Trump Doesn't Need the Fed To Fix Housing
Former Rep. Ron Paul argues that slashing red tape will do more to bring down home prices than pressuring the central bank to cut interest rates.

President Donald Trump, eager for some good economic news to offset headlines about his tariff fallout, is joining the long list of presidents and other politicians pressuring the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates.
The president recently posted on Truth Social that Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is "always TOO LATE AND WRONG" and that his "termination cannot come fast enough."
Exposing the dangers of the Federal Reserve was my main motivation for getting into politics. However, I do not agree that a president should fire a Federal Reserve chair because they refuse to follow orders to cut rates faster.
Interest rates are the price of money—and government price-setting never works, whether it's done by central bankers or politicians. Artificially low interest rates are what caused the Great Depression, the housing bubble, the post-COVID surge in consumer prices, and every downturn that has occurred since Congress made the mistake of creating a central bank in 1913.
Forcing interest rates lower than their true market rate leads builders to start massive construction projects, companies to expand recklessly, and consumers to take on mortgages and debt they can't really afford. In the short term, it looks like a boom—jobs grow, markets rise, and politicians pat themselves on the back. But it's a house built on sand.
Eventually, reality sets in. The malinvestments—investments that made sense only under distorted interest rates—are exposed. Housing developments sit empty. Borrowers default. Banks tighten credit. And then the crash comes.
To fix the housing industry, Trump doesn't need to increase economic intervention—he just needs to unleash the housing market. Fortunately, he has already gotten started.
His day one executive order on "Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis" aims to slash through the tangled web of state and local regulations that choke off new housing supply. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also announced a joint task force to build new homes on federal land.
Trump also seems to believe in letting housing markets operate efficiently so supply can rise to meet demand. His administration can help make that happen by ending the previous administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust lawsuit against the software firm RealPage, which it alleged helped landlords artificially raise rents.
In reality, this software helps property owners better understand their market rate valuations (much like Kelley Blue Book does for car owners and buyers). Yet, time and time again on the campaign trail, former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris falsely claimed this pricing software was driving up costs for renters—an attempt to shift blame for high prices away from the government and the Fed.
Blaming pricing software for rising rents is like blaming the thermometer for a fever. It's not landlords' and homeowners' fault that inflation under Biden's watch forced them to raise their prices.
Once Trump succeeds in achieving zoning and permitting reform, this innovative new pricing technology will help reduce home prices faster. Why? Because deregulation lowers prices, and this software provides real-time market pricing. That's why fending off this Biden-era regulatory overreach is so important. Innovation helps drive prices down.
Deregulation is almost always the answer. Interventionism is not. We must stop depending on central bankers to "fix" the economy with levers and dials. Every manipulated boom leads to a bust. Every time Washington intervenes, it creates distortions that punish savers, reward speculation, and ultimately hurt the very people it claims to want to help.
The real solution isn't more planning—it's more freedom. Let markets set interest rates. Let prices rise and fall. Let supply and demand work without interference. That's not just sound policy—it's sound money.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Cutting interest rates won’t lower house prices.
It could only lower house payments.
It lowers the interest paid on mortgages. The total, principal plus interest, is the *actual* price you're paying for the house.
Time preference is a thing. If you can spread the cost out over 30 years, it is effectively costing less, or at least affordable to more people because most people seem to think of everything in terms of what monthly payments they can afford. Which is actually a decent contributor to the increase in sale price of houses. If more people can get into the market, with low down payments and 30 year mortgages, prices grow up even as cost (in terms of monthly payments) goes down.
Same rationale for student loans…only a house has value. The value of a college degree has eroded since 2000 which is also when student loan debt started greatly increasing. Harvard and Yale believe student loans are dumb and they discourage them…that means student loans are dumb at every college!! So with student loans college professors and administrators get the cash and the student gets the debt and a worthless degree.
No it doesn't. It INCREASES the price you (or someone else) is willing to pay for the house. Since the house sells for the highest price that clears - lower interest rates tend to increase house prices. Further, those lower interest rates are associated with a TON of speculative demand for housing that only serves to increase the asset price.
The only situation in which lower interest rates don't lead to higher house prices is when those lower interest rates are associated with a shitty economy with no homebuyers. But even then, those lower interest rates prevented house prices from falling further.
This guy gets it.
If demand increases due to lower mortgage interest costs, with no increase in supply, then lowering the interest rate may actually increase cost of housing.
We need an interest free mortgage for single family homes that cost $200k or less. And then have municipalities and states attempt to lure residents with no property taxes for several years. So cities like St Louis and Cleveland have infrastructure for hundreds of thousands of more residents and yet people are moving to Texas and Florida that have to build new infrastructure that is making the grid less reliable and flooding more likely. The empty lots in St Louis have access to the grid and sewers and don’t flood! And nobody sends their kids to public schools anymore and so private schools will follow the money. Apparently Shedeur Sanders hasn’t attended a classroom in years and he is an A student…class is online for him.
There is a reason everyone is moving out of those places, and it’s not interest rates
What a moronic post.
We need an interest free mortgage for single family homes that cost $200k or less.
What is the purpose? To fix house prices? Create distorted demand for housing? To get votes?
And then have municipalities and states attempt to lure residents with no property taxes for several years.
So basically the California Prop 13 approach. How's that worked out?
What is the purpose? To fix house prices? Create distorted demand for housing? To get votes?
You see, socialism is totally fine when it serves the "right people".
The empty lots in St Louis have access to the grid and sewers and don’t flood!
Oh- and if the issue in St Louis citywide is empty lots, then that is an issue of bankruptcy and land tax NOT property tax. Jack UP land tax and eliminate tax on the building. IDK who owns the land on those empty lots but the two biggest owners of vacant properties are likely some city entity and Paul McKee (an area developer/speculator who owns 1000's of vacant properties). They are profiting by being able to sit on empty land with no annual carrying cost. It's the same business model as slumlords and malls around the US that can sit empty for years/decades without being converted into a profitable use.
Tax the LAND to cover ALL the operating costs of the infrastructure. Eliminate the property element of the tax. The certainty is that the land's true value is MUCH higher than the property tax assessor games which are always corrupt (because property is depreciable and deductible where land is not). Sell that land to whomever will pay that land tax. The only way they will be able to cover the tax is to turn the property into something valuable that generates a return - but their taxes will not go up after they do that. Still the same land.
For place like St Louis and Cleveland - where population used to be a lot higher, there are probably a ton of old rent-seeking expenses that are still being imposed on a shrinking population. Maybe muni bonds - pension plans - basically old sunk cost shit. That requires a full fledged bankruptcy to clear liabilities from new population going forward. Just clearing that eliminates the uncertainty of anyone who might want to move to those cities NOW.
There is a St Louis website that identifies the vacancy problem.
Of the 15,600 vacant lots - 8500 are owned by LRA (the St Louis muni entity that does that stuff), 7100 owned by private.
Of the 9,000 vacant buildings - 1200 are owned by LRA and 7800 owned by private. 5400 single family; 2200 duplex; 660 multi.
Basically there is a relatively easy solution to get that land back into a tax base and to make the land market in St Louis reasonably liquid so that land can be valued. Course there's probably 1000 completely corrupt solutions and those are the ones that gather interest.
The problem with thr mortgage interest deduction is that lower income people don’t get to take advantage of it. So this not only levels the playing field with wealthy people putting pressure on high end prices but also levels the playing field with institutional buyers that can pay cash. Basically it will make buying a home cheaper than renting for a $200k home. A buyer could only get one interest free loan at a time and they would have to live in the house for 5 years and couldn’t rent it out…it would still be cheaper than renting to walk away from the equity if one’s career forced a move.
There should be no interest deduction on anything. That simply provides a tax incentive to leverage up and CREATE risk (and inflation). Find ways to get rid of the mortgage interest deduction for everyone rather than expand it to include everyone.
We will never get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. People need to live somewhere and I remember visiting Orlando in 2012 and I was driving around Kissimmee and school buses were dropping kids off at those old run down motels. Why should a kid be forced to live like that when there were empty houses in Orlando from the housing bust? It’s just stupid that institutional investors with cash got to buy all of the nice $150k homes that are now probably worth $500k.
Higher interest rates create downwards pressure on real estate prices. As higher rates lower the number of potential buyers through higher mortgage payments.
Exactly, but why should low income Americans suffer because wealthy Americans bought a third home in Jackson, Wyoming or Jupiter, Florida??
Is the red tape federal? Because if its not, well, Trump can't cut state regulations, can he?
The Fed is kinda the only lever he has - or at least the least disruptive one.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
Note that I did *not* say he should.
Only that this is the least worst lever he has to do this. Most of the problem lies in the states.
Incunabulum; or even more local than that.
Primarily, but not exclusively, democrat states.
He could hold back highway funding in exchange for states to cut red tape - ART OF THE DEAL
Apparently you can only withhold federal funding if its to coerce something the Left wants - like 55mph speed limits and needing to be 21 to buy alcohol.
Shorter, more accurate headline:
"Trump doesn't need to fix housing."
more accurate headline
"no one can make housing affordable after the covid spending extravaganza"
Good idea but that would require Trump to work with a congress currently controlled by his own party to try to actually get legislation passed, instead of randomly signing executive orders and rage tweeting.
can't we give subprime mortgages guaranteed by the government another try
Nope, elevated CPI for 4 years peaking in July 2008 is what undermined the American consumer spending economy. The spike in home ownership rate was a symptom of a dysfunctional economy because 25 year olds with student loan debt shouldn’t own a home because they are still moving around for their careers. “Subprime lending” shouldn’t have been a problem but for the fact housing prices were in a bubble because of house flipping and speculation because business investment was relatively low and the cheap credit went to the investors of last resort—individuals taking out a $250k loan to make $30k…that’s what a job is for!!
Cutting rates while inventory is low will actually drive prices up. MAGA is so stupid
As-if the very UN-Constitutional machine (Federal Reserve) wasn't pitched and passed by Democrats.
I wonder how many Ron Paul staffers it took to write this piece under his byline.
What are you talking about? Ron Paul is still very active.
Lucky for us that is true.
ALL Presidents and ALL of Congress shouldn't be Gov-Gun demanding an interest rate.
This is not *JUST* a Trump issue so stop pretending like everything is.
This is a Democrats issue. Democrats pitched, passed and put into effect the Federal Reserve Act. Caused the Great Depression doing it.
Ron Paul disagrees with Trump. Mises Caucus hardest hit. Full story at eleven.
Ron Paul is the girl-bullying republican who once infiltrated the LP and, by association, convinced many women voters we wanted to help the GOP endanger them via involuntary servitude of reproduction. This is the exact same thing the Jesus Caucus just repeated in order to drive our votes to zero before the next mid-terms. Why is Reason platforming this national socialist when his own party doesn't? Have we not enough Comstockist zealots in the commentariat?
Thems fightin' werds.
LIBtardator; NO one asked you anything.
Yes, but the girls really love it that way.
does anyone know how to translate this libshitois?
California: You can take my onerous byzantine housing regulations from my cold dead hands.
Uncle Ron always makes sense. Every time including this one.