{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02197802197802198, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007326007326007326, 'mean_word_length': 4.815602836879433, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In this issue

As late as February 2010, at the time when it already had exploded, Dutch economists denied the existence of a ‘housing bubble’ in the Netherlands. The reasons for this denial seem to be an unwarranted trust in formalized economic models as well as econometric estimates, the neglect of basic historical, comparative and statistical information as well as a curious lack of knowledge about ‘sate of the art’ ideas and models, let alone ‘heterodox’ ideas. This paper examines the failure of Dutch economists as a means of answering two transnational and ultimately theoretical questions: 1. Is it possible to develop a kind of analysis which enables us to identify housing bubbles in an earlier phase, and 2. Do economists when looking for housing bubbles look at the right variables and in the right way?