The Greece bit of this article is strange: Warnings abounded in 2015 that if Greece rejected an international bailout, it could spark a sovereign default or a

The Greece bit of this article is strange: Warnings abounded in 2015 that if Greece rejected an international bailout, it could spark a sovereign default or a banking crisis or Greece being cast off the euro. Greece’s economy is far from a success story, but it hasn’t gone bankrupt. Its banking system has been battered and drained of deposits, but hasn’t collapsed. It remains in the euro. But Greece didn't reject the international bailout; it accepted it (despite a referendum voting "no", Tsipras signed it anyway). So this article is arguing: Experts predicted ~A -> B, but since in reality both A and ~B came to pass, experts are wrong. That's... not valid reasoning. Presumably the experts would argue that to the extent Greece isn't (quite) bankrupt, it's precisely because it heeded their dire warnings, and got cold feet about rejecting the bailout package.