U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 02:20 PM
 
6,029 posts, read 1,775,621 times
Reputation: 10604

Advertisements

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...this-recovery/


Quote:
In partnership with the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, FiveThirtyEight.com asked 34 quantitative macroeconomic economists what they thought about a variety of subjects around the coronavirus recession and recovery efforts. The most recent survey, which was conducted from June 19 through 22, echoed many of the predictions from the last round — though there were also a few new wrinkles in their forecasts...

Overall, the economists in our survey think the economy has a long way to go before it returns to normal.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...this-recovery/

The consensus of economists is the recovery is a "reverse radical" shape - a mirror image of the square root symbol, rather than a "Nike Swoosh" of fast decline followed by lengthy recovery, or a "U Shape" or "W Shape."

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 02:47 PM
 
2,078 posts, read 535,771 times
Reputation: 3303
I normally give some credence to surveys of this caliber, but I remain convinced that NO ONE can guess the shape of the next year. At all. And that the five percent who by-guess-by-golly turn out to be right in retrospect were no more clued than the rest.

We are in absolutely unknown territory and any of four or five unpredictable factors could upset the nice projections at any time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Washington Park, Denver
8,089 posts, read 7,519,137 times
Reputation: 9121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig View Post
I normally give some credence to surveys of this caliber, but I remain convinced that NO ONE can guess the shape of the next year. At all. And that the five percent who by-guess-by-golly turn out to be right in retrospect were no more clued than the rest.

We are in absolutely unknown territory and any of four or five unpredictable factors could upset the nice projections at any time.
It’s interesting because I have sat through talks from several of the people they polled and they have all said that until there is clarity on the medical question, it is very hard to answer the economic question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:51 PM
 
37 posts, read 1,728 times
Reputation: 50
Hard to say the future. But... that is currently what the economy has done. Stock market, anyways. If your IRA's are down much more than 10% (pre covid) then you got a lousy IRA. I agree that recovery to where things were pre covid will be slow from now on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:38 PM
 
2,078 posts, read 535,771 times
Reputation: 3303
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77 View Post
It’s interesting because I have sat through talks from several of the people they polled and they have all said that until there is clarity on the medical question, it is very hard to answer the economic question.
True, but even more so, we have simply never had a crisis like this in modern times. It's not a war, or a recession/depression, or an inflationary cycle, or a market collapse, or... pretty much anything any living economist has any experience with and can use to make meaningful comparisons.

It's like trying to predict the next moves in a chess game after some mean widdle kid just kicked the whole board thirty feet in the air.

And I'll further maintain that much of what has happened (the almost inexplicable market recovery/gains, for example) are due more to something like systemic shell-shock and inertia than any considered, rational acts. Because on top of it all... we are just now in the fourth month of this event. The sheer speed and compressed scale, coupled with the instant global impact, are, to put it mildly, confusing things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:42 PM
 
9,631 posts, read 10,247,083 times
Reputation: 8446
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77 View Post
It’s interesting because I have sat through talks from several of the people they polled and they have all said that until there is clarity on the medical question, it is very hard to answer the economic question.
They don't care what I think but as a Chicago econ. guy I've told them where's the diversity in having a largish group of economists who geographically/academically represent only The NE US, Chicago and The Bay Area?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:58 PM
 
6,029 posts, read 1,775,621 times
Reputation: 10604
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_ View Post
They don't care what I think but as a Chicago econ. guy I've told them where's the diversity in having a largish group of economists who geographically/academically represent only The NE US, Chicago and The Bay Area?
That's a fair point - but as quantitative macroeconomists, wouldn't they all be looking at the same data?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:04 PM
 
2,078 posts, read 535,771 times
Reputation: 3303
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
That's a fair point - but as quantitative macroeconomists, wouldn't they all be looking at the same data?
Doesn't matter, really. The Delphi method often produces astonishingly accurate predictions. As much as we've become used to "predictions" given the weight of next week's newspaper, I suggest the next year is beyond meaningful analysis; we'll just have to see where this mine cart ends up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:11 PM
 
6,029 posts, read 1,775,621 times
Reputation: 10604
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77 View Post
It’s interesting because I have sat through talks from several of the people they polled and they have all said that until there is clarity on the medical question, it is very hard to answer the economic question.
Of course. The confidence intervals are a mile wide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:41 PM
 
9,631 posts, read 10,247,083 times
Reputation: 8446
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
That's a fair point - but as quantitative macroeconomists, wouldn't they all be looking at the same data?
Oh sure, they all have access to the same data. I should have been more clear - it's not that these people are anything but great. But it just seems off to have what amounts to a large working group in which everyone is from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Chicago, NW, Stanford and Berkeley maybe I missed one? It's insular as heck and looks bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top