A lot of modern "problem markets" ultimately show us (IMO) some of the limits of economics. Economic theorising and/or "storytelling," as my econ professor ter

A lot of modern "problem markets" ultimately show us (IMO) some of the limits of economics. Economic theorising and/or "storytelling," as my econ professor termed it, can create plausible explanations. They're not strongly predictive though. In-context (say, a stock market) these theories can be somewhat dependable. "Predictive" is a strong term, but it's less wrong within highly similar contexts... that's how trading algorithms (non NN ones) work. They theorize within highly limited contexts. In practice, these theories can be predictive enough to be successful trading strategies. In most cases, to be investably predictive a theory needs to be narrow. Certain asset classes, certain epochs, etc. Certain market conditions. Even though they use similar concepts (supply, demand, price, and their marginal determinations), a theory about energy bonds cannot be applied to urban real estate. More academic theories go for generality. Broader theory, but not tradable predictive. "Government and academics are still debating how much money is needed to distort a market. The truth is, not a whole lot is required to distort any asset market. This is a problem the stock market has been dealing with since the 1920s" Sure. Not much is required, but that just makes it plausible. I'd wager some real estate markets are much harder to nudge than others. The highly sensitive marginal dynamics this article is theorising aren't a feature of all real estate markets at all times. They're almost certainly very linked to bubble/bull markets. One rare example of broader theory being applied to actual trading is Soros. I think his concepts probably apply here. "Reflexivity," specifically.