...

In the comment I define your disagreement with post reporter Zachary A. Goldfarb as a disagreement about whether reduced but still positive home equity causes a reduction of consumption on the order of between 5 and 7 cents each year per dollar of housing wealth or on the order of zero. That is, I won't address you valid points that the recovery of consumption was roughly normal while the recovery of house construction was not. Notably Goldfarb cites empirical estimates based on micro data. He claims there is a significant change in the slope of the home equity effect on consumption at home equity equals zero. To say he is wrong, you must convince me that the 5 to 7 % estimate is valid for a sample containing only homeowners with positive equity. An estimate with aggregate data just does not address the claim in the article which you criticize. Notably, in this case the Washington Post cites specific research by named economists. You, in contrast, cite what all macroeconomists know. I am shocked to find that I call this one for The Washington Post. Your conclusion may be correct, but your reasoning is based on the assumption that all functions are linear. I don't like to be square, but that's not true. - Robert Waldmann