Somewhat, but remember that house prices are sticky. If I can't sell my house and get into one with a similar value (both price and features) with near net zero change in my debt and payments I'm likely to stay put. Of course once I decide to move I'll be looking at cheaper and more expensive places, but if I can't break even on a like for like move why would I move? I'll just ride this market out for another 10 years. (note too that my mortgage is less than 3% - one more reason moving anytime soon would be a terrible thing for my life)

If my house is worth less than what I owe then moving (selling short) can make sense.

Houses are not just an investment for most people. There are investment factors, but they are also the place you live. Thus most people cannot just sell or not - they also have to consider where will they live next if they sell. Even if I knew exactly where the bottom would be odds are I'd still not sell because I don't have options to live elsewhere.

A big part of the cost is design. China has built a lot of nuclear capacity at a low cost by essentially copying and pasting the same design, something that should be even easier with SMRs.

Why can’t we do a reverse split of our currency? Print new dollars and change and on some date new dollar is the effective currency and you can trade in 10 old dollars for one new dollar?

I'm amazed no one brings up the obvious: the need for reactions that are reliable at high speed. There is no way I will trust my tuckus to a freeway driving Waymo for a couple of years.