journal . Ben Sommer

Housing bubble!? Couldn't be, right? If you're a real estate agent these days uttering such heresy would be enough to sink your career. After all, this is the new economy. Growth is here to stay, right? What goes up doesn't necessarily have to come down, right?

Wrong. This is exactly the kind of malarkey we heard during the internet bubble of the 90s. And just as internet skeptics were labeled as naysaying Chicken Littles then, the lonely skeptic in today's real estate boom is as unwelcome as common sense in a psychiatric ward.

But skepticism has aways been an important characteristic of the savvy investor - and savvy economists are starting to sound the alarm about housing. Cato Institute economist Dominick Armentano warns that "the real estate price bubble...risks sowing the seeds of the next business cycle downturn". More to the point, he writes: "the recent vast expansion in residential housing (and the increase in prices) mostly has been fueled by "easy money" from the Federal Reserve."

"Easy" money refers to the record low interest rates on everything from car loans to student loans to mortgages, all of which weigh heavily on the consumer side of the economy. And consumers are taking the plunge, unable to resist the temptation of 0% car payments and 6% home loans. They are overextending themselves to the point that any crack in income or employment levels would send many into bankruptcy.

"Irrational exuberance" (to borrow an earlier phrase from the anointed Alan Greenspan) among the home-buying crowd is fueling this inflationary housing market. But what's fueling the irrational exuberance in the first place? Cheap credit. And who's providing the cheap credit? That would be our beloved Greenspan. Though it may seem a bold statement, it is true that one man - Greenspan - is responsible for the housing bubble. This is because the Federal Reserve Bank is the single most influential institution in our economy, and Chairman Greenspan rules that institution largely unchallenged and with little oversight. Sure, he appears occasionally before the Senate, and like the Delphic Oracle delivers those famously opaque pronouncements. But his decisions on whether to raise or lower interest rates on us all is largely uninfluenced by any Senator, much less by any of his own colleauge at the Fed.

When home prices go up too fast, they will always come down. By the same token, when interest rates goes down, they will go back up. This trend will continue as Greenspan and Co. meet Tuesday to announce another rate spike. Let's all hope that spike isn't so sharp that it bursts our bubble.

Don't vote unless you really mean it. To many eager voters this is the year to use it or lose it. Never have the stakes been higher, the difference between the two major party candidates more stark, and the consequences for America more dire should the "wrong" candidate win. The nation, we are told, is divided. But is it? To find out, let's take a brief look at the similarities between George W. Bush and John Kerry.

Both candidates support the war in Iraq. They both supported the PATRIOT Act. They both support the failed war on drugs. They both want an activist federal judiciary. They both support ruinously high levels of federal spending, huge deficits and increasing debt. In general, they both support expanding beurocratic control of nearly every area of our lives. When we cut through all the vapid stump speeches, the left and right-wing media spin from NPR and Fox News, and the mindless alliegiance of our Democratic and Republican friends and aquaintances - it becomes clear that this is not a two party system we have - its a one-party system.

People are beginning to realize this. In 1992 the libertarian Ross Perot made headlines and siphoned votes from this "single" major party because of general dissatisfaction with the "Republicrat" monopoly on power. In 2000 the socialist Ralph Nader did the same, though less successfully. This year alternative candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and Ralph Nader (Independent) barely register a blip on the political radar screen. This is a shame, and it argues for the only alternative left to the dissatisfied voter: don't vote.

The old saw about voting is that you have to grit your teeth and choose the lesser of two evils. But more people now realize how true that other old saw is: either way you choose evil. Why do we need to choose evil? Indeed, why do we need to choose at all? The case against voting can be made in several ways. If you style yourself a proud patriot you might ask: "Why should I cheapen my sacred vote by casting it for someone whom I don't really believe in?" On the other hand, if you are jaded and unhappy with the state of democracy in America, you might ask: "Voting is useless, why fool myself?".

Perhpas the most forceful argument against casting a half-hearted vote comes from that proud and cranky American independent, Henry David Thoreau, who wrote of the unthinking voter: "He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought."

The point here is that a voter is a poor substitute for an actively engaged citizen. Indeed, "The least you can do is vote" is the apathetic mantra of unengaged citizens. If you truly love your country but hate the direction its going in, then educate yourself on the issues, publish a letter or article (like I did), or just talk about it with your friends. Then when someone asks if you voted you can proudly say "No".