Thanks for the interesting answers so far, especially Carl Pham’s thorough one.
So I wonder if what is really going on is whether the recession was, at bottom, a miscalculation of the economy-wide stream of desires.
Goods and services, presumably, don’t have intrinsic value outside of people’s desires, as represented by what they are willing to spend money on. But this willingness is based both on one’s own enjoyment of the goods and services purchased and the ability to resell those goods and services later.
In the housing market, then, people thought that people would keep buying houses – and they had for quite a while, because of the general perception that other people would keep buying houses. But when subprime loans started defaulting at higher rates than normal, buyers at the margins weren’t willing to pay as much – desire dropped – and this cascaded backwards, prompting everyone else to recalculate what the market desired.
When value was lost in the housing market, then, what that effectively meant was that people now knew the long-term stream-of-desire was not what they thought it was.
All the transactions based on that shared understanding then ground to a halt, and it then became like a billion-legged centipede trying to turn itself around when the legs couldn’t know in advance which direction each of the other legs had decided.
It became, in other words, a giant coordination problem.
But it comes down, eventually, to people’s desire to exchange the real resources underlying the currency for other goods and services – a desire heavily influenced by a clear knowledge of everyone else’s collective desires. When that consensus falls apart, people cannot effectively plan for the future and all the production grinds to a halt.
Is that about right?