&gt; Its kind of inflammatory. Using your logic: If many economists predicted a healthy economy and housing market, we would have many poor economists. I mean, if you have a vast body of evidence you can present that proves this is the case by all means present it.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bls.gov&#x2F;ooh&#x2F;life-physical-and-social-science&#x2F;economists.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bls.gov&#x2F;ooh&#x2F;life-physical-and-social-science&#x2F;econ...</a><p>1) The reverse doesn&#x27;t hold true because the average income is $95,000 a year.<p>2) If one continued to hold assets, as a rational economist likely would, they would have recovered with the rest of the market by this point in time.<p>3) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim it was widely predicted yet Nobel Laureates claim otherwise falls under that standard.<p>3b) Similarly, silencing such people required a certain degree of conspiracy yet there is no evidence of such a conspiracy. The reverse is not true.<p>4) It is a good effort to try to require me to meet the reverse logic <i>except I&#x27;m not the one who made the initial claim that was extraordinary, unusual, and not backed by the opinion of a Nobel Laureate economist among others</i>. Similarly, the reverse case simply isn&#x27;t valid since you can&#x27;t be &quot;poor&quot; on $95,000&#x2F;year unless you are completely incompetent in managing your finances which is a different problem.<p>&gt; US Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, has gone on record and said he knew of the impending housing bubble in 2005. I think even the most blind economists could have predicted a devaluation in average housing price at $x0,000&#x2F;house (I really wish I knew that actual average price homes fell by), at 100M homes that is an evaporation of $x,000,000,000,000 of wealth, now from an economists point of view whether that suggest a imminent recession, I don&#x27;t know, but to me that is unprecedented.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;10&#x2F;24&#x2F;business&#x2F;economy&#x2F;24panel.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2008&#x2F;10&#x2F;24&#x2F;business&#x2F;economy&#x2F;24panel.h...</a><p>&gt; Mr. Greenspan said that he had publicly warned about the “underpricing of risk” in 2005 but that he had never expected the crisis that began to sweep the entire financial system in 2007.<p>He specifically stated he hadn&#x27;t expected the crisis but rather an underpricing of risk which was one of the causal factors.<p>&gt; Mr. Greenspan, along with most other banking regulators in Washington, also resisted calls for tighter regulation of subprime mortgages and other high-risk exotic mortgages that allowed people to borrow far more than they could afford.<p>Btw, he actively resisted and successfully fought to allow suprime mortgages.<p>&gt; By 2004, a growing number of economists were warning that a speculative bubble in home prices and home construction was under way, which posed the risk of a housing bust.<p>Your best defense wasn&#x27;t Greespan btw, but his opposition in 2004 who were warning his actions would lead to a speculative bubble. However, they were relatively few in number and there is no evidence they were silenced as the original post I was replying to implied.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;2010&#x2F;apr&#x2F;16&#x2F;goldman-sachs-fraud-charges" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;2010&#x2F;apr&#x2F;16&#x2F;goldman-sach...</a><p>Yeah, that isn&#x27;t evidence of a large scale market prediction by economists so isn&#x27;t in the domain of the argument I was making.