Yes, we're in uncharted territory with the economy dipping and the Fed making up new plays for its playbook. But one thing I don't get is the hand-wringing over housing starts. In the Daily Beast one summary noted:
...builders broke ground on the fewest number of homes in at least a half century...November housing starts were down 18.9 percent from October and 47 percent since November 2007...“The horrifying thing about the housing-starts number is we’re likely to keep going down from here,” said one economist told Bloomberg.
When we've gone through the biggest housing bubble in history -- which means the biggest oversupply of housing inventory ever -- don't housing starts have
to dry up until the market settles out? Isn't that what we need? Isn't that why some folks -- like Holman Jenkins at the Wall St. Journal, or Jim Cramer -- keep saying only half in jest that the best government response would be to destroy some of the excess unoccupied housing? Housing gurus please feel free to connect my synapses here if I'm missing something.