Update and Remarks

Sorry for the long silence. I thought I would just engage in a little brazen self-interest and get you caught up on what I have been doing. The last half of the last chapter of The Predictioneer’s Game predicted failure at Copenhagen and highlighted why it would fail — especially the differences between the US, Europe, China, India and Brazil. Here is a case where I am sorry to say the model has proven right and the world will probably be worse off for it.

Really if we want to cut carbon emissions the place to begin is at home. Unilateral action is a much surer way of having impact than toothless universal international treaties. See some of my presentations on line about this (talks at the World Affairs Council, the London School of Economics, La Ciudad de los Ideas in Puebla, Mexico and quite a few others).

How are things going in Pakistan? The analysis in the penultimate chapter of The Predictioneer’s Game indicated that IF — a contingent forecast — the US gave Pakistan $1.5 billion in aid then the Pakistani government would turn away from making side deals with the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Pakistan and, instead, go after them but not wholeheartedly. This is what has been happening. The Pakistani regime is now doing much more to rein in the militants but it has explicitly refused to go after the Pakistani Taliban leader (who you can see sitting next to the Jordanian doctor who murdered 7 US CIA agents in Afghanistan as well as one Jordanian agent). Going after him apparently is too politically costly for the Pakistani leaders. It will be interesting to see whether this changes given his video appearance. Anyone care to try to model that? Please do and post your results.

Before the aid deal was approved, the Pakistani government had negotiated a partial deal with the Taliban who had taken over Swat. Now they are fighting them. Looks like my students back in 2008 pretty much got it right.

I have been doing lots of talks, radio and TV about the book and having a great time in the process. It is frustrating, however, when people say the book lacks the math — true but then the math is in other, not widely read (because of the math) books and articles of mine so it is not like it isn;t available for those who really want to know. And then there are those who persist in believing the History Channels misstatement that it is all a big secret. Lots of papers appear in peer reviewed publications not only containing the theory but also containing real-time predictions so anyone can check out the track record in those publications as well.

Sorry to whine. These criticisms irk me exactly because I have tried to make everything transparent to avoid just these criticisms. Oh well, you really can’t please everyone.

I have gotten lots of nice feedback from people who have tried the model. How about some of you writing your experiences for the blog. For instance, someone recently called into the Forum radio show on NPR while I was on and said he tried the car buying method and saved over $2,000. Wow, that’s great. I’d like to hear more about such experiences. Others have used the online model with considerable success. Let’s share those experiences online.

Thanks,

Bruce