&gt; I just can&#x27;t get past the very first sentence. First, it ignores the realities of both economists and financial insiders who made attempts to blow the lid off of the ARM&#x2F;toxic loan schemes - not unlike pre-Snowden whistle blowers who were equally ignored and erased from history.<p>The fact they were effectively silenced and ignored is largely because they were few in number.<p>The vast majority didn&#x27;t foresee the scale of the disaster.<p>&gt; Second, even as a 17 year old kid, in 2001, I wrote an economics paper about the impending housing collapse - only I was guessing 2005 not 2008 - based on ARM&#x27;s; 103% financing with 0% down; and stated income.<p>If you can demonstrate this for a significant number of recessions [e.g. 5+], its relevant.<p>I pulled my money out in May of 2007 because I was pretty sure something was going to happen and threw it back in to basically double it...doesn&#x27;t mean I believe it was abundantly obvious to everyone. The mere fact I could do that demonstrates <i>it wasn&#x27;t</i> obvious.<p>The simple fact is, whenever there is a crisis, there is going to be a minority of Doomsayers who predicted correctly. However, the fact the majority was oblivious implies it was non-obvious and possibly chance that a specific Doomsayer was, ultimately, correct in his&#x2F;her prediction for reasons beyond random chance.