USA economy's long-run rate of growth of per-capita real GDP over the next 25 years will be 0.9% due to demography, education, inequality, and the federal debt —Robert J Gordon Stanley G. Harris Professor,Social Sciences Northwestern University.
Created by Raahul_Kumar on 2016-03-19; known on 2041-12-25
- Raahul_Kumar estimated 100% on 2016-03-19
- Raahul_Kumar said “ttps://www.nber.org/reporter/2015number1/gordon.html” on 2016-03-19
- Raahul_Kumar said “Growth rate of U.S. per-capita real GDP remained steady at 2.1% between 1890 and 2007. Until recently, it was widely assumed that the Great Recession of 2007-09 and the slow recovery since 2009 represented only a temporary departure.” on 2016-03-19
- EloiseRosen said “So .8% or 1.0% would make this prediction wrong? What about .85% or .95%? As people have brought up before, please be less sloppy when stating predictions.” on 2016-03-19
- EloiseRosen said “Also note that the way this prediction is worded is odd—it sounds like the demography/education parts are part of the prediction, so that if growth was .9% but education didn’t have anything to do with it this prediction would be wrong.” on 2016-03-19
- EloiseRosen said “That’s probably not what you mean, and if it were what you meant then this would be a very poorly formalized prediction because we’d have no idea how to decide if education/whatever did or didn’t contribute.” on 2016-03-19
- Raahul_Kumar said “Learn significant figures. In the meantime stop posting replies to my predctions. Identifying the statistically significant causal factors for meta analysis later.” on 2016-03-20
- EloiseRosen said “If you’re going to be pulling crap like being vague about your terms (like here), or attempting to weasel out of predictions after the fact (like http://predictionbook.com/predictions/177610)) then you don’t belong on PredictionBook.” on 2016-03-20
- PlacidPlatypus estimated 2% and said “From what Raahul has said about significant figures I conclude that this prediction is accurate if and only if per-capita GDP growth is greater than .85% but less than .95%. I leave it to posterity to keep him honest when the time comes.” on 2016-03-22
- PlacidPlatypus said “I’ll further comment that the wording of the prediction is bad. The headline should just be a very specific statement of what will count as correct. Any relevant quotes, causal factors, etc should be in the comments.” on 2016-03-22
- JoshuaZ estimated 31% on 2016-03-22
- JoshuaZ said “(Also noting agreement with Eloise and Placid.) ” on 2016-03-22
- Raahul_Kumar said “Door. Don’t let it hit you on the way out.” on 2016-03-23
- Raahul_Kumar said “Placid and Josh, For any economic prediction the reason why is more important than the prediction. No one cares what the exact gdp growth number, but why is that so? A consistently accurate model is the goal.” on 2016-03-23
- JoshuaZ said “Sigh. The way you test a model is based on how accurate it is. Testing predictions accurately requires precise phrasings. ” on 2016-03-23
- jesselevine said “Raahul I found some of your dirty laundry, try and keep it off my screen next time” on 2016-03-25
- PseudonymousUser said “Raahul does this all the time” on 2016-04-07
- PseudonymousUser said “He thinks quoting someone counts as a prediction. ” on 2016-04-07
- PseudonymousUser said “Resulting ambiguities are dismissed as “obvious”” on 2016-04-07
- PseudonymousUser said “I cut him some slack because it seemed like English might not have been his first language” on 2016-04-07
- PseudonymousUser said “But he is kind of a dick, in case that’s news to anyone” on 2016-04-07