an apartmet beyond reach. Another change he notices today is that during visits to construction sites he does not see flood lit sites at night. This used to be the case because builders were scrambling to build. With government policies discouraging the property bubble there is no longer a need for work at night. The focus now has shifted to build low income housing....

LyrArc Article Gist
Failure to provide principal reductions to millions of U.S. homeowners under water and the prospect of further price declines in housing in 2012-2013. This would prevent a recovery in the U.S. economy.

LyrArc Article Gist
Edward DeMarco is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which is the independent regulatory agency overseeing U.S. housing lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The FHFA was formed in 2008 after merging two existing agencies. Later that year Fannie and Freddie were taken over by the government. FHFA head, DeMarco, is reluctant to help homeowners with underwater mortgages on their homes with reduced payments because this would mean losses to the taxpayer. He sees his mandate as protecting the taxpayer. Sheila Bair, former head of the FDIC, says she understands DeMarco's mandate is not to provide fiscal stimulus, and the Obama administration has been all over the place when it comes to providing homeowner assistance. The result is that there is little help by the U.S. government to homeowners with underwater mortgages since 2008, and this creates larger headwinds for the Federal Reserve Bank to provide momentum to the U.S. economy. Many experts see this as a serious problem and a well respected economist, Martin Feldstein, has made repeated proposals for structuring the help to homeowners since 2008. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Applebaum describes how Obama as president took action on the stimulus after the 2008 financial crisis, but did not take the necessary action to stem foreclosures and aid a recovery in housing. This now appears to be one of the critical failures of his presidency.