How many Yo's have we actually had? Not many.

In my case I'm completely shut out of a crazy real estate market in Silicon Valley with a small child to accomodate, and gloomy prospects if we ever get evicted. I'm a tech worker and I make a very nice salary, and I can't wait for a crash to take some of the crazy money out of the equation.

Can someone help me find the definition of yo in this context? Is it a reference to yo-yo-like fluctuations?

That's the wrong way to look at boom-bust cycles. The mistakes were made when investment unsustainably outstripped underlying value. You can feel bad in the bust times for those beneficiaries of the boom times, but they were simply paid forward for the bust years to come. That's just the economic sawtooth that will continue to happen as long as growth has insufficient pressure (regulatorily or culturally) for sustainability. It's all been seen before.

maybe A.I. will be better at avoiding crashes... but are we there yet?

I'll say it: I want a correction. I don't believe that the VC-funded app economy is delivering. I dislike that SF and SV have a de facto monopoly on the US tech sector, and to participate here I have to spend my entire paycheck to rent the shittiest apartment I've ever lived in. I would like for housing prices to go down, or I'd like a nudge to walk away from this place.

Generals are always fighting the last war. There definitely seems to be a correction happening, and that's fine and welcome (and a perfectly normal feature of a healthy business environment) but to expect a full-blown implosion of an entire sector just because it happened 17 years ago doesn't seem warranted, mainly because the fundamentals of the majority of the players are totally different (well-tested and scalable, if not necessarily fully profitable, operation models that drives substantial revenue from a substantial customer base).

These so called "bubbles" are purely psychological because they are based on imaginary abstractions.

>This was the situation of the Great Depression when here we were still, in a material sense, a very rich country, with plenty of fields and farms and mines and factories...everything going. But suddenly because of a psychological hang-up, because of a mysterious mumbo-jumbo about the economy, about the banking, we were all miserable and poor - starving in the midst of plenty. Just because of a psychological hang-up. And that hang-up is that money is real, and that people ought to suffer in order to get it. But the whole point of the machine is to relieve you of that suffering. It is ingenuity. You see we are psychologically back in the 17th century and technically in the 20th. And here comes the problem. So what we have to find out how to do is to change the psychological attitude to money and to wealth and further more to pleasure and further more to the nature of work. And this is a formidable problem.

-Alan Watts: Money, Guilt, and the Machine