1,000 times yes.
As you know, I went through a home-buying exercise during the insane real-estate bubble. There was a twofold problem -- cheap Chinese money and people paying outrageous prices. I had to look around, decided that the Philadelphia suburbs had a critical mass of idiots who were paying way more than they could afford -- and bought a reasonably priced house on one acre in the Lehigh Valley. As a writer, I can, at the end of the day, work from home. Still, I do a long commute -- but I don't have to do it.
Anyway, my point in all this was my simmering resentment of two things -- one, the lack of regulation in the mortgage industry (Btw, where were the Democrats -- seriously, guys, this is exactly what you are for. This is your bread and butter -- preventing irresponsible business oeople from distorting markets and creating boom-and-bust situations. And the negative amortization loans, and interest-only loans, distorted the hell out of the market. And also btw, this is what I mean when I say I am an economic liberal. Markets need referees. Hell, a football game consists of 22 players and SEVEN regulators to make sure the game doesn't get distorted into something unrecognizable.)
In the above link, Arnold Kling explains the obvious, which apparently, escaped lots of people (who bid up the price of houses -- hence my resentment):
In my opinion, the number one priority in resolving today's mortgage crisis is to bring the housing market back to equilibrium. Equilibrium means prices that are in line with incomes, with supply and demand in balance. With equilibrium prices, houses could be readily bought and sold. When houses can be readily bought and sold, mortgage loans are backed by valid collateral. When mortgage loans are backed by valid collateral, investors will once again be able to trust securities backed by pools of mortgages. Only when we reach that point will the "subprime crisis" be behind us.