3 ms·

The problem is, there are always a lot of people seeing a crash coming. The difficult part is telling if they are right or just being crackpots.

startuprules 17y ago
1.) 'Crackpots' labeling is an easy way for corporate mass media to label the truth tellers to discourage you from researching further (If you look at 2005-2007 CNBC interviews, they called alot of these people 'crackpots') 2.) Most of the time these 'truth tellers' are way early in their calls. It's up you to look at the numbers/charts and figure out when the said phenomenom should occur.
- gloob 17y ago
  1) 'Crackpot' labeling is also an easy way to label the crackpots, to discourage you from wasting your life either believing nonsense or trying to argue against it. It is not worth my time to do independent research on the question of whether the Americans actually landed on the moon. 2) You know what they say about broken clocks and being right. Someone who is always predicting a collapse will successfully predict any collapse.
  - lotharbot 17y ago
    Many of the people predicting this collapse were "new players" to the market, not people always predicting collapses. Take the guy who runs seattlebubble.com. He's an ordinary guy who wanted to buy a house, realized prices were really high compared to his expectations, and started digging deeper. He hadn't predicted any past collapses of anything, he just realized that housing costs were unsustainably high and called it. Many of the other bubble-predictors were in the same boat. The guys always predicting collapses are crackpots. The normal people who called this bubble because they realized house prices had jumped without corresponding changes in income or demographics, but only changes in bank lending standards, were not crackpots.
- TorKlingberg 17y ago
  Unfortunately there are also real crackpots, and they all claim to be marginalized by the establishment. If I have to look at the numbers and charts and figure it out myself, then I would rather also find the data myself. Then I avoid getting data that is doctored or otherwise deceiving. That said, it is often worth paying attention to those who are a little bit outside the mainstream. That goes especially in economics, which is far from an exact science, and is full of political agendas.
  - startuprules 17y ago
    Agreed; you put it better than I did :)
stretchwithme 17y ago
By definition, the people involved in the bubble believes the situation is sustainable. They HAVE to. Its a herd phenomena, with a real price rise enforcing the belief in the trajectory of those price increases. But at some point, despite all efforts to recruit more people into the bubbly market, price increases slow then stall and beliefs change and the down trend inevitably begins. The naysayers, the non-believers, those darn negative people who don't buy in and reinforce the bubble but actively try to save their friends, will always be swimming against the tide. The difficult part is distinguishing between social proof and actual facts. The fact is that most of us are followers and that will always be the case. That's how we're wired. If it weren't, societies wouldn't even be possible. The best we can hope for is to keep the use of force out of the equation. We were all forced to take on the risks of all that lending, something we would not have done voluntarily. Now we are on the hook for it and some day we will realize how truly costly it has been. Til then, feel free to think of me as a crackpot.

startuprules 17y ago

1.) 'Crackpots' labeling is an easy way for corporate mass media to label the truth tellers to discourage you from researching further (If you look at 2005-2007 CNBC interviews, they called alot of these people 'crackpots') 2.) Most of the time these 'truth tellers' are way early in their calls. It's up you to look at the numbers/charts and figure out when the said phenomenom should occur.

gloob 17y ago
1) 'Crackpot' labeling is also an easy way to label the crackpots, to discourage you from wasting your life either believing nonsense or trying to argue against it. It is not worth my time to do independent research on the question of whether the Americans actually landed on the moon. 2) You know what they say about broken clocks and being right. Someone who is always predicting a collapse will successfully predict any collapse.
- lotharbot 17y ago
  Many of the people predicting this collapse were "new players" to the market, not people always predicting collapses. Take the guy who runs seattlebubble.com. He's an ordinary guy who wanted to buy a house, realized prices were really high compared to his expectations, and started digging deeper. He hadn't predicted any past collapses of anything, he just realized that housing costs were unsustainably high and called it. Many of the other bubble-predictors were in the same boat. The guys always predicting collapses are crackpots. The normal people who called this bubble because they realized house prices had jumped without corresponding changes in income or demographics, but only changes in bank lending standards, were not crackpots.
TorKlingberg 17y ago
Unfortunately there are also real crackpots, and they all claim to be marginalized by the establishment. If I have to look at the numbers and charts and figure it out myself, then I would rather also find the data myself. Then I avoid getting data that is doctored or otherwise deceiving. That said, it is often worth paying attention to those who are a little bit outside the mainstream. That goes especially in economics, which is far from an exact science, and is full of political agendas.
- startuprules 17y ago
  Agreed; you put it better than I did :)

stretchwithme 17y ago

By definition, the people involved in the bubble believes the situation is sustainable. They HAVE to. Its a herd phenomena, with a real price rise enforcing the belief in the trajectory of those price increases. But at some point, despite all efforts to recruit more people into the bubbly market, price increases slow then stall and beliefs change and the down trend inevitably begins. The naysayers, the non-believers, those darn negative people who don't buy in and reinforce the bubble but actively try to save their friends, will always be swimming against the tide. The difficult part is distinguishing between social proof and actual facts. The fact is that most of us are followers and that will always be the case. That's how we're wired. If it weren't, societies wouldn't even be possible. The best we can hope for is to keep the use of force out of the equation. We were all forced to take on the risks of all that lending, something we would not have done voluntarily. Now we are on the hook for it and some day we will realize how truly costly it has been. Til then, feel free to think of me as a crackpot.