[Gianteye]

I'd rather the headline read "hasn't popped" versus "never popped". It implies there's some force keeping the high heel bubble (whatever that may be) from popping in perpetuity, and seems to draw a connection to the education bubble doing the same.

This is like an article in 2007 reading "The High-Hell Bubble never popped, and the Housing Bubble may not either."

[jpadvo]

That is exactly what he claimed -- that the situation with high heels is in a stable equilibrium. Barring some kind of outside influence, stable equilibria remain in their state indefinitely.

[Gianteye]

But the author doesn't state why that equilibrium cannot change. He states that is hasn't, which is different.

It's the difference between a double blind experiment and an epidemiological survey. One attempts to isolate a mechanism that is predictive, another attempts to explain historical trends.

[yummyfajitas]

I don't claim that equilibrium can't change.

A speculative bubble is not an equilibrium. It will inflate and pop all on it's own accord. The housing bubble inflated and popped without any underlying changes in fundamental factors (e.g. population).

In contrast, a Nash Equilibrium based on signalling will inflate and remain until some fundamental factors change. Women will continue to wear high heels and people will continue getting unnecessary education until these activities stop being a means of obtaining status.