&gt; The fact they were effectively silenced and ignored is largely because they were few in number.<p>No, they weren&#x27;t particularly few in number -- it was lots of economists (they were few in number compared to the whole population, but the universe at issue was economists, not the whole population.)<p>They were ignored because there was substantial financial interests among the powerful interests resting on the perception that things were going to continue going well, and because the top-line economic indicators (which aren&#x27;t particularly good leading indicators, in any case) that the mainstream media likes to look to were strong, so there was a PR effort that was in line with what the media was naturally inclined to follow; the warnings from various different directions were an inconvenience for the interests of the powerful and the comfortable narrative of the media.<p>&gt; I pulled my money out in May of 2007 because I was pretty sure something was going to happen and threw it back in to basically double it...doesn&#x27;t mean I believe it was abundantly obvious to everyone. The mere fact I could do that demonstrates it wasn&#x27;t obvious.<p>Sure, it proves that it the particular impacts and timing of the impending collapse weren&#x27;t widely expected <i>by market participants</i>. That&#x27;s not inconsistent with a significant number -- not very few -- predicting an imminent and significant downturn to be driven by the collapse of the housing bubble.