Zillow to stop flipping homes, loses more than $550M, lays off 25% of staff

Where is this data coming from? Almost nothing you said is true or perhaps you don't actually understand what retail traders are. Retail traders, essentially by definition, do not have sufficient capital to cause large asset bubbles. Once an individual's net worth exceeds a threshold (generally enough to where their purchases or sales affect the spreads and liquidity of the underlying market) they are not considered "retail" by definition.

Even now, with retail being the most powerful they've ever been in human history, they might be able to squeeze a single, small or mid cap equity (GME being the most famous example) but they cannot move sectors of markets, much less create a generalized bubble in ANY asset class.

Crypto 2017 is the only "bubble" which you might claim was retail-driven (even then, you'd need to provide evidence for such a claim), and even that had institutional money such as Grayscale, high-net-worth speculators, and algotrading from high-net-worth speculators driving the bubble. Not to mention that was a tiny bubble relative to any equity market bubbles.

It's well-known Tech bubble 2001 was driven by investment banks. It's even more well known that the 2008 bubble was driven by investment banks, hedge funds, and derivatives trading. The current $2.5T+ market cap crypto bubble has been formed by large institutional buyers, high net worth individuals, and corporations pumping money.

Dutch Tulips, South Sea Trading Company stocks, 90s Japan were all from institutions or high-net-worth individuals (nobles, royalty, corporations, etc) as well. Your post really couldn't be further away from reality. The historic bond bubbles have all been inflated by institutions and governments. Making a claim that even one bubble, much less "most" bubbles are caused by retail, is an outrageous claim which requires extraordinary evidence that you would need to provide.

That isn't true, even if it's not the majority, a significant number homes are purchased as rental/investment properties.

Some of those were even formally recognized as revenue trading agreements to show growth.

There are a lot of cross currents there.

The old people with a reverse mortgage & the taxpayer subsidizing the associated losses.

People who put much of their excess savings into an appreciating home they planned to sell to fund their retirement as they moved elsewhere to somewhere cheaper, but now have a home which as a step function is worth far less.

People who would be quickly underwater if the property market tanks deciding to jingle mail, leading to blighted streets for those who stayed.

Local property taxes pay for schools, fire departments, police, etc.

As far as the state being a perfect provider to step in ... in the US about half of healthcare spending is fraud. That the bill is passed onto someone else is a big slice of that (along with ignoring antitrust laws, local CON laws, illegal to import pharmaceuticals directly as a consumer, etc).

I used to live near Chicago as a kid & recalled this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green_Homes "At first, the housing was integrated and many residents held jobs. This changed in the years after World War II, when the nearby factories that provided the neighborhood's economic base closed and thousands were laid off. At the same time, the cash-strapped city began withdrawing crucial services like police patrols, transit services, and routine building maintenance. ... On July 17, 1970, Chicago police patrolman Anthony N. Rizzato and Sergeant James Severin were shot and killed by gang members while patrolling community housing for an all-volunteer "Walk and Talk" project. As the officers proceeded across the Cabrini–Green baseball field, the assailants opened fire from an apartment window. The purpose of the shooting was to seal a pact between two rival gangs."

Which land will the free or subsidized housing go on? Will the people spending a grand or two a month in property taxes want the elevated crime levels near their own front door?

One time I had a client who thought it was "unfair" to pay me just because I knew how algorithms worked. He was quickly fired, but he did not find inheriting his family owned business unfair. He did not find his ranking boost which gave him outsized profits unfair.

There is no way to go back in time to make everything fair from some arbitrary starting point. All you can do is your best to do your best.

Pricing can lead to unequal outcomes, but it at least provides a signal that you are on the right track or not.

A quest for universal fairness can only work by lowering people rather than by promoting them doing what they are best at.

Anyone seeking universal fairness & equal outcomes in all aspects of life should read Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron as many times as required to change that mindset. http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html "THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."