畢業(yè)論文——房地產(chǎn)價格波動與政府宏觀調(diào)控政策的選擇(含外文翻譯)

1、<p><b>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）</b></p><p>　　題目:房地產(chǎn)價格波動與政府宏觀調(diào)控政策的選擇</p><p>　　學(xué)生姓名： ***</p><p>　　學(xué) 號： </p><p>　　班 級: 金融06-01班</p><p&g

2、t;　　專 業(yè)： 金融學(xué)</p><p>　　指導(dǎo)教師： *** </p><p>　　2012 年 6 月</p><p>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）任務(wù)書</p><p>　　經(jīng)濟 學(xué)院 金融學(xué) 專業(yè) 一 班</p><p>　　題 目 房地產(chǎn)價格波動與政府宏觀調(diào)

3、控政策的選擇</p><p>　　任務(wù)起止日期： 2012年 4 月 22 日～ 2012 年 6 月 23 日</p><p>　　學(xué) 生 姓 名 學(xué) 號 </p><p>　　指 導(dǎo) 教 師 </p><p>　　教研室主任 年 月 日審查

4、</p><p>　　院 長 年 月 日批準(zhǔn)</p><p>　　一、畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）任務(wù)</p><p>　　注：1. 此任務(wù)書由指導(dǎo)教師填寫。如不夠填寫，可另加頁。</p><p>　　2. 此任務(wù)書最遲必須在畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）開始前一周下達給學(xué)生。</

5、p><p>　　3. 此任務(wù)書可從教務(wù)處網(wǎng)頁表格下載區(qū)下載</p><p>　　二、畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）工作進度計劃表</p><p>　　注：1. 此表由指導(dǎo)教師填寫；</p><p>　　2. 此表每個學(xué)生人手一份，作為畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）檢查工作進度之依據(jù)；</p><p>　　3. 進度安排請用“一”在相應(yīng)位置畫出。<

6、;/p><p>　　三、學(xué)生完成畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）階段任務(wù)情況檢查表</p><p>　　注：1. 此表應(yīng)由指導(dǎo)教師認(rèn)真填寫。階段分布由各學(xué)院自行決定。</p><p>　　2. “組織紀(jì)律”一檔應(yīng)按《長沙理工大學(xué)學(xué)生學(xué)籍管理實施辦法》精神，根據(jù)學(xué)生具體執(zhí)行情況，如實填寫。</p><p>　　3. “完成任務(wù)情況”一檔應(yīng)按學(xué)生是否按進度保質(zhì)保量完

7、成任務(wù)的情況填寫。包括優(yōu)點，存在的問題與建議</p><p>　　4. 對違紀(jì)和不能按時完成任務(wù)者，指導(dǎo)教師可根據(jù)情節(jié)輕重對該生提出忠告并督促其完成。</p><p>　　四、學(xué)生畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）裝袋要求：</p><p>　　1. 畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）按以下排列順序印刷與裝訂成一本（撰寫規(guī)范見教務(wù)處網(wǎng)頁）。</p><p>　　(1) 封面

8、 (2) 扉 頁</p><p>　　(3) 畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）任務(wù)書 (4) 中文摘要 </p><p>　　(5) 英文摘要 (6) 目錄 </p><p>　　(7) 正文

9、(8) 參考文獻</p><p>　　(9) 致謝 (10) 附錄（公式的推演、圖表、程序等）</p><p>　　(11) 附件1：開題報告（文獻綜述） (12) 附件2：譯文及原文影印件</p><p>　　2. 需單獨裝訂的圖紙（設(shè)計類）按順序裝訂成一本。</p><p>　　3. 修

10、改稿（經(jīng)、管、文法類專業(yè)）按順序裝訂成一本。</p><p>　　4.《畢業(yè)設(shè)計(論文)成績評定冊》一份。</p><p>　　5．論文電子文檔[由各學(xué)院收集保存]。</p><p>　　學(xué)生送交全部文件日期 </p><p><b>　　學(xué)生（簽名） </b></p><p>　　指導(dǎo)教師驗

11、收（簽名） </p><p><b>　　某大學(xué)標(biāo)題</b></p><p>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計(論文)開題報告</p><p>　　題目：房地產(chǎn)價格波動與政府宏觀調(diào)控政策的選擇</p><p>　　課 題 類 別： 設(shè)計 □ 論文　□</p><p&g

12、t;　　學(xué) 生 姓 名： </p><p>　　學(xué) 號： </p><p>　　班 級： 金融0601班</p><p>　　專業(yè)（全稱）： 金 融 學(xué)</p><p>　　指 導(dǎo) 教 師： </p><p><b>　　2012年 6月</b>

13、</p><p>　　From The Economist </p><p>　　Home ownership</p><p>　　Shelter, or burden?</p><p>　　The social benefits of home ownership look more modest than they did and th

14、e economic costs much higher</p><p>　　In a scene from the film “It’s a Wonderful Life”, a happy couple is about to enter their new home. Jimmy Stewart, whose firm has sold them the mortgage, reflects that th

15、ere is “a fundamental urge…for a man to have his own roof, walls and fireplace.” He offers them bread, salt and wine so “joy and prosperity may reign for ever”. </p><p>　　That embodies the Anglo-Saxon world’

16、s attitude to home ownership. Owning your own roof, walls and fireplace, it is thought, is good for householders because it helps them accumulate wealth. It is good for the economy because it encourages people to save. A

17、nd it is good for society because homeowners invest more in their neighbourhoods, engage more in civic activities and encourage their children to do better at school than do renters. Home ownership, in short, benefits ev

18、eryone—not just the home</p><p>　　Yet the worldwide crash was bound up in this supposed miracle of social policy. The disaster began with defaults on American subprime mortgages, a financial instrument desig

19、ned to spread home ownership among the poor. It gathered pace after the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises that provide cheap home loans. As a result, the home-ownership rate in

20、America has fallen for four years, the first time that has happened in a quarter of a century. In 2008, 2.3</p><p>　　Subsidised castles </p><p>　　So attempts to expand home ownership have contri

21、buted to the wider economic crisis without succeeding in their own terms. How does that affect the arguments for supporting home ownership? Should it still be deemed a public good?</p><p>　　No, say several e

22、conomists and commentators. “Given the way US policy favours owning over renting,” writes Paul Krugman, 2008’s Nobel laureate in economics, “you can make a good case that America already has too many homeowners.” Edward

23、Glaeser, an economist at Harvard University, talks about “the madness of encouraging Americans to bet everything on housing”.</p><p>　　So far, policymakers are unmoved. In mid-February Barack Obama proposed

24、a $275 billion plan to support America’s housing market. Outside the Anglo-Saxon world Nicolas Sarkozy, who campaigned for the presidency to turn France into a property-owning democracy, has expanded zero-interest housin

25、g loans for the poor. </p><p>　　The main economic argument for home ownership is that, in the words of Thomas Shapiro of Brandeis University, “it is by far the single most important way families accumulate w

26、ealth”. This argument now looks as weak as house prices.</p><p>　　In Britain prices have fallen 21% since their peak in October 2007. Prices in America have fallen more slowly but further, down 30% since the

27、ir peak in mid-2006 (see chart 1). This has reduced the total value of the country’s housing stock from over $22 trillion in 2007 to $19 trillion at the end of 2008. In the past few weeks, housing markets on both sides o

28、f the Atlantic have seen signs of life, but there is every chance that prices have further to fall before they finally reach their low.</p><p>　　The collapse in house prices matters most directly to two over

29、lapping groups: those who bought property at the peak of the market and now face “negative equity”; and those (in America) who took out subprime mortgages. Roughly 10m Americans are in negative equity—ie, the cost of the

30、ir mortgage exceeds the value of their home. In Britain about 3% of households are in negative equity. For homeowners, negative equity makes houses more like a trap than a piggy bank. Those who cannot meet their paymen&l

31、t;/p><p>　　The other area of concentrated distress is subprime mortgages, which increased their share of the American mortgage market from 7% in 2001 to over 20% in 2006. According to the Mortgage Bankers Assoc

32、iation, the delinquency rate was 22% in the fourth quarter of 2008, compared with only 5% for prime loans. Many people have concluded that, in Mr Krugman’s words, “home ownership isn’t for everyone.” However, a study by

33、the Centre for Community Capital, part of the University of North Carolina, Chape</p><p>　　Does that also imply that home ownership has the economic benefits that its proponents claim? Two pieces of evidence

34、 seem to support such a view. The first is that housing has fared better in the crisis than other assets. Share prices are around 50% below their peaks in many countries, so compared with shareowners, homeowners have not

35、 done badly. However, home ownership in a downturn has one big disadvantage: most people buy shares outright but homes on margin (ie, they put down a small stake, i</p><p>　　The other piece of evidence for h

36、ome ownership’s benefits is that the house-price fall has so far spared most existing homeowners from absolute losses. In America, for example, house prices have fallen back only to where they were in 2004. There were ro

37、ughly 29m house sales in the United States between 2004 and 2007, compared with 115m households, and anyone who bought before then is probably sitting on a nominal profit. However, as Harvard University’s Martin Feldstei

38、n points out, if house pric</p><p>　　Subsidies to home ownership have thus increased economic volatility. They boosted consumption, as homeowners used their houses as collateral to finance consumption or inv

39、estment. In America mortgage-equity withdrawals reached $9 trillion between 1997 and 2006—equal to more than 90% of disposable income in 2006. This gave homeowners more to spend in the good times but less in bad ones. In

40、 Britain home-equity withdrawals added the equivalent of 3% of post-tax income to households in the fourth qua</p><p>　　Moreover, if public policy aims to create wealth, there are other ways of doing it. Peo

41、ple could invest their savings in the stockmarket and rent their homes, for example. Had they done so in the past two years, they would have done worse than homeowners. But for three decades before that, equity prices ea

42、sily outstripped property prices (see chart 2), so in the long run equities have been a better bet than houses. (Admittedly, this strips out the effects of share dividends and imputed rents, wh</p><p>　　Yet

43、there are other ways to create “default savings”, such as companies offering automatic deductions to retirement plans. In any case, some of the financial snake oil peddled at the height of the housing bubble was bad for

44、saving. Subprime, interest-only and other kinds of mortgage instruments allowed people to buy their homes without a down-payment and without building up equity. “Negative amortisation” (neg-am) mortgages even let people

45、pay only part of their interest each month and to add th</p><p>　　Where the heart isThe main arguments for home ownership, though, are not primarily economic, but social. Home ownership, argue those who wan

46、t to expand it, benefits society because it encourages stable, more law-abiding communities; it makes people more likely to vote in local elections and join clubs; and it benefits future generations because, it turns out

47、, the children of homeowners do better at school and have fewer behavioural problems than children of renters.</p><p>　　On the face of it, the evidence for these claims is strong. In America homeowners are l

48、ess likely to move than renters, so areas with a lot of homeowners are more stable. According to the 2007 American Housing Survey, homeowners stay where they are for about nine years whereas renters move every two. </

49、p><p>　　More stable neighbourhoods are more law-abiding. According to a study of New York City, the home-ownership rate was second only to income as an explanation for different crime rates. </p><p&g

50、t;　　The link between ownership and political participation is stronger still. In America in the early 1990s, 69% of homeowners voted, compared with only 44% of renters. Homeowners are more likely to know who their repres

51、entatives are; more likely to support local causes or parent-teacher associations and (this being America) more likely to go to church.</p><p>　　Perhaps the most surprising link is between ownership and chil

52、dren. One study in America found that, in 2000, the mathematics scores of the children of homeowners were 9% higher than those of renters’ children; reading levels were 7% higher. This had nothing to do with income: the

53、research controlled for that. In another study homeowners’ children were 25% more likely to graduate from high school and more than twice as likely to go to university. Their teenage daughters were also less likely to &l

54、t;/p><p>　　These studies, though, are not the last word. They find a link between children’s education and homeowning. But is this because, as some suggest, home ownership requires parents to possess managerial

55、 or financial skills that they pass on to their children? Or is it because the people with those skills help their children at school and also buy houses? No one knows.</p><p>　　Nor is it certain that owners

56、 always take better care of their neighbourhoods than renters do. Some studies claim that the effect in fact depends on a few public-spirited people willing to set an example. Renters can be public-spirited too. In Ameri

57、ca areas with lots of renters tend to be transient because the typical rental period is short. In Germany, though, people rent for years. Stable neighbourhoods and widespread home ownership can go together but do not nee

58、d to. As Bill Rohe of the Unive</p><p>　　Still, on balance, home ownership gives people a stake in the state of their surroundings. Thriving streets increase the value of properties, giving owners incentives

59、 to improve them further. Renters get no such benefit; they may even have to pay more if the neighbourhood improves. </p><p>　　Whether stability is such a good thing in a downturn, though, is a different mat

60、ter. A decade ago Andrew Oswald of Warwick University argued that owning your own home makes you more reluctant to move, so labour markets tend to become more rigid as home ownership increases. He claimed that increases

61、in the level of home ownership (though not necessarily the level itself) are associated with rises in unemployment. Ireland, Greece and Spain all saw large increases in home ownership in the 1980s and</p><p>

62、;　　His argument remains controversial. Critics point out that many things other than home ownership might prevent people from moving (children’s schools, friends and so on). Anyway, liquid housing markets should make it

63、possible for people to move, if they want to. It is also possible that, even if people were trapped in distressed areas, jobs should move there to take advantage of the willingness of homeowners to accept lower wages.<

64、;/p><p>　　All that said, Mr Oswald’s arguments seem especially powerful at the moment. The recession in America is bearing down most heavily on two groups of states: Florida, California and Nevada, which had th

65、e largest house-building booms in the 1990s; and Michigan, New Hampshire, Delaware, West Virginia and Mississippi, which have the highest home-ownership rates. People are not, in fact, moving as frequently as they used t

66、o: the share of those moving house in 2007-08—11.9% of the population—was the lo</p><p>　　The problem remains of how to weigh the economic costs against the social benefits of home ownership. There can be no

67、 easy judgment about this but the recent rise and fall of house prices suggests both that the costs are greater and the benefits smaller than once thought.</p><p>　　If owning were such a boon, you would expe

68、ct neighbourhoods with lots of owners to have done better than those with lots of renters during the boom years. That does not seem to have happened</p><p>　　What has happened, though, is that above a certai

69、n level, foreclosures have done a lot of damage during the bad years. Recent studies of New York and Cleveland find that, if lenders foreclose on 3-4% of properties in an area, local prices fall even faster and further t

70、han average. Rows of For Sale signs almost certainly have the same effect in Britain. In other words, ownership can sometimes be worse for a neighbourhood than renting.</p><p>　　A shelter—for your money <

71、/p><p>　　Lastly, and perversely, the decade of obsession with expanding home ownership may actually have reduced neighbourhood stability. Nicolas Retsinas, the director of the Joint Centre for Housing Studies a

72、t Harvard University, suggests that, until the crash in 2008, Americans were coming to see their homes as financial investments rather than as places to live. That is true in other countries. Neg-am mortgages in America

73、and buy-to-rent arrangements in Britain were based on the assumption that house</p><p>　　As a result, people seem to have started to buy and sell homes more frequently. Between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, t

74、he number of new houses sold almost doubled in America, from just over 600,000 to over 1.2m in 2006.</p><p>　　Perhaps that made labour markets more mobile, but it was certainly not what policymakers were aim

75、ing for when they set out to increase home ownership. Their efforts in the past few years seem to have weakened, though not destroyed, the best arguments for treating home ownership as something to be encouraged: that it

76、 increases people’s savings and creates better neighbourhoods for everyone. But perhaps you should not be surprised by that. As Adam Smith wrote in “The Wealth of Nations” two centuri</p><p>　　自有住房--是避難營還是重?fù)?dān)

77、？</p><p>　　自有住房帶來的社會利益中看不中用，而且經(jīng)濟成本高昂。</p><p>　　電影《美妙生活》中有一個這樣的場景：一對幸福的夫婦即將搬進新家。吉米斯圖爾特所在的公司已向他們出售了抵押借款，他表示“對一個要擁有自己房產(chǎn)的男人而言.....，這是基本的需要。”吉米為他們提供了基本生活所需求，因此“快樂、繁榮或會永存”。</p><p>　　這體現(xiàn)了盎

78、格魯撒克遜時期對自有住宅的看法。認(rèn)為，擁有了自己的房子對房主有利，因其有助于財富積累；對經(jīng)濟有利，因其鼓勵人們儲蓄；對社會有利，因相較于租房者，屋主會更多地投資于所在地區(qū)，更多地參與公民活動，鼓勵子女在校表現(xiàn)良好。簡而言之，自有住房使每個人受益——不僅僅是房主——而且越多的人擁有住宅，益處越大。這就是其常常受政府鼓勵的原因。在美國、愛爾蘭和西班牙，房主可將所支付的抵押借款利息從其須納稅的收入中扣除。</p><p&g

79、t;　　然而全世界范圍內(nèi)的經(jīng)濟下行都熱衷于這一社會政策所帶來的假像奇觀。災(zāi)難始于美國次級抵押借款違約，這是為擴大窮人擁有自有住宅而設(shè)計的金融工具。在提供低利率房貸的美國兩大國有企業(yè)房利美和房地美破產(chǎn)后，違約加速。結(jié)果，美國自有住宅率連續(xù)四年下跌，為25年來首次。2008年，有230萬家庭失去住宅或面臨止贖權(quán)——是危機前均值的兩倍——自有住宅率由2004年的69%降至2008年底的67.5%。英國2007至2008年間自有住房數(shù)量亦下滑，

80、為上世紀(jì)50年代來首次。</p><p><b>　　補貼城堡</b></p><p>　　此番擴大自有住宅的努力卻助推了經(jīng)濟危機進一步加深，而未實現(xiàn)其初衷。這如何影響支持自有住宅的論點？還應(yīng)認(rèn)為它對公眾有利？幾名經(jīng)濟學(xué)家和評論家對此持否定態(tài)度。2008年諾貝爾經(jīng)濟學(xué)獎得主保羅·克魯格曼寫道“鑒于美國政策相較租賃更傾向于支持自有住宅，你可以看到這樣的事實：美

81、國自有住房者泛濫。”哈佛大學(xué)經(jīng)濟學(xué)家愛德華·格萊澤認(rèn)為“鼓勵美國人將一切身家都下注在住房上是瘋狂的。”</p><p>　　迄今為止，決策者還無動于衷。貝拉克·奧巴馬二月中旬提出一個2.75億美元支持美國住房市場的計劃。盎格魯-撒克遜世界外的尼古拉·薩科奇在競選總統(tǒng)時就要把法國轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樨敭a(chǎn)所有民主制國家，他已對窮人展開了零利率住房貸款。對自有住宅的主要經(jīng)濟論點，用布蘭德斯大學(xué)托馬斯&#

82、183;夏皮羅的話說就是“目前為止唯一最重要的家庭財富積累方式”。現(xiàn)在看來這個論點跟房價一樣脆弱不堪。 英國房價自其2007年10月峰值已下挫21%。美國房價跌速雖緩但跌幅更甚，自其2006年年中峰值下挫了30%。這致使美國住宅總值由2007年的22萬億美元縮水至2008年末的19萬億。過去幾周來，大西洋兩岸的房地產(chǎn)市場已現(xiàn)曙光，但房價在最終觸底前隨時有進一步走跌的可能。房價暴跌最直接關(guān)系到的是兩個重疊群組：那些在市場高點購入房

83、產(chǎn)，目前面臨“負(fù)資產(chǎn)”的人；還有那些辦理了次級抵押借款的人（在美國）。大約有1000萬美國人處于“負(fù)資產(chǎn)”狀態(tài)，即其抵押借款成本超過了房屋價值。英國約有3%的家庭處于這種狀態(tài)。對處于“負(fù)資產(chǎn)”狀態(tài)的房主來說，住房相較儲錢罐更似羅網(wǎng)。那些支付不出錢的人到頭來沒了房子、存款還有（通常發(fā)生在美國）他們七年內(nèi)的信用</p><p>　　另一損失慘重的就是次級抵押貸款領(lǐng)域，其占美國抵押信貸市場的份額由2001年的7%升至2

84、006年的20%以上。據(jù)美國抵押貸款銀行協(xié)會數(shù)據(jù)，2008年第四季度過期還款比率為22%，而普通房屋貸款僅為5%。許多人已總結(jié)出，用克魯格曼的話說就是“不是每個人都可有自有住房?！比欢笨_來納大學(xué)查普希爾分校的社區(qū)資本中心所做的一項研究對該結(jié)論提出了質(zhì)疑。該研究對次級抵押借款人與從社區(qū)優(yōu)先計劃署借款的人加以比較，CAP是由政府支持、將錢借給那些本可辦理次級抵押借款的人。雖然借款人的收入與背景相似，但后者的違約率僅為前者的四分之一。由此

85、可見問題的部分真正原因是在于抵押借款，而非借款人，這意味著次貸危機是一種金融市場混亂及房地產(chǎn)市場的混亂。那還意味著自有住房還具有其支持者所宣稱的經(jīng)濟利益么？支持此觀點的論據(jù)有兩個：其一，相較其它資產(chǎn)，房地產(chǎn)在此次危機中表現(xiàn)良好。在許多國家，股價較其峰值約降50%，相較股票持有人，房主處境不算壞。然而，處于下滑趨勢的自有住房有一個很大的劣勢：絕大多數(shù)人可直接購買股票，而買房則要有保證金（即無論如何都要占用一小筆資金）。如果股票下跌10%，

86、則損失10%；如果房價下滑10%，</p><p>　　另一認(rèn)為自有住房有好處的論據(jù)則為：迄今為止房價下滑已使當(dāng)前大多數(shù)房主免遭絕對性損失。例如，美國房價僅跌回2004年水平。在2004至2007年間，房屋銷售量大約為2900萬套，而相比之下，在此之前就購房的1.15億家庭來說，大概可坐享一份名義利潤。然而，正如哈佛大學(xué)經(jīng)濟學(xué)教授馬丁·費爾德斯坦所指出的，當(dāng)房價上漲時，人們感覺比較富有，進而會借更多，花

87、更多。而當(dāng)他們感覺較窮時，即使他們的房價沒有跌至其購入價以下，他們也許會削減借貸和支出。</p><p>　　對自有住房的補貼就是這樣加大經(jīng)濟波動度的。它們刺激了消費，因房主可將其房屋用作附屬擔(dān)保品以支持消費和投資。美國在1997至2006年間資產(chǎn)增值抵押借款額達9萬億美元——相當(dāng)于2006年可支配收入的90%以上。這樣在經(jīng)濟繁榮時房主就有更多的錢可花，而在經(jīng)濟蕭條時就捉襟見肘。英國2007年第四季度資產(chǎn)增值抵押

88、借款增值相當(dāng)于家庭稅后收入的3%，但一年后卻縮減了3%。因此房價的變動使經(jīng)濟周期惡化。國際貨幣基金組織的最新調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，自1960年以來的100多次衰退中有15%與房產(chǎn)泡沫有關(guān)，且縮水程度要比其它衰退嚴(yán)重而長久。對自有住房的補貼還削弱了金融服務(wù)業(yè)。他們鼓勵更多的人購房（這就是重點），而且在邏輯上足以鼓勵貸方為這些住宅承擔(dān)更大的風(fēng)險。房價上漲時此舉還好，但房價下跌時就會暴露銀行的收支平衡會變得多么不堪一擊。</p><p

89、>　　此外，如果國家政策意在增加財富，還可有其它可行之策。如，人們將其存款投資于股市及把房屋出租。如果過去兩年他們這么做的話，處境要比擁有自有住房差。但如果在三十年前，股票價格會輕易的超過房產(chǎn)價格，因此從長遠(yuǎn)來看，股票相較房屋是個更好的賭注。（誠然，這剔除了股票股息和估算租金資產(chǎn)，這對資產(chǎn)有利。）房屋作為一項投資受困于兩大弱點。它吸收了不成比例的巨額資金，與多樣化的投資理念不符：在美國，房屋占用的資本凈值占房主平均資本凈值的45%

90、。而且它還不能兌現(xiàn)。如果你需要籌集資金的話，你不能賣掉一兩間屋子，而你卻能隨時拋掉一些股票。真是難以論證房屋是最佳財富累積的資產(chǎn)。</p><p>　　南卡來羅納大學(xué)的理查德·格林表示，“房屋作為一種財富積累手段最令人注目的論點或許是，它為家庭提供了一個默認(rèn)存款機制。”因為人們必須償付抵押借款，這樣就增加了他們的家庭資本凈值，并較其它所為可存更多的錢。這確實是一個有力的論點：社會科學(xué)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，如果他們按

91、此自覺行事，而非每月必須選擇為某事留有余款，他們會存更多的錢。然而還有其它方式產(chǎn)生“默認(rèn)存款”，如公司提供的養(yǎng)老金自動扣繳方案。無論如何，在房產(chǎn)泡沫高點兜售的某些騙人的金融方式則不利于儲蓄。次級、付息及其它抵押借款工具允許人們在不預(yù)付定金和資本凈值未不斷增值的情況下購買房屋?！柏?fù)分期付款”抵押借款甚至可允許人們每月僅付部分利息，并將剩余部分加到貸款本金中，增加的是其貸款額，并不是存款額。房屋凈值貸款有著相同的效果。</p>

92、<p><b>　　重心何在</b></p><p>　　對自有住房的主要爭議，盡管，不僅有主要的經(jīng)濟層面，還有社會層面。那些想擴大自有住房的人認(rèn)為，自有住房可讓社會受益，因為其促進社會安定，會有更多的遵紀(jì)守法社區(qū)；它使人們更愿意參與地區(qū)選舉并加入社團；還可使未來的幾代人受益，因為事實證明，相較租房者的子女，自有住房房主的子女在校表現(xiàn)良好，幾無行為問題。</p>&

93、lt;p>　　表面上來看，證明這些論點的論據(jù)很充分。在美國，自有住房者相較租房者更不愿搬家，因此有大量自有住房者的地區(qū)更安定。據(jù)2007年美國住房調(diào)查顯示，自有住房者可在其居住地約住九年，而租房者每兩年就搬一次家。更穩(wěn)定的地區(qū)，其居民更守法。據(jù)紐約的一項研究顯示，作為不同犯罪率的說明，自有住房率僅次于收入排在第二位。自有住房與政治參與間也有著很強的關(guān)聯(lián)性。美國早在20世紀(jì)90年代初期，就有69%的自有住房者參與選舉，而租房者與之相

94、比僅為44%。自有住房者更想知道誰是他們的代表；更愿支持當(dāng)?shù)厥聵I(yè)或教師家長會并（這里指美國）更愿去教堂。</p><p>　　或許最令人驚訝的關(guān)聯(lián)要數(shù)房主與其子女間。美國的一項研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，在2000年，自有住房者孩子的數(shù)學(xué)成績要比租房者孩子高出9個百分點；閱讀水平要高7%。這與收入無關(guān)：該研究對此做了控制。另一項研究顯示，自有住房者的孩子愿意從高等學(xué)府畢業(yè)的比率較租房者孩子高25%，而且想上大學(xué)的比率更是超過兩倍。

95、而其處于青春期的女兒們似乎也更不愿成為孕婦。</p><p>　　這些研究，雖然，并不是最后的定論。但他們發(fā)現(xiàn)了孩子教育與自有住房間的關(guān)系。但正如有些人所表示，這是否是因為自有住房要求父母擁有傳達給其子女的管理或理財才能？或是因為擁有這些才能的人有助于其子女求學(xué)及助他們買房子？沒人知道答案?？隙ㄒ膊皇亲杂凶》空咄ǔ１茸夥空吒訍圩o所住地區(qū)。某些研究表明，實際效果取決于那些愿意以身作則具有公益精神的人。租房者也是有

96、公益精神的。在美國，有大量租房者的地區(qū)趨于不穩(wěn)定，因其租期典型的短暫。在德國，盡管，人們租期達數(shù)年之久。而穩(wěn)定的地區(qū)與廣大自有住房可以共存，但卻沒有這樣做的必要。如北卡羅來納大學(xué)查普希爾分校的Bill Rohe所述“關(guān)于自有住房帶來社會利益的證據(jù)具有高度推測性?！?lt;/p><p>　　總的來說，在人們所處的周圍環(huán)境中，自有住房還給予了他們一個重大利益。繁華的街區(qū)使房產(chǎn)增值，房主就有了進一步改善環(huán)境的動力。租房者卻

97、一無益處；如果周圍環(huán)境改善的話，他們或許甚至要多花錢。</p><p>　　然而在經(jīng)濟低迷時期穩(wěn)定是否是件好事，這要另當(dāng)別論。十年前華威大學(xué)的安德魯·奧斯瓦德表示，擁有住房的人更不愿搬家，因此當(dāng)自有住房增加時勞動力市場傾向于變得更沒有彈性。他聲稱，自有住房量的提高（雖然量本身并不是必要的）與失業(yè)率增加是有關(guān)聯(lián)的。愛爾蘭、希臘和西班牙在20世紀(jì)80和90年代自有住房大幅增加，相應(yīng)地失業(yè)率也攀升。美國和瑞典

98、自有住房率保持穩(wěn)定，也就避免了長期以來失業(yè)人數(shù)的增加。他的論點仍存爭議。批評家指出除了自有住房還有許多事情可阻止人們搬家（子女的學(xué)校、朋友等等）。不管怎樣，只要人們想，房產(chǎn)市場的流動性就可使他們搬家成為可能。還有另一種可能：即使人們受困于失業(yè)人口比率高的地區(qū)，利用那些愿意接受較低工資的房主，工作可能會向這些地區(qū)變遷。</p><p>　　如上所言，奧斯瓦德先生的論點目前似乎尤為強勢。美國經(jīng)濟的衰退正使兩類州受創(chuàng)最

99、為嚴(yán)重：一類是在20世紀(jì)90年代有著最大規(guī)模房屋建筑高峰的佛羅里達州、加利福尼亞州和內(nèi)華達州；另一類是擁有最高自有住房率的密歇根州、新罕布什爾州、特拉華州、西費吉尼亞州和密西西比州。實際上人們并不如以往那樣頻繁搬家：2007至2008年間搬家人的比例——占人口的11.9%——是有記錄以來的最低位。因此勞動力市場不如以往有彈性。“負(fù)資產(chǎn)”惡化了這種不動性，因為如果搬家意味著賠本出售的話，人們是不愿意搬的。沃頓商學(xué)院的研究人員認(rèn)為，陷于“負(fù)

100、資產(chǎn)”的人們搬家的意愿僅為不背負(fù)“負(fù)資產(chǎn)”人的一半。如此這般，高自有住房率或許會延長并加深衰退。存在的問題是如何權(quán)衡對自有住房帶來社會利益的經(jīng)濟成本。對此進行評判可能不易，但近期房價的漲跌表明，這兩種情況下的經(jīng)濟成本要比預(yù)想的高，而利益則要小。如果自有住房真有益處的話，你就會預(yù)料在經(jīng)濟繁榮時期，那些擁有大量自有住房的地區(qū)比有大量租房者的地區(qū)要繁榮。這種現(xiàn)象似乎并未發(fā)生。然而所發(fā)生的是，在經(jīng)濟蕭條期，喪失抵押品贖回權(quán)在高于某一水平的情況下