Paul Krugman posts a chart showing the housing bubble right alongside the commercial real estate bubble, and crystalizes an excellent point:

From my perspective, the CRE bubble is highly significant; it gives the lie both to those who blame Fannie/Freddie/Community Reinvestment for the housing bubble, and those who blame predatory lending. This was a broad-based bubble.
Yes. There are a lot of things that were wrong with American housing policy in the early 21st century. In particular, Fannie and Freddie really were a ridiculous set-up and predatory lending is a very bad thing. Then the housing bust helped wreck the economy. This has led a lot of people to try to peg their pet issue as “the problem” but the evidence really doesn’t seem to be there. I know a lot of people, left and right, who seem to think this whole thing could have been avoided had we promulgated a regulation mandating that home buyers put at least 20 percent down. I think a rule like that would be prudent to adopt, but again if you look at CRE you see that the bubble was a much broader phenomenon than any quirk of the home mortgage market.
In fact, I think people are often getting the lines of causation backwards here. We didn’t see a bubble because of the proliferation of exotic mortgage products, the bubble created incentives to devise and sell exotic mortgage products. Predatory lending isn’t a new thing, but the bubble facilitated an increase. Fannie & Freddie didn’t create the housing bubble, the money that non-GSEs were making off the bubble housing bubble pushed Fannie & Freddie into unsound behavior. All this is bad stuff—lurking problems in the system—and should be fixed. But the bubble was bigger than any one thing.
Previous in TP Yglesias

By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.