Some hightlight & quotes from the book:
"Home prices were firmly tied to people's ability to pay, which is a function of income and credit availability."
"From 1997 to 2006 US national home prices gained an astounding 19.4% per year on average. Over that time incomes barely budged. So why could people pay so much? The difference was credit, which governement policy made much cheaper & easier to get. But credit could not expand forever, and eventually conditions tightened. When they did, there was nothing to hold prices up.
So when the market crested, the easy money that for years had poured into the economy stopped flowing. Even if there had been no other economic reversals that followed the housing bust (which there were), the economy would have had to shrink without all the free cash. A recession was not only inevitable but absolutely necessary to rebalance the economy.
But when the economy started to contract, lawmakers and economists treated the development not as the inevitable consequence of years of easy money and overspending, but as the problem itself. In other words, they mistook the cure for the disease.
The policy goals of both the Bush and Obama administrations have been to encourage consumers to spend as they had before the housing crash. But how? If unemployment rose, and incomes and home prices fell, where would consumers get the money?
Economists have declared that if the people can't spend, the government needs to step up and do it for them. But the government doesn't have any money. All it has is what it collects in taxes and what it borrows or prints.
For now, this process is just creating massive public debt ($1.6 trillion per year and counting). And although the numbers look bad, we are still able to sell most of this debt on the open market, primarily to foreigners.
But out "good fortune" can't last forever. Ultimately the US government will have only two options:
default (tell our creditors that we can't pay, and negotiate a settlement) or
inflation (print money to pay off maturing debt). Either option will lead to painful consequences. Default, which does offer the possibility of a real reckoning and a fresh beginning, is actually the better alternative. Unfortunately, while inflation is worse, it is also the more politically expedient."
"One option for the government to increase revenue by raising taxes. This path is never popular wih citizens, and in a democracy is hard to push through. Even in authoritarian states (where there are no pesky elections), tax increases are problematic. Higher rates always discourage productivity and deflate economic vitality. There is a limit to how high taxes can go. Raise them enough, and people stop working. Raise them higher, and they may even start rioting.
A far better option is to cut government spending. However, this is often more difficult than raising taxes. Politicians make lots of promises to secure their elections and voters rarely consider the ability of taxpayers to actually foot the bills. For political leaders, default can be rather embarrassing, as it amounts to an official acknowledgement of insolvency. To avoid this, many opt to simply print money to pay debts, effectively repudiating their obligations by inflating them away. Since inflation is usually the easiest choice to make, it is often the most likely. But while it may seem easy at first, it ultimately exacts the harshest toll.
Inflation allows governments to avoid hard choices and dispose of their debt on the sly. By printing money governments can nominally pay back all that they owe, but they do so by diluting their currency. Creditors get paid, but what they get isn't worth much, and if inflation turns into hyperinflation, it's worth nothing.
Inflation is simply a means to transfer wealth from anyone who has savings in a particular currency to anyone who has debt in the same currency. With hyperinflation, the value of savings gets completely wiped out and the burden of debt is removed. (Hard assets will rise in nominal value when inflation flares up)"
"Artificially low interest rates (which made the economy appear healthy) invigorated the market for adjustable rate mortgages and gave birth to the teaser rate, which made overpriced homes seam afforable."
"As consumers logically stopped spending after the housing boom deprived them of easy money, the government stepped in with a massive $700 billion stimulus in order to keep the registers ringing. This spending, which the government has borrowed from future generations, has kept us from the pain of living within our means.
By refusing to allow market forces to rein in excess spending, liquidate bad investments, replenish depleted savings, fund capital investment, and help workers transition from the service sector to the manufacturing sector, the government has resisted the cure while exacerbating the disease. In the process, we have turned just about all forms of debt into government debt, and have blown up another bubble, this time in Treasury bonds.
Unfortunately, this bubble threatens to dwarf all preceding asset bubbles. Its eventual bursting, which will cause consumer prices and interest rates to soar, will have even more devastating effects on the economy than the dot-com and housing bubbles combined."