x

Untitled Draft — LessWrong

1

Untitled Draft

9th Nov 2025

3 min read

1

This post was rejected for the following reason(s):

This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work. An LLM-detection service flagged your post as >50% likely to be written by an LLM. We've been having a wave of LLM written or co-written work that doesn't meet our quality standards. LessWrong has fairly specific standards, and your first LessWrong post is sort of like the application to a college. It should be optimized for demonstrating that you can think clearly without AI assistance.

So, we reject all LLM generated posts from new users. We also reject work that falls into some categories that are difficult to evaluate that typically turn out to not make much sense, which LLMs frequently steer people toward.*

"English is my second language, I'm using this to translate"

If English is your second language and you were using LLMs to help you translate, try writing the post yourself in your native language and using a different (preferably non-LLM) translation software to translate it directly.

"What if I think this was a mistake?"

For users who get flagged as potentially LLM but think it was a mistake, if all 3 of the following criteria are true, you can message us on Intercom or at team@lesswrong.com and ask for reconsideration.

you wrote this yourself (not using LLMs to help you write it)
you did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas. (using it briefly the way you'd use a search engine is fine. But, if you're treating it more like a coauthor or test subject, we will not reconsider your post)
your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics.

If any of those are false, sorry, we will not accept your post.

* (examples of work we don't evaluate because it's too time costly: case studies of LLM sentience, emergence, recursion, novel physics interpretations, or AI alignment strategies that you developed in tandem with an AI coauthor – AIs may seem quite smart but they aren't actually a good judge of the quality of novel ideas.)

EconomicsWorld Optimization

1

New Comment

More from 刘旸

Curated and popular this week

Short answer: as a stand-alone housing-affordability policy, U.S. government support for a 50-year mortgage is a bad idea. It lowers monthly payments but would likely bid up prices in supply-constrained metros, slow equity buildup, worsen “mortgage rate lock-in,” and push more interest-rate and some credit risk onto taxpayers—while doing little to expand supply. An economist would frame it as mainly shifting who bears risk and how demand capitalizes into prices.

How an economist would analyze it
1) Household finance math
Payment vs. total cost: on a $400,000 loan at 6.5%, a 30-year payment is ≈$2,528; a 50-year is ≈$2,255. That’s ~11% lower per month, but lifetime interest jumps from ≈$510k to ≈$953k. After 10 years, principal paid down is ≈$61k (30-yr) versus ≈$15k (50-yr). Slower amortization lengthens the period of low equity and raises the chance of negative equity after a downturn.
Why negative equity matters: default risk rises sharply when borrowers are underwater. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
2) General-equilibrium price effects
When credit becomes easier, much of the benefit capitalizes into higher house prices where supply is inelastic (tight zoning or physical constraints). Evidence from U.S. data shows easier mortgage credit pushes up prices most in low-elasticity metros. A 50-year term is a pure “affordability via payments” loosening, so expect price capitalization rather than large gains in ownership. NBER+2OUP Academic+2
This interacts with monetary policy: house prices respond quickly to long-rate surprises. Making payments less sensitive to rates via ultra-long amortization can dull policy transmission while still lifting demand when rates fall. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
3) Market design and financial-stability channels
U.S. mortgage finance depends on TBA-eligible 10/15/20/30-year UMBS. A 50-year product is non-standard, likely non-TBA, and would fragment liquidity unless the rulebook changed—raising secondary-market spreads for taxpayers to absorb if the product is government-backed. Fannie Mae+1
Ginnie Mae only recently created a special pool for modified 40-year loans, underscoring how unusual even 40-year terms are today. Moving to 50 years would be a much bigger market-structure departure. Ginnie Mae
Longer amortization increases extension risk for MBS when rates rise (slower prepayments), amplifying negative-convexity hedging episodes that can transmit volatility into Treasuries. Taxpayer-backed systems should be cautious about adding duration-heavy collateral. Liberty Street Economics
4) Distributional and life-cycle impacts
Who benefits: first-time buyers constrained by debt-to-income ratios get lower initial payments.
Who bears costs: future buyers face higher prices; borrowers carry debt into retirement with far slower equity accumulation; taxpayers backstop a riskier, longer-duration system.
International clues: where long terms spread (UK), regulators document rapid growth of ≥30-year terms and rising later-life debt—raising concerns about resilience, not celebrating affordability. Canada allowed 40-year insured mortgages pre-2008, then reversed to 35→30→25 years. These are cautionary, not supportive, precedents. C.D. Howe Institute+4 Bank of England+4 FCA+4
5) Labor-market and mobility frictions
Fixed-rate mortgages already create strong “rate lock-in,” reducing moves when market rates exceed legacy rates. Extending to 50 years worsens lock-in by lowering amortization and increasing the penalty to resetting a loan, tightening for-sale inventory and pushing prices up. Recent Fed/FHFA work quantifies large lock-in effects on mobility and prices. FHFA.gov+2 美联储+2
Policy verdict

Net welfare likely negative:

Pros: Provides modest homeownership opportunities for payment-constrained households in the short term.
Cons: Leads to price inflation in supply-constrained markets; slower equity accumulation and greater risk of negative equity; stronger mortgage rate lock-in effects; poses market-structure and duration risks for taxpayer-backed systems; limited evidence of sustainable ownership benefits.
Higher-leverage alternatives (economist's playbook)
Address the key constraint—housing supply. Simplify local land-use regulations, accelerate approval processes, and invest in supporting infrastructure. Research consistently shows: regulations and geographic factors restrict supply and drive up prices. NBER+1
Maintain standard maturities but implement targeted subsidies. If the objective is to help first-time buyers (FTBs) enter the market, provide down-payment assistance or means-tested, time-limited credits that avoid permanently inflating payment capacity across the entire market.
Macroprudential safeguards. If longer loan terms are permitted, pair them with stricter loan-to-value (LTV) and debt-to-income (DTI) limits, robust stress tests extending to retirement age, and sunset clauses to phase out risks over time.
Reduce lock-in effects rather than extending loan terms. Increase the share of assumable or portable loans, enabling borrowers to retain low rates when relocating. Current data indicates lock-in significantly restricts mobility, yet assumability remains rare outside FHA/VA loans. FHFA.gov+2myhome.freddiemac.com+2
Key takeaway

Government-backed 50-year mortgages trade a visible monthly-payment win for hidden systemic costs. Under U.S. conditions—with inelastic supply in many metros, a TBA-centric secondary market, and already-severe rate lock-in—the policy is more likely to inflate prices and entrench debt than to improve affordability or homeownership. It’s better to fix supply and targeting than to stretch amortization to half a century.GPT5