I would reckon that you can give reasonable explanations for each of the possible outcomes of ten coin flips, not just one.
True, but the model has to be both plausible and aesthetically appealing. The reason the Copernican model was preferred to the Ptolemaic was both plausibility and simplicity -- it wasn't any better at prediction than the complex Ptolemaic model, but it explained matters in terms of a few factors, whereas the Ptolemaic was a "phenomenological theory." For the same reason we prefer statistical mechanics to thermodynamics. The point is that quality of explanations, models, and theories varies. We don't just want accuracy in prediction -- which may be fortuitous -- but a compelling model or theory that shows why the prediction is plausible based on a few causal factors. Thus the argument that house prices have gone up by 10% for each of the past three years means they will go up this year is an insult to the intelligence of any quant.
In fact, reasonable people argued that in the worst case, the growth rate of real estate values would simply slow down, resulting in a soft landing (rather than a crash) for the entire economy. Those people are obviously missing in this particular video. Instead, only monkeys are providing the opposite view, and that makes Schiff look even better.
Who's "reasonable?" People with well-modulated voices who speak with gravitas? When have we seen this mythical "soft landing?" This is an euphemism used by politicians to assuage the gullible public that things won't be too bad. We want "unreasonable" people who are making counter-intuitive predictions, and who are arguing quantitatively, and arguing from the foundation of a handful of causal factors (ideally). And what they say has to be "falsifiable": it has to be quantitative and hence subsequently testable for accuracy. Thus some nincompoop who argues vaguely about "soft landing" can always subsequently claim that's what happened; his prediction wasn't quantitative and hence not falsifiable. A true theorist has to commit himself, stick his neck out, making quantitative predictions that could well be wrong.
When it comes to predicting things about direction of the economy, or outcome of a war or other macro level events, number of unknowns are just astronomical. If it wasnt, we will all be printing money. Unfortunately though, our minds make us pay attention to anything that makes this world look less chaotic than it actually is.
Au contraire, this is more political nonsense from those crook politicians and their paid academic stooges. We still look for theories which will explain the trajectory in qualitative terms. Thus Schiff cannot predict something will happen in October rather than November -- but he should be able to say that it will happen sooner rather than later and because of reasons A,B, and C, and explain the logical threads. Politicians and other crooks use the complexity argument to get themselves off the hook when their lies and stupid utterances get exposed for what they are.
The whole idea of science is to explain the complexity of phenomenon in terms of models based on a few assumptions and axioms. We know such models cannot capture all the rich texture of phenomenon -- but they should get something right. Hence mechanics, electrodynamics, statistical mechanics, and quantum theory. We ask the same of economic models but relax our requirements: things should be explained and predicted qualitatively (just as we have a field called "qualitative dynamics").
By the way, I never heard of Schiff before yesterday. But I see him taking a courageous stand -- something every true theorist has to be prepared to do.
