Why the obfuscation? This collapse mechanism is not the risk. The risk, even were it measurable, was misrepresented and hidden.
> I would summarize my entire argument this way. Suppose you or I
> traveled back in time to 2005 and got a job writing for the WSJ. We
> pitch our editor on a story that says (a) housing is hugely
> overvalued and (b) the major banks will all go bankrupt when house
> prices collapse. Knowing what we know now, it would be easy to get all the
> necessary data,
> quotes, interviews, etc., for a first-rate piece of investigative
> business journalism.
>
> Three questions: (a) would the story get printed? (b) if it got
> printed would it make any difference? (c) if the story was spiked,
> could we turn it into a private analyst report and sell it for
> $10,000 to every investment firm in the country? Would anyone care
> about our report? Would it make any difference?
(a) No. (b) No, because a solitary report would be flooded by disinformation. (c) You mean it wasn't? Are you sure that's not the counterargument?
If you mean to ask how to stop a bubble, we all know it requires a much larger solution.