Well yeah there may be a bit of that. I find them quite interesting for the data they bring up like the linked tweet but I don't really have an opinion as to whether they are any good at predicting things.

I was thinking re the data in the tweet, that there were a lot of mentions of "soft landing" before the dot com crash, before the 2006 property crash and now, it is quite likely there was an easy money policy preceding them and then government policy mostly focuses on consumer price inflation and unemployment, so they relax when those are both low and then hit the brakes when inflation goes up and then it moderates and things look good similar to now. But that ignores that easy money can also inflate asset prices, eg dot com stocks, houses in 06, or money losing AI companies like now. And then at some point that ends and the speculative asset prices go down rather than up, leaving people thinking oh dear we've borrowed to put loads of money into that dotcom/house/ai thing and now it's not worth much and we still have the debts...

At least that's my guess.

    > 2006 property crash

Assuming you are talking about the US financial crisis, do you mean 2008, instead of 2006? As I recall, easy money (via mortgages) was still sloshing about, well into 2007.

Yeah that one.

> I was thinking re the data in the tweet, that there were a lot of mentions of "soft landing" before the dot com crash, before the 2006 property crash and now

There's a confirmation bias there, though. Economists, particularly pop economists, have predicted all 20 of the last two recessions; if you just say "the world is going to end" every year, then occasionally it kinda will, and certain people will think you're a visionary.

True. Market/economic forecasting is quite unreliable, partly because you're trying to predict human behaviour which is changeable.