>Do you think they don't attempt to keep the house prices from crashing ? (also known as getting more affordable).

Also known as wrecking tax base for police, schools, local and state economies.... This is a terrible idea - deliberately crashing any asset class, especially one underpinning the majority of local services.

Property taxes account for as much as 63% of state revenue (NH) to as little as 17% (DE and AL, both of which offset this loss by other specialized taxes). Over the US around 35% of state revenues are property tax.

For most states your desire would destroy the economy vastly worse than the 2008 recession or COVID, neither of which tanked such a huge amount of revenue used for services. Good idea there.

> 1) monetary policy

Also done because it affects all aspects of the economy, from manufacturing, to employment, to R&D, to medicine. Claiming this is done for housing is shortsighted. Such monetary policy is decorrelated from housing prices (which you can check in Excel if you like). So to change monetary policy simply to drive housing prices down is a blunt hammer that will also lessen employment, lessen investment in productive areas of the economy, lessen trade by making exports more expensive, etc.

>2) Subsidizing mortgages (Fannie mae, Freddie mac) - allows people to borrow more and so spend more

No, it does not make me able to afford more loan - that is determined by my income. It provides more liquidity for the market, lowering prices. If there was less liquidity, then money would be harder to get, making borrowing more expensive, not less expensive. If you look at research on what people borrow, the term is Ability to Pay (ATP) as the driving factor, which is based on income, not on Fannie providing liquidity. And if you read more research, you'll find that the increased liquidity lowers prices significantly. You have this completely backwards.

> 3) Zoning

Done to industrial plants being mixed with housing. Here's a paper [2] showing that the major driving cost of housing is the marginal cost of physical construction costs, not zoning. There are very few places where zoning is much of a restriction (mostly places where land is super scarce, which is not the majority of the US).

>4) Bailing out banks involved in real estate

The "bailouts" were loans to provide liquidity, repaid with interest, profiting the taxpayer [1]. Many banks were forced to take these loans against their will to prevent signaling to the market vulnerable banks, to lessen bank run issues [2]. This was the correct govt action to prevent further harm. I think you seriously misunderstand what the "bailouts" were or what they affected.

So on this point your belief is vastly removed from reality. Spend some time reading on the details of TARP and you'll learn banks paid taxpayers, not the other way around (and note taxpayers did not even fund TARP, the Fed did, who was paid back with interest - not a cent was raised in increased taxes).

> 6) Mortgage interest relief for home owners etc etc

This is done to encourage home ownership, not to make prices high or low (note mortgage interest deduction has existed through many boom and bust cycles of housing prices). A good place to check your claim is looking pre and post the recent big change in mortgage deduction laws, and again, there are decent econ papers studying the question. Such papers are vastly more accurate than your opinion.

[1] https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

[2] http://archive.boston.com/business/articles/2009/05/15/first...

[3] https://www.nber.org/papers/w8835