The first week's reading served two purposes. The first was to introduce you to the basics of foreclosure and banking. The Olefson book argues that our debt-oriented culture created an environment where the foreclosure crisis was all but inevitable. Comments and insights please on the chapters for the week.
Then the two articles have two very different purposes. The Tiebout article is a classic in urban theory. It provided the theoretical rationale for the type of fragmented local government finance seen in the United States. The second reading concerns cities in the nineteenth century. I asked you to read it because the authors painstakingly gathered data on urban finances and discovered that a long-held theoretical belief was wrong. Good data should always trump theory, or, at the very least, lead to changes in theory. Comments and insights?
I love theory. It's what makes the world go around. Nevertheless, good data should lead to changes in theory. For example, before the 1970's oil crisis, data confirmed the Phillips curve, but later data changed theory to express stagflation and other factors contributing to unemployment/inflation.
ReplyDeleteJust a recap from class today: Everyone post "big picture" summaries from your reading responses for this week to contribute to the class white paper. Thanks for your insights!
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you want to post the "big picture" but I will on here. The "big picture" I am getting from these readings this week is, that home ownership is very important. I think it gives us a sense of comfort and pride owning something, something that belongs to us. This was more talked about in Chapter 4, but I think it is a very important topic to this entire book. Home ownership, not having to pay off month by month loan by loan, gives a peace of mind, and a sense of pride.
ReplyDelete