The New York Times reports that President George W. Bush is seeking to blame the housing market collapse on excess liquidity and views the current correction as normal. What are his goals? To keep "history" from blaming him for yet another "worst U.S. President ever" accomplishment.

As a "recovering alcoholic," Bush excels at motivating other people to cover up for his inadequacies (this is known as co-dependence). For instance, when his oil company, Spectrum 7, collapsed in 1986, he got Harken Energy to bail him out through his father's political connections. In the case of the current debt-fueled economic reversal, he has gotten his Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke to repeat the talking point that the subprime collapse is "contained" and won't affect the rest of the economy.

I think Bush is responsible for the housing collapse for three reasons:

Barron's roundtable is having trouble discerning a strong trend in 2007's economy and securities markets. The Goldman Sachs Group's (NYSE:GS) market analyst Abby Joseph Cohen, who accurately guessed that the S&P 500 would end 2006 at 1,400 -- it actually closed at 1,418 -- expects a 9% rise to 1,550 by the end of 2007. This precision masks significant confusion about the factors driving 2007's prospects.

I always enjoy reading Barron's annual roundtable, which pits savvy money managers against each other to predict what will happen to the economy and the market before they pick stocks for the coming year. This year's debate pits Fred Hickey, a New Hampshire newsletter writer, who thinks that a housing collapse and sluggish tech sales will lead to a big correction, against Cohen and others money managers -- who believe that global liquidity will bail us out.

Alan Abelson, Barron's editor, spent much of 2006 supporting the housing collapse school of thought. As I've posted here, here, and here, the housing collapse theory seemed persuasive. But I am now questioning the housing collapse argument because, although the economy has slowed down, it hasn't collapsed. There are at least three possible explanations:

1. The housing collapse is too small a part of the overall economy to sink it;
2. The collapse is taking longer than expected and it will play out in the future; or
3. Global liquidity is offsetting the impact of the housing collapse.

At this point, I am leaning towards explanation three, with a dash of one and two thrown in for good measure.