Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that many people are continously predicting a crash. If you grant that they're right now, you also have to grant that they've been wrong for years . Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Not fair. A well-regulated system would NEVER crash. That this one does, and folks predicted it, has nothing to do with timing, and everything to do with cogent analysis of a flawed system.
When it actually happens (in both cases), there will be some subset of people whose published prediction is close to or even exactly matches the date when it finally did happen, and those people will gloat about it.
But for every one of those people there are thousands, possibly millions or more others whose prediction dates came and went with no catastrophe occurring. Given the huge number of people who publish their predictions, then, we have to ask which of these is more likely:
1. The people who got the date right -- either exact, or within a certain small window of the actual date -- had some genuinely deep insight missed by others, which allowed them and only them to make a correct prediction, or
2. Given a large enough segment of people making predictions, some subset of them will have their predicted date match the actual date purely by chance. For example, predicting market trends five years out only gives five years in which something can happen, or twenty quarters, or sixty months, or 260 weeks, or 1,826 days to peg your predictions onto. If the number of people making predictions is large enough, all dates are likely be covered by at least one prediction.