Economic Prediction

[oracleslave]

No, although that is a common assertion (based on Kondratieff's theory), the idea of a long cycle is not mentioned either in the New Scientist article linked, not in the original Club of Rome report.

I still have my copy of Limits to Growth bought at the time. Then, the whole idea of a comprehensive computer model for the world economy was quite novel. It drew attention to the ideas of, well, Limits to Growth, and served a useful purpose there. But it was too primitive and dogmatic, and it has not been borne out in detail. For example, based on the model and the then consumption, it predicted the world running out of Chromium in something like the early 1980s. What actually happened was that cars stopped being covered in chrome (you forget these days how ubiquitous it was) so the supplies survived for other purposes.

I'd say the New Scientist article is a journalistic cobbling together of several sources to make it look like there's a story, when really there is neither anything new nor anything definite. Much like a typical CUK Front Page

Ok. Admittedly I made the comparison to the Kondratieff theory after only a cursory glance at the article ( I read 30 year prediction and made the leap immediately). As for the rest of it, you have more eloquently pointed out what I was alluding to...nothing new or of major interest then.

[expat]

BB tell us why this is of interest when as the article says most economists have rubbished these analyses?

From what I can see all the 'Club of Rome' or whoever they are have predicted is that every 50 years or so the economy goes though some iteration of a long cycle that results in some form of economic upheaval. This has previously been done to death by a multitude of economists.

No, although that is a common assertion (based on Kondratieff's theory), the idea of a long cycle is not mentioned either in the New Scientist article linked, not in the original Club of Rome report.

I still have my copy of Limits to Growth bought at the time. Then, the whole idea of a comprehensive computer model for the world economy was quite novel. It drew attention to the ideas of, well, Limits to Growth, and served a useful purpose there. But it was too primitive and dogmatic, and it has not been borne out in detail. For example, based on the model and the then consumption, it predicted the world running out of Chromium in something like the early 1980s. What actually happened was that cars stopped being covered in chrome (you forget these days how ubiquitous it was) so the supplies survived for other purposes.

I'd say the New Scientist article is a journalistic cobbling together of several sources to make it look like there's a story, when really there is neither anything new nor anything definite. Much like a typical CUK Front Page

[Purple Dalek]

Yes, it looks like the Tories are desperately trying to lose the next election so they don't get landed with the baby.

Didn't they try that one before, with Major, and ended up winning after all.

[Doggy Styles]

So all that extra borrowing is just Gordon putting off armagedon until he has lost the next election, leaving the tories with a hopeless economy - i.e. holding the bomb.

Meanwhile, the tories have only just realised what he's doing and are panicking, by trying to bring armagedon forward to Gordon's watch, and doing 180 degree flips to distance themselves from it.

Have I got it about right?

[Purple Dalek]

Yep, started by the Victorians. We wallowed in fossil fuels and multiplied and partied for a hundred years on coal and oil and called it progress.

Spot on.

[TimberWolf]

Did we have a boom then?

Yep, started by the Victorians. We wallowed in fossil fuels and multiplied and partied for a hundred years on coal and oil and called it progress.

[Doggy Styles]

Did we have a boom then?

[sunnysan]

Rubbish

Dont really think its rubbish , but its not exactly groundbreaking either.

Its like someone saying to you "one day house prices will start to drop".

You know it will happen but when , and how much is based on factors which are too random to predict.

No matter what Gordon says, boom is always followed by bust and after a big boom there will be a big bust.

Laws of nature.

[TimberWolf]

Yes, we appear to be doomed. Like bacteria in a Petri dish we will carry on multiplying and think all is well until just before the end. There seems to be no way out, for even when individuals selflessly choose to stop or reduce breeding, the ones that do not will propagate and inherit the earth. We descend from a long line of breeders...

[oracleslave]

this is interesting:

Interesting prediction on the economy

BB tell us why this is of interest when as the article says most economists have rubbished these analyses?

From what I can see all the 'Club of Rome' or whoever they are have predicted is that every 50 years or so the economy goes though some iteration of a long cycle that results in some form of economic upheaval. This has previously been done to death by a multitude of economists.

[BlasterBates]

this is interesting:

Interesting prediction on the economy