That an inevitable correction has been delayed by sustained government efforts does not make predictions of a correction any less prescient.
There is always an "inevitable correction" somewhere in the future, but in this endeavor, it's timing that matters.
It’s probably not fair to pick on Icahn in particular, who is not really a perma-bear. There are far better examples (e.g. Marc Faber), who despite being demonstrably wrong year after year with their end of world predictions, are always welcome back on Bloomberg and CNBC explaining how the world markets are about to fall apart.
EX: People talk about Japan as if it was going though a bad time period vs. that just being the new normal based on it's demographics.
(Ignoring seasonal variation.)
Isn't that what random is?
That we're in the midst of one of the largest and most artificial of those 'boom' periods is undeniable, owing to the Fed's injection of $4.5 trillion into equity markets.
Icahn is banking on Newton's third law of motion applying to financial markets as well.
They bought treasuries and junk mortgages to bail out home owners, the US Government and the big banks.
Their tampering with equity markets so far has been limited and indirect via the banks.
http://business.time.com/2013/04/26/why-are-central-banks-su...
Not necessarily true. The sellers miss out on gain, but they don't necessarily need to book a loss. Unrealized gains are not equivalent to losses. I believe what you're thinking about are derivatives (which are zero-sum, and for every unit of profit booked by one entity, there is a unit of loss booked by another entity).
Equities are not zero-sum, the companies behind them produce very real value.