01-02-2010, 12:32 PM
The topic referred to was interesting and the conversation was worth having, for sure. It's always useful to quantify predictions. Having made a few in the referenced thread, and some I feel vindicated in relatively high resolution, I feel compelled to offer another.
I wouldn't dare this year. Pull in, sit tight.
For this year, it's very simple. This year is unpredictable. Our economy is a stable but extremely fragile state. None of the issues that caused the crisis of the last couple of years have been addressed, in some cases they've hardly been acknowledged. Policy at all levels, including the highest level has been to evade the issues and to occlude real risk. Nothing is fixed, we're running on a wish and a prayer. One can indeed run a long time on a wish and a prayer. That is indeed the history of mankind.
Still, statistically, it's reasonable to expect a handful of random events to impact the stage of events annually, which are of significant enough magnitude to create societal or economic effects. In robust environments, these events have less likelihood of creating secondary impacts. In fragile environments, the inverse is true. This is where we are. We run a very significant risk of events, which we statistically can know will occur--that these will have disproportionate and negative impacts. Elsewise it's a crap shoot.
That would be my take.
http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/
I wouldn't dare this year. Pull in, sit tight.
For this year, it's very simple. This year is unpredictable. Our economy is a stable but extremely fragile state. None of the issues that caused the crisis of the last couple of years have been addressed, in some cases they've hardly been acknowledged. Policy at all levels, including the highest level has been to evade the issues and to occlude real risk. Nothing is fixed, we're running on a wish and a prayer. One can indeed run a long time on a wish and a prayer. That is indeed the history of mankind.
Still, statistically, it's reasonable to expect a handful of random events to impact the stage of events annually, which are of significant enough magnitude to create societal or economic effects. In robust environments, these events have less likelihood of creating secondary impacts. In fragile environments, the inverse is true. This is where we are. We run a very significant risk of events, which we statistically can know will occur--that these will have disproportionate and negative impacts. Elsewise it's a crap shoot.
That would be my take.
http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/