OT: 2000 v 2025 median home prices by state

[Seinfeld]

Median home price in MS in 2000 was ~$71,400 (national median was $119,600)

Seems hard to fathom, but I'm seeing the same data that you're seeing, so who knows?

While looking, though, I also noticed that media home prices in MS were $11,200 in 1970 which makes me wonder... Is the real moral of the story here that home prices truly are rising at an unprecedented extent or is it that maybe some should've looked into buying a home at some point during the last 50 years?

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Seems hard to fathom, but I'm seeing the same data that you're seeing, so who knows?

While looking, though, I also noticed that media home prices in MS were $11,200 in 1970 which makes me wonder... Is the real moral of the story here that home prices truly are rising at an unprecedented extent or is it that maybe some should've looked into buying a home at some point during the last 50 years?

I can verify that I bought a 4/2, roughly 1850 sqft house in Madison in 2000 and paid $130k so it seems in the ballpark.

 

[johnson86-1]

Median home price in MS in 2000 was ~$71,400 (national median was $119,600)

I looked that up to and found the same numbers. I know memory is not reliable but it seems like something is off with those numbers. What you can get for $250k in relatively desirable parts of the state now seems nicer than what you could get in the places I was familiar with in 2000 for $75k, which by and large were not super desirable parts of the state.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I looked that up to and found the same numbers. I know memory is not reliable but it seems like something is off with those numbers. What you can get for $250k in relatively desirable parts of the state now seems nicer than what you could get in the places I was familiar with in 2000 for $75k, which by and large were not super desirable parts of the state.

Unfortunately, I suspect that it has to do with MS having a lot more less desirable housing than good. If I look at the median house price in Madison today, it is $406k(sold price) which seems to be reasonably close to my $130k/$71k ratio from 2000. My memory from 25 years ago won't carry me far...

 

[Perd Hapley]

Which part? Mississippi pays you what they insure you. You don't have to rebuild.

You don’t have to rebuild anywhere, typically. MS isn’t special.

And since you asked, in your example you don’t just automatically get $340k in payout when your $240k house burns down. The $340k is the upper limit of coverage, not what you are guaranteed to receive in a loss. It’s policy specific, but insurance will payout either what it costs to rebuild your same house with same materials and amenities) on the same land, or they will pay the ACV of the house (with depreciation and land value subtracted….this is typically less than rebuild cost), or they will pay for one or the other depending on whether you choose to rebuild or relocate.

You might have a guaranteed lump sum payout policy, which is rare and has sky high premiums if your sum greatly exceeds the home value. In that case, you’d get a guaranteed flat sum at the stated policy amount in a total loss scenario. But otherwise, what you get depends on the value of what you lost. You typically don’t get a 40% profit windfall from losing your house.

Also, if you are saying your “$240k house” above is like what it would list at on Zillow, that’s not even what you’d get from insurance because that includes land and facilities infrastructure costs which may still be intact. You’d probably get closer to $180-$200k. And if you’re talking about not rebuilding, but you have a mortgage and don’t own it outright, you’re going to have to pay off the mortgage before you can sell the land, or at least pay down enough of it that the land sale makes the bank whole. Likely scenario is the land is difficult to sell at what it’s worth, because its easier to buy a builder lot with more floorplan flexibility and construction customizations. Its a lot more complicated than just “get $100k more than the house / land is worth and go re-invest”. The land is likely worth more to you than it would be worth to someone else.

And again? i'm not sure what your point is on insurance. They make a very thin profit margin. What do you want them to do?

I listed a lot of options, and am not going back through them. Run a more efficient business model, and cut the waste. Make premiums match risk. Make good investments with their cash reserves.

 

[johnson86-1]

You don’t have to rebuild anywhere, typically. MS isn’t special.

And since you asked, in your example you don’t just automatically get $340k in payout when your $240k house burns down. The $340k is the upper limit of coverage, not what you are guaranteed to receive in a loss. It’s policy specific, but insurance will payout either what it costs to rebuild your same house with same materials and amenities) on the same land, or they will pay the ACV of the house (with depreciation and land value subtracted….this is typically less than rebuild cost), or they will pay for one or the other depending on whether you choose to rebuild or relocate.

You might have a guaranteed lump sum payout policy, which is rare and has sky high premiums if your sum greatly exceeds the home value. In that case, you’d get a guaranteed flat sum at the stated policy amount in a total loss scenario. But otherwise, what you get depends on the value of what you lost. You typically don’t get a 40% profit windfall from losing your house.

Also, if you are saying your “$240k house” above is like what it would list at on Zillow, that’s not even what you’d get from insurance because that includes land and facilities infrastructure costs which may still be intact. You’d probably get closer to $180-$200k. And if you’re talking about not rebuilding, but you have a mortgage and don’t own it outright, you’re going to have to pay off the mortgage before you can sell the land, or at least pay down enough of it that the land sale makes the bank whole. Likely scenario is the land is difficult to sell at what it’s worth, because its easier to buy a builder lot with more floorplan flexibility and construction customizations. Its a lot more complicated than just “get $100k more than the house / land is worth and go re-invest”. The land is likely worth more to you than it would be worth to someone else.


I listed a lot of options, and am not going back through them. Run a more efficient business model, and cut the waste. Make premiums match risk. Make good investments with their cash reserves.

I think in Mississippi, if you have a total loss, you are entitled to the face value of your policy and the insurance company is not allowed to come back after the fact and claim it wasn't worth as much as they insured it for. I think this was basically to stop abuses by insurance companies where they collected premiums calculated on a certain value, and then tried to effectvely not insure that value after the fact. May only apply to fire. Going off memory here so take it with a shaker of salt.

 

[Perd Hapley]

I think in Mississippi, if you have a total loss, you are entitled to the face value of your policy and the insurance company is not allowed to come back after the fact and claim it wasn't worth as much as they insured it for. I think this was basically to stop abuses by insurance companies where they collected premiums calculated on a certain value, and then tried to effectvely not insure that value after the fact. May only apply to fire. Going off memory here so take it with a shaker of salt.

I think what you are referring to is law stating that an insurance company is not allowed to write a policy that insures less than the market value of the property as the upper limit to coverage. Usually that’s determined by the city or county’s annual tax assessed property value.

This type of law is common, and simply prevents you from getting a $400,000 policy on a $500,000 home just because you want lower premiums. That 17s over your mortgage holder if there’s a loss on the property. Every policy has to cover up to the market value of the property at a minimum.

Again, this is going to typically be plenty, since the chances of the land being rendered unusable is not great, and the land is the most valuable part of the property. You are welcome to pay higher premiums for higher coverage limits if you do substantial upgrades to your home, or if you think new build costs in your area are going to significantly outpace the current property value. But doing so does not - at all - assure you of getting that max payout in a loss event. You’d need a lump sum or umbrella policy for that.

 

[ETK99]

I was on a board of directors for an insurance company during that time. Cost of replacement was a huge factor. More than you’re giving it.

The problem with them claiming replacement as the primary reason is our homes didn't jump value 40% in a year like the rates jumped and they also never utilized real estate appraisers within each market to determine value either. They "assigned" value to justify increases. A home in Louisville didn't increase like a home in Madison, but the rate jumps were similar.

 

[paindonthurt]

I think what you are referring to is law stating that an insurance company is not allowed to write a policy that insures less than the market value of the property as the upper limit to coverage. Usually that’s determined by the city or county’s annual tax assessed property value.

This type of law is common, and simply prevents you from getting a $400,000 policy on a $500,000 home just because you want lower premiums. That 17s over your mortgage holder if there’s a loss on the property. Every policy has to cover up to the market value of the property at a minimum.

Again, this is going to typically be plenty, since the chances of the land being rendered unusable is not great, and the land is the most valuable part of the property. You are welcome to pay higher premiums for higher coverage limits if you do substantial upgrades to your home, or if you think new build costs in your area are going to significantly outpace the current property value. But doing so does not - at all - assure you of getting that max payout in a loss event. You’d need a lump sum or umbrella policy for that.

In Mississippi you get the stated value. If you are insured for $340,000 you get $340,000 if there’s a total loss. You can build a $200,000 house and pocket the rest.

And you don’t have to be insured for the fair market value of your house. Tou have to be insured for up to what you owe the bank.

 

[johnson86-1]

I think what you are referring to is law stating that an insurance company is not allowed to write a policy that insures less than the market value of the property as the upper limit to coverage. Usually that’s determined by the city or county’s annual tax assessed property value.

This type of law is common, and simply prevents you from getting a $400,000 policy on a $500,000 home just because you want lower premiums. That 17s over your mortgage holder if there’s a loss on the property. Every policy has to cover up to the market value of the property at a minimum.

Again, this is going to typically be plenty, since the chances of the land being rendered unusable is not great, and the land is the most valuable part of the property. You are welcome to pay higher premiums for higher coverage limits if you do substantial upgrades to your home, or if you think new build costs in your area are going to significantly outpace the current property value. But doing so does not - at all - assure you of getting that max payout in a loss event. You’d need a lump sum or umbrella policy for that.

That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to Valued Policy statutes that prohibit insurers from arguing the home was worth less than the face amount of the policy if there is a total loss. Mississippi's only applies to total losses due to fire.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I think in Mississippi, if you have a total loss, you are entitled to the face value of your policy and the insurance company is not allowed to come back after the fact and claim it wasn't worth as much as they insured it for. I think this was basically to stop abuses by insurance companies where they collected premiums calculated on a certain value, and then tried to effectvely not insure that value after the fact. May only apply to fire. Going off memory here so take it with a shaker of salt.

I know nothing about law here but my policy was value of policy plus 10% for any inflation from whenever the policy value was set. Thats what I got on a total rebuild.

ETA: I obviously also got my money for contents

 

[johnson86-1]

The problem with them claiming replacement as the primary reason is our homes didn't jump value 40% in a year like the rates jumped and they also never utilized real estate appraisers within each market to determine value either. They "assigned" value to justify increases. A home in Louisville didn't increase like a home in Madison, but the rate jumps were similar.

I think this is because they generally insure on the value to rebuild, not the market value, and the value to rebuild is much more uniform than market value. I don't even know if they are allowed to insure only market value. It's a political nightmare for insurance commissions for insureds to find out they have to go buy an existing house that is worth less than the cost to build rather than getting to rebuild something comparable to what they had on their own lot. I have owned two houses that were valued at less than the cost to build and one of them I wanted to simply insure market value and they wouldn't get within $50k of it. Not sure if I could have shopped around and gotten a policy that was just aimed at the market value or not. I assume it would have been relatively pricy on a per dollar of coverage basis because a partial loss could end up costing the entire value of the policy to repair.

 

[ETK99]

I think this is because they generally insure on the value to rebuild, not the market value, and the value to rebuild is much more uniform than market value. I don't even know if they are allowed to insure only market value. It's a political nightmare for insurance commissions for insureds to find out they have to go buy an existing house that is worth less than the cost to build rather than getting to rebuild something comparable to what they had on their own lot. I have owned two houses that were valued at less than the cost to build and one of them I wanted to simply insure market value and they wouldn't get within $50k of it. Not sure if I could have shopped around and gotten a policy that was just aimed at the market value or not. I assume it would have been relatively pricy on a per dollar of coverage basis because a partial loss could end up costing the entire value of the policy to repair.

The market value is the market value, it didn't jump 40% in a year, neither did building costs. They also didn't suddenly start considering replacement costs, that's been going on forever. They over charge you for excessive replacement costs. They under pay you ant every opportunity. Again, they don't utilize appraiser information to determine values either. The federal government attempted this same thing to increase values in poorer neighborhoods under Biden and got killed for it. The insurance industry is one of the most fraudulent industries there is. It's become cutthroat to the core! Had friends whose home was moved off the foundation by a tornado and the insurance company refused to pay and attempted to require them to "fix" the home. You have them canceling on people for having things in their yards or they want trees cut or even improvements to the property. It's really close to scumbaggery now!

 

[ETK99]

Here's some info on the new housing bill proposed (Housing Act of 2025)

Scott, Warren Announce Markup of Landmark Bipartisan Housing Legislation from Banking Committee Members | United States Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Official website of The United States Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

www.banking.senate.gov

 

[johnson86-1]

The market value is the market value, it didn't jump 40% in a year, neither did building costs. They also didn't suddenly start considering replacement costs, that's been going on forever. They over charge you for excessive replacement costs. They under pay you ant every opportunity. Again, they don't utilize appraiser information to determine values either. The federal government attempted this same thing to increase values in poorer neighborhoods under Biden and got killed for it. The insurance industry is one of the most fraudulent industries there is. It's become cutthroat to the core! Had friends whose home was moved off the foundation by a tornado and the insurance company refused to pay and attempted to require them to "fix" the home. You have them canceling on people for having things in their yards or they want trees cut or even improvements to the property. It's really close to scumbaggery now!

You won't find me defending how a lot of insurance companies operate, but for a lot of these policies you are talking about a $2k to $5k policy. They can't constantly reappraise and reperform replacement cost analyses, except to the extent they are automated in which case they're going to be pretty rough. If they let people insure for below the cost to rebuild, it's a headache for them when there is a claim and people are unhappy with their options.

Also, as ****** as they are at times, they are not so bad that if you gave me $100M dollars that home insurance is where I think there is easy money to be made.

 

[johnson86-1]

Here's some info on the new housing bill proposed (Housing Act of 2025)

Scott, Warren Announce Markup of Landmark Bipartisan Housing Legislation from Banking Committee Members | United States Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Official website of The United States Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

www.banking.senate.gov

You don't even have to look at the bill to pretty much know that the things that fall under the list below are going to make affordability worse, not better, overall.

• Improve Housing Affordability and Access:
  • Expand access to homeownership
  • Improve housing affordability
  • Promote housing opportunities for veterans
  • Reduce homelessness
  • Reduce appraisal shortages while addressing inaccurate appraisals

 

[pseudonym]

Most people talk about inflation as if it’s just rising prices, but that’s a modern distortion of the term, not its original or most accurate definition.

Inflation, properly understood, refers to an increase in the money supply. Rising prices are a symptom of inflation, not the thing itself. Milton Friedman famously put it: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” When more money chases the same amount of goods and services, prices naturally rise. The important distinction is this:

• If inflation is rising prices, anyone can blame their preferred scapegoat (corporations, immigrants, political parties, etc.)
• But if inflation is an increase in the money supply, then the cause becomes clearer: governments and central banks. They’re the ones expanding the money supply through deficit spending and monetary policy.

This definition shift isn’t just academic. It changes who we hold accountable and how we think about solutions.

Once we start thinking of inflation as price increases (rather than money supply increases), we start trying to measure it that way with flawed tools like the CPI. But CPI is based on a “representative” basket of goods and services and arbitrary weightings that rarely reflect any real household. In a country of 340 million people and over 100 million households, the idea that one basket can capture everyone’s cost-of-living reality is unrealistic.

Alternative metrics like asset prices (real estate, bitcoin, stocks, etc.) aren’t much better. They reflect inflation in different parts of the economy, but they impact people unequally. A rise in the S&P 500 or real estate prices doesn’t help someone who doesn’t own stocks or property, like a renter struggling to afford groceries.

Instead, a better metric for inflation is simply tracking the growth in the money supply because that is inflation. Prices respond to that increase over time, unevenly across sectors.

The CPI and similar indexes tend to understate inflation, especially when money supply growth is high. There have been years when the money supply increased 10–20%, yet the official inflation rate was reported at just 0–2%. Many families intuitively knew something was off. Their costs were rising much faster than the headlines claimed.

When we ignore the expansion of the money supply and rely solely on selective price indexes, we get a distorted view of the economy. Worse, we allow the institutions responsible for inflation (central banks and governments) to avoid accountability.

 

[ETK99]

You don't even have to look at the bill to pretty much know that the things that fall under the list below are going to make affordability worse, not better, overall.

• Improve Housing Affordability and Access:
  • Expand access to homeownership
  • Improve housing affordability
  • Promote housing opportunities for veterans
  • Reduce homelessness
  • Reduce appraisal shortages while addressing inaccurate appraisals

Correct, and it gives more government control as well if you read the bill. The CFPB would regain its footing and more regulations would be imposed. There are a handful of good things to hide the bad as usual.

 

[KentuckyDawg13]

 

[Perd Hapley]

Most people talk about inflation as if it’s just rising prices, but that’s a modern distortion of the term, not its original or most accurate definition.

Inflation, properly understood, refers to an increase in the money supply. Rising prices are a symptom of inflation, not the thing itself. Milton Friedman famously put it: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” When more money chases the same amount of goods and services, prices naturally rise. The important distinction is this:

• If inflation is rising prices, anyone can blame their preferred scapegoat (corporations, immigrants, political parties, etc.)
• But if inflation is an increase in the money supply, then the cause becomes clearer: governments and central banks. They’re the ones expanding the money supply through deficit spending and monetary policy.

This definition shift isn’t just academic. It changes who we hold accountable and how we think about solutions.

Once we start thinking of inflation as price increases (rather than money supply increases), we start trying to measure it that way with flawed tools like the CPI. But CPI is based on a “representative” basket of goods and services and arbitrary weightings that rarely reflect any real household. In a country of 340 million people and over 100 million households, the idea that one basket can capture everyone’s cost-of-living reality is unrealistic.

Alternative metrics like asset prices (real estate, bitcoin, stocks, etc.) aren’t much better. They reflect inflation in different parts of the economy, but they impact people unequally. A rise in the S&P 500 or real estate prices doesn’t help someone who doesn’t own stocks or property, like a renter struggling to afford groceries.

Instead, a better metric for inflation is simply tracking the growth in the money supply because that is inflation. Prices respond to that increase over time, unevenly across sectors.

The CPI and similar indexes tend to understate inflation, especially when money supply growth is high. There have been years when the money supply increased 10–20%, yet the official inflation rate was reported at just 0–2%. Many families intuitively knew something was off. Their costs were rising much faster than the headlines claimed.

When we ignore the expansion of the money supply and rely solely on selective price indexes, we get a distorted view of the economy. Worse, we allow the institutions responsible for inflation (central banks and governments) to avoid accountability.

A short response is that increasing the money supply isn’t the only thing that causes prices to rise. It’s just one thing that does. Material shortages, high demand within a sector, natural disasters, labor shortages / stoppages, other regulatory policies, etc. are other things.

Not saying the money supply policy isn’t a problem, but it isn’t the only problem.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Most people talk about inflation as if it’s just rising prices, but that’s a modern distortion of the term, not its original or most accurate definition.

Inflation, properly understood, refers to an increase in the money supply. Rising prices are a symptom of inflation, not the thing itself. Milton Friedman famously put it: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” When more money chases the same amount of goods and services, prices naturally rise. The important distinction is this:

• If inflation is rising prices, anyone can blame their preferred scapegoat (corporations, immigrants, political parties, etc.)
• But if inflation is an increase in the money supply, then the cause becomes clearer: governments and central banks. They’re the ones expanding the money supply through deficit spending and monetary policy.

This definition shift isn’t just academic. It changes who we hold accountable and how we think about solutions.

Once we start thinking of inflation as price increases (rather than money supply increases), we start trying to measure it that way with flawed tools like the CPI. But CPI is based on a “representative” basket of goods and services and arbitrary weightings that rarely reflect any real household. In a country of 340 million people and over 100 million households, the idea that one basket can capture everyone’s cost-of-living reality is unrealistic.

Alternative metrics like asset prices (real estate, bitcoin, stocks, etc.) aren’t much better. They reflect inflation in different parts of the economy, but they impact people unequally. A rise in the S&P 500 or real estate prices doesn’t help someone who doesn’t own stocks or property, like a renter struggling to afford groceries.

Instead, a better metric for inflation is simply tracking the growth in the money supply because that is inflation. Prices respond to that increase over time, unevenly across sectors.

The CPI and similar indexes tend to understate inflation, especially when money supply growth is high. There have been years when the money supply increased 10–20%, yet the official inflation rate was reported at just 0–2%. Many families intuitively knew something was off. Their costs were rising much faster than the headlines claimed.

When we ignore the expansion of the money supply and rely solely on selective price indexes, we get a distorted view of the economy. Worse, we allow the institutions responsible for inflation (central banks and governments) to avoid accountability.

While that's all good, but when the system has been played and money is all in the hands of just a few, well, things get off track like they have here. Right now, with jobs basically dying & the economy stagnant (regardless of the 3% reported), I'm still expecting to see at least one rate cut this year. But with Powell having one foot out the door, that idiot may stand pat.

 

[johnson86-1]

A short response is that increasing the money supply isn’t the only thing that causes prices to rise. It’s just one thing that does. Material shortages, high demand within a sector, natural disasters, labor shortages / stoppages, other regulatory policies, etc. are other things.

Not saying the money supply policy isn’t a problem, but it isn’t the only problem.

Supply shocks can't really cause systemic inflation though. If a natural disaster causes certain good to spike in price (say lumber and building supplies), then if the money supply isn't increased, prices by definition have to come down elsewhere. Granted there may be money on the sideline that it brings into the economy that can have a temporary effect, but it can't be sustained without the creation of new money.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Supply shocks can't really cause systemic inflation though. If a natural disaster causes certain good to spike in price (say lumber and building supplies), then if the money supply isn't increased, prices by definition have to come down elsewhere. Granted there may be money on the sideline that it brings into the economy that can have a temporary effect, but it can't be sustained without the creation of new money.

Sure they can. See what happens to the economy if OPEC decides they are going to severely cut production for 2-3 years….and flips the bird to the whole world. Look at 2008 or COVID to see what happens when years of bad economic policy or a pandemic suddenly stops productivity.

The bottom line is that the money supply has to increase by a rate that is proportional to productivity increasing. Otherwise, no economic growth ever happens. You can’t give one person a raise without giving another a pay cut. How good of a job the Fed does at aligning those two things will always be a point of discussion, but its just not nearly as simple as “turn off the money printer”. There are profound disagreements even amongst scholars on whether or not productivity is being accurately defined, and how much monetary supply increase (or decrease) needs to happen to account for it.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

 

[pseudonym]

A short response is that increasing the money supply isn’t the only thing that causes prices to rise. It’s just one thing that does. Material shortages, high demand within a sector, natural disasters, labor shortages / stoppages, other regulatory policies, etc. are other things.

Not saying the money supply policy isn’t a problem, but it isn’t the only problem.

Yes, many factors influence prices, but monetary expansion has the broadest and most sustained impact.

Temporary disruptions (like natural disasters or supply chain shocks) tend to affect specific goods or sectors, and those effects usually fade over time. Monetary policy, on the other hand, affects every dollar in the economy. When the money supply increases substantially, it puts upward pressure on prices across the board, especially over the long term. That’s why monetary expansion is still the primary driver of generalized inflation, not just isolated price hikes.

The second major force on prices is actually deflationary: technology and productivity.

If we didn’t constantly inflate the money supply, prices would naturally decline over time. Advancements in technology, automation, and global logistics make it cheaper and faster to produce and distribute goods and services. That downward pressure on prices is real, but it’s often masked by monetary inflation. In a sound money environment, we’d see that productivity reflected in lower prices, not just better products.

So, while other factors do matter, the long-term story of price levels is primarily driven by central bank and government monetary policy, with productivity growth as the deflationary counterweight. Most other variables are short-term noise compared to these two structural forces.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

View attachment 860341

The dude who owns that white car has some irrational confidence.

 

[pseudonym]

While that's all good, but when the system has been played and money is all in the hands of just a few, well, things get off track like they have here. Right now, with jobs basically dying & the economy stagnant (regardless of the 3% reported), I'm still expecting to see at least one rate cut this year. But with Powell having one foot out the door, that idiot may stand pat.

You're touching on the heart of the issue: when a small group controls the money supply, the system inevitably tilts in their favor, whether it's through asset bubbles, distorted incentives, or policies that protect capital holders over workers. We've seen it time and again.

The problem isn't just policy. It’s the structure of the monetary system itself.

What we really need is a fundamentally different system. One where:

• The money supply is fixed and can't be manipulated by a central authority.
• New issuance is transparent, predictable, and immune to political pressure.
• Transactions are borderless and censorship-resistant.
• Ownership is decentralized and verifiable by anyone.
• Trust is placed in math and code, not in unelected decision-makers.

A system like that realigns incentives, rewards savings and productivity, and limits the ability of powerful actors to silently extract value from the rest of the population through inflation.

Until we adopt a monetary system with those characteristics, we’ll keep repeating the same cycles: cheap money → asset bubbles → inequality → "unexpected" crises → more central bank intervention.

The tools already exist. We just have to choose to use them.