Comments on: 8 Questions

By: mannning

mannning — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 04:26:18 +0000

d,a b,d,f,b,a,a, but 7 and 8 restrict the time far too much. Make it by March or April, 2010.

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 01:14:41 +0000

D
B
A
D
F
F
A
A
And Y because hope+change=0

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:26:46 +0000

1. 8.5%
2. Yes
3. 1.5
4. A weak recovery will be under way.
5. 60%
6. More than 50,000
7. No
8. No

By: Dantheman

Dantheman — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:29:49 +0000

1. c (within +/- .2).
2. a (agree with Michael Edwards -- this is a lock. If the question were whether it would be closer to the House version, the Senate Republican version or the compromise version which is supposed to come out shortly, it would be a better question).
3. somewhere between c and d.
4. b (with high probability of a double dip recession in 2010).
5. somewhere between c and d.
6. d.
7. b. Even Bibi isn't that crazy.
8. b. Why should they? They have no more reason to than Al Qu'eda had reason to attack the US after 9/11, since Bibi will be doing their work for them.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:00:44 +0000

1. Lower than 8% is not an option?

2. Something will be enacted. Calling it a fiscal stimulus doesn't make it one.

3. I refuse to engage in discussions of the multiplier effect unless we also talk about the divisor effect -- that money had to be taken from someone who now cannot spend it and have it ripple through their community several times, or it has to be borrowed and paid back, or the government has to devalue the currency, or the government has to repudiate its debt. None of these are very attractive. The idea that you get this multiplier for free is kindergarten nonsense, or congressional bullshit, or both.

4. The question is moot. It isn't the reality of what the condition of the economy be that matters, but the perception of the condition of the economy that matters. And, of course, this is all predicated on people, Big Media, and people from the government understanding what they hell they are talking about anyway. I'd guess you'd say I'm not optimistic.

5. f) Below 50%. Only the diehards will still believe.

6. Who cares when there is hope and change afoot? How many peole can guess within 20% how many troops are still there now? Iraq is so 2008.

7. That depends on whether Israel wants to be around on January 1, 2010.

8. That depends on whether Iran wants to be around on January 1, 2010.

By: PD Shaw

PD Shaw — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:19:17 +0000

1c, 2a, 3c, 4c, 5e, 6c, 7b, 8b

By: Michael Edwards

Michael Edwards — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:17:08 +0000

For question 6, is there a standard reference for current troop levels in Iraq?

1. C.
2. A. (Closest thing to a lock)
3. C.
4. C.
5. F. (Most speculative one, methinks. Not only does it ride on how question 1 turns out, but it also depends if there's some kind of "national unity" event between now and then. For this, however, I suspect his approval rating drops down to the overall long-term average of the last two Presidents).
6. C or D, would like to review the numbers before locking in on an answer.
7. No. Kind of think if they were going to do anything it would have been before Jan 20.
8. No. (2nd highest certainty).

By: Eneils Bailey

Eneils Bailey — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:43:06 +0000

I pretty much agree with your response, given that you have set a date of evaluation as being sometime in 2009, except for questions two and three.

Number two: It is just a given if the Stimulus Bill does not pass in 2009, it will never get passed.

Number three: At the end of 2010 if this Stimulus Bill is passed, I see a couple of ticks down from yours.

Numbers seven and eight: If either scenario does not happen in 2009, I think it is inevitable that major conflict does occur in two to three years.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:36:41 +0000

1c, 2a, 3c, 4b, 5d, 6d, 7b, 8b