5 ms·

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

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 :)

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 :)