Quote:
Originally Posted by Bri
The article doesn't suggests to change the fundamentals of the US housing market, nor copying the Singapore situation. However it suggests something can be learned from policies stimulating both house ownership and savings as opposed to highly leveraged ownership.
If you make a statement that contradicts common perceptions, you may just want to add some argumentation instead of moping. There is no need for the bruised ego act.
|
How are my statements contradicting common perceptions? We have Singaporean residents on this forum, the rest is all available at your fingertips with just a little cursory research. You stepped out and stated that we should not dismiss this because of who Stiglitz is and dismissed the people that said Singapore wasn't a good analog.
By the way, there was a reason I cited U.S. home ownership encouragement policies as problematic which you dismissed as irrelevant as they encouraged debt. Look at the writer of the article that you laud, Stiglitz, he was on Clinton's economic advisory council during his first term, has written about being pro-CRA (which is one of the policies that worked to ensure debt was being provided to less-affluent neighbourhoods) and pro-Fannie and Freddie as well as grossly underestimating their capital reserve requirements.
So, I will set aside the "bruised ego act" if you set aside whatever your intentions were dismissing the others reservations on this topic as well as whatever was behind your "nice try" below.