Archive for predictions

Cut Medicare and Social Security? What’s the rush?

Once again, Michael Hiltzik clarifies the very things that need clarification, this time regarding the panic over the earned benefits programs Medicare and Social Security. Notice I didn’t refer to them as “entitlements,” which as Hiltzik correctly explains, is “a noxious way of referring to [them], excellent programs that most workers have paid for during their careers and that have kept millions of Americans healthy and out of poverty.”

He notes that all the scary forecasts and assumptions about which we’ve been hearing pundit after pundit yammer are questionable at best. Predictions are simply not accurate, so to base a premise or long term policy on them doesn’t make much sense.

Hiltzik:

[Social Securities'] trustees… also project that under certain conditions of economic and employment growth — all of them perfectly plausible — it might never run dry. You don’t hear much about that projection because it doesn’t fit into the narrative that Social Security is “going broke.”

Healthcare costs, with Medicare and Mediaid as big components, have been projected to rise to as much as 40% of gross domestic product by 2082 if not restrained. That’s a fearsome prospect, but it’s based on a long-outdated forecast by the Congressional Budget Office, which doesn’t use the same methodology anymore. It was highly implausible, if not impossible, in the first place.

For people like me whose eyes glaze over upon witnessing the usual sparring and doomsday scenarios, there’s this revelatory perspective on, well, perspective:

To put it another way, just because your son is 4 feet tall at age 6 doesn’t mean he’ll be 12 feet tall at age 18. And just because the average American born today will live to the age of 78 doesn’t mean that a baby born in 2032 will live to 100. [...]

The reason smart people and companies don’t make bets on the distant future is precisely because it’s unknowable. Try the following thought experiment: Instead of looking ahead 20 years, look back 20 years, and try to list all the events that have had immense, material effects on today’s economy, but were unimaginable in 1992.

Here’s my list: 9/11. The Afghan war. The Iraq war. The housing bubble. The crash of 2000. The crash of 2008. The crash of Lehman Bros. The iPod. The iPhone. The iPad. The founding of Google. Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy. Obamacare. 

So all these projections from all these commentators who have all these agendas are probably useless. And all these panicky “fixes” would be worthless, not to mention harmful, remedies based on faulty estimates.

The life span of a congressional budget is two years, max, because no Congress can bind its successors. But changes in Social Security and Medicare are forever. So when you hear that we have to do it now, stat! or we’re doomed, take it for the snake oil that it is.

Hopefully, most Americans aren’t buying what they’re selling.

VIdeo- Frank Luntz: Fox Viewers “Ought To Be Outraged Because, Day In And Day Out, They Were Told” Romney Would Win

Wow, just wow. Via.

Stock Market Picks 90 Percent of Presidential Elections

’68 and ’04 we were in foreign wars, that makes sense so I wonder what made ’56 different too?

If voters wish to predict the 2012 election, one investment firm is instructing them to push polls aside, ignore political pundits, turn off the debates, and follow the Dow.

InvestTech Research, an investment firm out of Montana, says the stock market is the most reliable indicator of who will win the presidency and has been for more than 100 years.

(snip)

No number of bumper stickers, catchy campaign slogans, or super PAC-attack ads can influence an election like stock numbers, Vermulm says. The math is simple. If the stock market gains in the two months leading up to the presidential election, the incumbent party wins. If the market falls, the incumbent party loses.

Since 1900, the stock market has correctly forecast nearly 90 percent of presidential elections. In the 28 elections tracked, there have been only three exceptions: 1956, 1968, and 2004.

Not so fast in handicapping ’12 for President Obama

I keep on saying that a trazillion things can happen between now and next November. Remember the game changer in ’08 was McCain’s “suspending” his campaign in August of that year. Via Taegan-

Thomas Holbrook says it’s way too early to predict President Obama’s re-election chances based on current data.

When looking at the unemployment rate in the year before a presidential election he finds “there is hardly any relationship (r-squared=.07), and slight pattern that does exist is nonsensical, indicating that Obama’s best strategy would be to increase unemployment as much as possible.”

Similarly, while presidential approval in the year before the election “is a better predictor of election outcomes than the unemployment rate is, I wouldn’t bet the farm on any such predictions.  Here we at least have a relationship that makes sense: presidents with high approval numbers in the summer of the year before the election generally do better (or their party does better) than than those with relative low levels of approval.  Having said that, the relationship is not very strong (r-squared=.20), and there are certainly a number of exceptions to the general pattern.”