The Unassuming Economist

On prices, rent, and mortgage:    

• Trump’s Pick for Fed Chair Kevin Warsh Has an Unusual Plan To Lower Mortgage Rates – Realtor.com
• Mortgages won’t fix what ails housing. Economists keep repeating a message that nobody seems to want to hear: Financing gimmicks can’t solve a problem that’s fundamentally about math – Quartz
• Homeowners Are Falling Behind on Their Mortgages – Realtor.com
• Mortgage Applications Today: Demand Drops Again as Experts Blame Decline on Historic Winter Storms – Realtor.com
• Home Prices Five Years After Covid. Synchronicity and idiosyncrasy – Home Economics
• Trump: ‘I Want To Drive Housing Prices Up’. The president says he would rather increase prices for homeowners than drive prices down. – Reason
• Asking Rents Decline Year-over-year – Calculated Risk  

On sales, permits, starts, and supply:    

• Why Trump’s crackdown on big investors in housing may backfire. Curbing institutional ownership of single-family homes does not tackle the affordability crisis and could make things worse – FT
• The Housing Market Is Slumping—but Sales Over $10 Million Are Skyrocketing. The broader real-estate market has struggled under the weight of higher mortgage rates. Meanwhile, the high end is surging. – Wall Street Journal
• The Housing Market Is Swinging Toward Buyers. Nearly two-thirds of home buyers last year purchased at a discount to the original listing price, the highest proportion since 2019 – Wall Street Journal
• U.S. Population Growth Slows in 2025 – NAHB
• Will expanding the capital gains exclusion unlock housing supply? Evidence on who benefits – Brookings 
• Final Look at Housing Markets in December and a Look Ahead to January Sales. Altos: Active single-family inventory was down 0.2% week-over-week – Calculated Risk
• Atlanta City Limits. What’s preventing the metro from growing? – Home Economics
• Homeowners Are Holding on to Their Homes Longer Than Ever—Especially in Coastal States – Realtor.com  
• Home Builders Turn to White House for Help on Inventory Glut. Companies devising a plan for a federally backed ‘rent-to-own’ program to help reduce the biggest surplus of homes in many years – Wall Street Journal
• Fannie Mae Expands U.S. Rental Housing Supply Through Nearly $74 Billion in Multifamily Loan Production Volume in 2025 – Fannie Mae
• Why Trump’s crackdown on big investors in housing may backfire. Curbing institutional ownership of single-family homes does not tackle the affordability crisis and could make things worse – FT
• Are YIMBYs winning the housing wars? Not so fast, these people say. Supply skeptics contend housing affordability calls for government policies, not just market forces. – Washington Post

On other developments:    

• What Tearing Down Housing Projects Did for Kids. Bringing rich and poor together has major benefits. – The Atlantic
• Knocking down social housing helped poor children prosper. New research shows the impact of mixed-income developments – The Economist
• New research examines long-term effects of federal housing program from the ’90s – NPR   
• Housing (Un)affordability: New Reports Shed New Light on the Problem. I’m especially convinced that with better policy, we could improve our uniquely dismal construction productivity. – Jared Bernstein
• Trump’s Plan to Make Housing Affordable Is Faltering – Bloomberg
• Trump can still do more to address affordability. Tax cuts and deregulation will fuel growth and help lower home prices. – Washington Post
• Voters Say Housing Prices Are Too High. Trump Wants Them Higher. When President Trump said he wanted to drive housing prices up, not down, he was speaking to a conundrum that has flummoxed policymakers for decades. – New York Times
• Congress Targets Housing Crisis as Solutions Elude Trump. Bipartisan Senate and House packages, aimed at rewarding new construction and eliminating red tape, could bring significant changes to federal housing laws. – New York Times
• House Republicans eye next week for housing bill vote. The Housing for the 21st Century Act is part of a push by Congress to pass legislation that could address a growing housing affordability crisis. – Politico
• The contradictions of the housing affordability dilemma – Axios
• Why nobody really knows the scale of the U.S. housing crisis. Experts say the U.S. needs an additional 2 million to 20 million homes to fix the shortfall, underscoring the challenge of meeting the nation’s housing needs. – Washington Post
• Do More Deportations Mean Lower Housing Costs? The Trump administration says its crackdown on immigration is reducing housing prices. Economists say other factors such as oversupply matter more. – Wall Street Journal
• Bridging Rent and Ownership: Can the “Trump Homes” Proposal Fix America’s Housing Shortage? – The People’s Economist with Anthony Chan
• Affordable Housing Starts in the Labor Market – Bloomberg
• The hidden double standards driving our housing crisis. Apartments are safer and more affordable than single-family homes. Why do we treat them like a hazard? – Vox
• Housing Unaffordability Soared to New Highs in 2024 – Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies
• Fannie and Freddie: Single Family Delinquency Rate Increased in December. Fannie Mae Multi-Family Delinquency Rate Near Housing Bust High – Calculated Risk
• Democrats knock Trump’s pledge to ‘drive housing prices up’ – The Hill
•  AI is Powering a Silicon Valley Housing Rebound. The areas gaining fastest are the ones where tech workers live – Home Economics
• U.S. Homeowner Equity Eases Slightly in Q4 2025 While Seriously Underwater Rates Stay Near Historic Lows – ATTOM
• Home Price Growth in Opportunity Zones Slightly Behind Rest of Nation in Second Quarter – ATTOM
• Homeownership Rate Inches Up to 65.7% – NAHB
• Black Gen Zers and Millennials Are Half As Likely to Own Their Home As White Counterparts – Redfin  
• The Millennial Homeownership Problem Is Mostly a Marriage Problem. Married Millennials who head their own households own at nearly the same rate as Boomers. There are just far fewer of them. – Home Economics

This post by Prakash Loungani and Karan Bhasin first appeared in Business Standard:

The India-US trade agreement should be seen as a win for consumers and producers, with debates on protectionism and strategic autonomy often missing the economic trade-offs involved

The recently announced India–US trade deal has led to much confusion regarding the terms of the agreement and its implications for both consumers and producers. In February 2020, one of the authors had termed this as an eventuality given the complementarities of the two economies. Little did we imagine that the deal would take six more years. 

But all is well that ends well. As proponents of this deal, there is little suspense regarding our views on it. The deal is good — for both countries. However, as often happens, many are questioning the agreement and invoking passionate phrases such as “strategic autonomy” to challenge it. In what follows, we provide some insights into how the deal would benefit Indian consumers and producers and strengthen the economy.

Lastly, we discuss the issue of oil purchases, since that has become the primary yardstick used to judge whether India enjoys strategic autonomy. The idea behind this piece is to carefully examine trade and explain why we are at a critical moment in history, and why vested interests should not contaminate the discourse.

How do Indian consumers gain from freer trade?

Let us begin with a simple comparison of India pre-1991 and post-1991. India historically followed a highly protectionist trade regime that restricted access to the domestic market. Ambassador and Fiat cars were the only options available to Indian consumers. Ambassadors truly served as brand ambassadors of stasis — no innovation, no progress, the same car delivered year after year. Gradually allowing more players expanded consumer choice and lowered the cost of car ownership. The same story holds true for virtually all major sectors of the Indian economy.

Young India is aspirational, and consumers demand the best possible products at a given price point. Some of these may be European, others American. Protectionism in the form of tariffs is nothing but a tax on aspirations. We welcome the fact that the government has concluded trade agreements with many countries and has either withdrawn tariffs or significantly reduced them. In that regard, if India does offer lower tariffs for American goods, it effectively delivers a consumption tax cut for Indian consumers, who ultimately bear the burden of tariffs. Greater choice and stronger competition will help reduce prices, benefiting aspirational India the most.

Dry fruits from the US, for instance, attract a hefty tariff even though the US is India’s primary supplier. Our grandmothers often recommend having five soaked almonds every morning. Reducing these tariffs would surely make them happier. 

For decades, the Indian consumer has lived behind a ‘glass wall’. We could see the innovation, safety standards and nutritional variety available elsewhere, but our own trade policies made them untouchable. Protectionism turned global staples into luxury icons. By lowering these barriers, India is not just signing a trade deal; it is finally shattering that glass wall, allowing aspirational Indians to participate in global standards of living rather than merely observe them.

What about Indian producers?

Some now ask what happens to Indian businesses that must compete with US firms. Here too, the evidence favours trade. Most Indian businesses, especially micro, small and medium enterprises, stand to benefit from new opportunities through improved access to US markets. A zero per cent tariff on Indian goods was never realistic, as no country receives such treatment. The lowest achievable rate was around 18 per cent, slightly below that faced by India’s competitors. The deal delivers precisely this, reaffirming commitments to supply-chain diversification. 

India offers scale, manufacturing capacity and a large workforce, allowing firms to relocate or expand production here. Preferential access to the US market will naturally benefit Indian producers. The additional growth momentum created will also support firms focused primarily on domestic demand.

For over a decade, India has grappled with weak private investment. Successive governments have tried various measures to encourage capital expenditure. Protectionism, however, allowed firms to operate outdated plants without pressure to invest. The renewed need to compete and improve efficiency could lift private investment, generate employment and expand India’s middle class over the coming decade.

What about India’s strategic autonomy?

Having established that the agreement benefits consumers and producers, we turn to the question of strategic autonomy. Many have erroneously linked it to the purchase of oil from one country. 

Before the war in Europe, India’s energy basket looked very different. By 2020, the US had emerged as an important energy supplier. When oil prices spiked, India understandably sought cheaper alternatives. Strategic autonomy is not about buying oil from a particular country, but about sourcing energy at the most attractive prices. Over the past year, energy prices have moderated significantly, and India’s energy mix should reflect that reality.

Moreover, trade deals are always part of a broader package. With lower energy prices and reduced discounts, diversifying India’s energy mix carries little cost while delivering preferential access to one of the world’s largest markets. The economic arithmetic, here too, clearly favours the deal. 

Economics is about trade-offs, and true win-win outcomes are rare. The complementarities between the Indian and US economies make this agreement possible. These same complementarities led us in 2020 to believe such a deal was inevitable — only the timing was uncertain. Now that it is in place, it is worth recognising that both economies stand to gain substantially from deeper trade ties linking the world’s oldest and largest democracies.

(Prakash Loungani is Programme Director in the Master’s in Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University. Karan Bhasin is a New York-based economist and Non-Resident Fellow at ORF America. They co-teach a course on economic growth at Johns Hopkins University.)

From a paper by Surjit S. Bhalla, Karan Bhasin, and Prakash Loungani:

“There seems to be a consensus that the inflation targeting framework adopted in India in 2016 has been successful in taming inflation. A comprehensive analysis of inflation targeting should be based on the impact on inflation dynamics, expectations and implications for growth. We illustrate the strong downward time-trend in India’s inflation dynamics coinciding with the inflation targeting regime. Trend inflation levels in India and other emerging market economies also suggest a downward trajectory regardless of the adoption of inflation targeting. Thefore, it is difficult to conclusively establish that adoption of inflation targeting in India led to a moderation in inflation or anchoring of inflation expectations. On expectations, there is some evidence of anchored household expectations, however, this anchoring predates the formal adoption of inflation targeting. Long-term expectations in India have remained firmly anchored since early 2000s. In terms of growth, the high real interest rates policy followed during the initial years of inflation targeting to establish credibility of IT regime adversely affected India’s growth dynamics.”

From a chapter by Salil Seth, Mrinal Kanti Mahato, and Parveen Yadav:

“Confronted with proliferating geopolitical risks emanating from energy producers, the energy security of the European Union (EU) is surrounded by plethora of challenges. Amid high volatility in energy prices, political disruptions and energy supply constraints, myriad hurdles are in the offing for energy security in EU. The current energy policy of the EU, which emphasizes competition, sustainability, and a secure supply chain, requires revitalization. A roadmap should be established to develop energy security strategies. This work performs systematic data mining for drawing literature in line with the mentioned road map-based objectives.The intention of the work is to facilitate EU with conceptualized framework strategies pertaining to energy security. This is anticipated to act as a trailblazer for energy protagonists like sustainability engineers, energy policy drafters, energy supply chain intermediaries, and strategy makers and incubate the concept with reference to the EU. This will enable the EU to overcome challenges in the energy security and at the same time set a benchmark for other competing nations.”

From a paper by Panagiotis Delis, and Georgios Kontogeorgos:

“Evaluating macroeconomic forecasts for their unbiasedness and efficiency is essential for policymakers, economists, and investors. The degree to which these stakeholders incorporate expectations into their decision-making processes depends heavily on how these forecasts have been formed. Existing methodologies do not explicitly address critical dimensions, such as the variability of bias across target events and forecast horizons, the forecast errors’ heteroscedasticity, and the potential state-dependence in bias. More importantly, they encounter difficulties during high-uncertainty periods, which can lead to inaccurate inference due to the presence of outliers. Apart from generalising the unbiasedness tests, this study contributes to the literature on both strong and weak efficiency by incorporating these aspects. Finally, the proposed methods are applied to the expectations of a crucial survey of the US economy, namely, the Survey of Primary Dealers (SPD). The findings from this application indicated that interested parties should investigate unbiasedness and efficiency in an outlier-robust way, while also allowing for greater flexibility in the methods regarding the variables and periods examined.”