Originally Posted by gurramok
Well, of course it was going to happen, some of us knew it would happen within a certain timeframe while others fundamentally disagreed that it will happen at all.
That's what i'm stating. The ESRI was quoted in a post, they came out with their prediction was it around March while some posters here predicted this up to 2 years ago within a timeframe of 2-3yrs before the ESRI even mentioned the R word.
Now the ESRI don't have a great record of predicting, they keep revising every so often their growth figures.
Yes, big difference between predicting this recession and a white christmas. The recession was predicted by some posters within accuracy while a white christmas cannot be predicted at all, its random.
That's about timing within reason and looking at the data available. Those of us who stated that the R word is coming before the ESRI did were ridiculed with deaf ears, remember?
You're still missing my point, though possibly that's because I'm not making it clear rather than any fault on your part.
In logic there's a formal fallacy called affirming the consequent. It basically means that if given a statement "If X then Y" and Y happens that you assume that X is right. It's a serious problem in the realm of prediction because if you are not wary of it you can affirm any prediction simply because the result happens. For instance, if a year ago I predicted that a recession would happen within a year because of Ireland not winning the Eurovision we'd all agree that it was silly and no one would give it any extra weight just because a recession happened this year. The thing is that predicting an event, and giving a cause, doesn't mean that you are right if
that event does indeed happen. It's only in retrospect where we can examine the actual causes of the event can we (with error) separate the good predictions from the bad ones and learn which forms of prediction to use in the future.
This undermines many of the predictions that happened to coincide with the present recession simply because the explanation of why
we would go into a recession simply aren't valid. As a basic separation of good and bad predictions, any prediction that failed to simultaneously predict a global downturn can be tossed aside since as not having been confirmed simply because their explanation is missing a crucial and major element of the cause of this recession (and honestly, such predictions show an unawareness of the openness of this economy and its high level of foreign companies which expose us to the global economy to a huge extent and anyone not factoring this in doesn't have a good grasp of our economy to begin with).
The second problem is that given a group of recession predictions, a fair amount of them (if given generous timing requirements like 2-3 years) will be right purely by chance and not by any skill of prediction on the part of the predictor. This again undermines successful predictions since we have to assume that many of them have been right purely by luck and not because of some intrinsic power of prediction.
There are more points but I'm just trying to highlight a problem with the logic of "we predicted it would happen, and it did, so we are vindicated."