He doesn't understand this. He doesn't understand that when thousands of predictions are thrown out there everyday, a few are bound to be true. Few remember all the bad predictions. People generally only remember the few good ones, even if it means ignoring all the failed ones made by the same exact predictors.
Also notice that all of his examples are reliant are generalizations, both in terms of time and content. Practically nobody nailed the exact week the market would collapse. Most, even the ones who he considers as nailing it, only came within a year or two. If you give a 2-3 year window for something to become true, it drastically increases the likelihood of it actually happening. What it doesn't do is make your prediction accurate.
Or take a look at the content of the prediction regardless of time. Same rules follow. Practically nobody was able to predict the precise order in which the market would collapse. There were all dependent on the more general statement that it was housing or bank related. Well no shit. That encompasses a fairly large portion of the stock market. Anybody can say with a high degree of certainly that sometime down the road, another collapse will happen that involves our nation's largest banks. It's not really a profound statement. Same thing with housing. When you see home values rising through the roof, it doesn't take a genius to predict that it might be a bubble.
But if someone came along and said that it would all crash in October on 2008, then you have something.
A few people, who probably made a lot of other predictions that year that failed, do not make something accurately predictable.
