Fake President’s fake economist predicts few supply line problems

This was published Sunday. Figured I’d wait a day or two to see how predictions start to pan out.

White House National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow expressed confidence that U.S. supply lines and the workforce would be largely unaffected by the coronavirus outbreak Sunday.

“I’m going to say yes, knowing there may be some exceptions…” Kudlow told CBS’ Margaret Brennan, asked if Americans would be well-positioned to feed themselves amid images of runs on grocery stores…but added “the employment story may become more tenuous in the weeks ahead.”

Kudlow predicted that the Senate will take up a raft of measures addressing the virus, whose provisions include paid sick leave for some workers and free virus testing, “pretty rapidly.”…

“We have lots of ways and means to make sure nobody falls through the cracks,” Kudlow added.

So, couple days later, Mnuchin is predicting 20% unemployment. We had the fun and games through the first week of shopping with large-scale numbers beginning to show on the infection rate and concurrent death rate. The greater toilet paper hoard began. Every region displayed different shortages. And the response from the government side, from the White House to the Republican-controlled Senate has been predictable and inane.

Trump finally discovered the infection rate of COVID-19. Someone must have finally explained in words of two syllables or less what each infection spreading to 2.3 people per contact works out to in street math.

And Kudlow has never been a learned, trained economist. He’s a journalist who worked for a newspaper that reported on economics among other topics on Wall Street. Got him a popular spot on television. Proved to be a hit with conservative and rightwing idealogues…and that was enough to get the gig and title from a fake president who wouldn’t know an economist if one bit him on the ass.

Like his boss, El Trumpo…Kudlow will continue to devote his time aiding any large corporation whose profits – not their people – might fall through the cracks

Market predictions for 2014 from Barry Ritholtz

Barry Ritholtz, the brains behind the Big Picture blog, is out with his 2014 global market and economic forecasts, and they are brilliant.

Category —— Forecast

Dow Jones Industrials —— No idea

S&P500 —— WTF are you asking me for?

10 Year Bond —— Could not fathom a guess

Fed Fund Rates —— Haven’t a clue

US Housing Market —— That’s a really good question

Inflation ——- Not a clue

GDP —— Yes, we will probably have a GDP

Unemployment —— Thhhhpppptttt?

Possibility of Recession in 2014 —— Possibility & Probability are 2 different things

Thanks to the BUSINESS INSIDER for republishing this and spreading the word.

As always, thanks to Barry Ritholtz for being not only informative and a thoughtful pedant; but, for being entertaining.

Nate Silver’s psephologist brigade crushes pundits and pollsters


Nate Silver

Silver, the computer expert who gave Obama a 90 percent chance of winning re-election, predicted on his blog, FiveThirtyEight (for the number of seats in the Electoral College), that the president would receive 51 percent of the popular vote as he called each of the 50 states, including all nine battlegrounds…

Gallup’s daily national tracking poll put Republican nominee Mitt Romney ahead by five points until it was suspended for Hurricane Sandy, and a final national survey released Nov. 5 gave the Republican a one-point advantage…

Two university-based pollsters joined Silver in correctly predicting Obama’s win, and one of them will be dead-on about the electoral vote tally.

Drew Linzer, an assistant professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta and a former pollster based in California, predicted yesterday morning on the website votamatic.org that Obama would end the race with 332 electoral votes and Romney 206.

Of Silver, Linzer wrote in that post, “his most likely outcome is still Obama 332, followed by 303 and 347, just like me.” Linzer also wrote that his model for votamatic.org had been predicting since June the Obama win with 332 electoral votes.

Sam Wang, a Princeton University professor of neuroscience, posted his final prediction — that Obama would likely receive 303 electoral votes to Romney’s 235 — on the school’s election blog at 2 p.m. yesterday. He reduced Obama’s total from 332 based on late polls yesterday.

Florida, with its 29 electoral votes, hasn’t been called by the Associated Press. Its outcome will determine which of those professors’ final forecasts was accurate.

The Republican-leaning Rasmussen Reports poll also had Romney winning the popular vote by one point. It missed on six of its nine swing-state polls. Rasmussen is an automated poll, meaning that it cannot call mobile phones and relies instead on an online polling tool to reach those without landlines. Rasmussen also adjusts data to reflect political party identification, which other pollsters say can change from survey to survey.

Rasmussen Reports had Obama winning Nevada and New Hampshire, tying Romney in Ohio and Wisconsin, and losing in the other five, including North Carolina…

Silver infuriated conservatives with his model, which uses a number of measurements and calculations, including attention to state polls.

I don’t pretend to understand all the maths that Silver obviously excels in. If you click through to the article and the video – please do watch the video. Mike McKee is one of the best economists in the country.

Glad he works down here instead of back up in the GWN.

10 worst predictions of 2008

This is why pundits should be more careful about making predictions. It’s easier than ever to check back on them.

Here’s a couple of the Top Ten from Foreign Policy magazine:

#1 – “If [Hillary Clinton] gets a race against John Edwards and Barack Obama, she’s going to be the nominee. Gore is the only threat to her, then. … Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single Democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now.” —William Kristol, Fox News Sunday, Dec. 17, 2006

Weekly Standard editor and New York Times columnist William Kristol was hardly alone in thinking that the Democratic primary was Clinton’s to lose, but it takes a special kind of self-confidence to make a declaration this sweeping more than a year before the first Iowa caucus was held. After Iowa, Kristol lurched to the other extreme, declaring that Clinton would lose New Hampshire and that “There will be no Clinton Restoration.” It’s also worth pointing out that this second wildly premature prediction was made in a Times column titled, “President Mike Huckabee?” The Times is currently rumored to be looking for his replacement.

Continue reading