The Fickle Finger Of Fate 2006

'Hand with reflecting sphere' by M.C.Esher ca. 1935

Inspired by The darling Anchoress', here are a few predictions of my own for 2006.

The Democrats, hampered by their inability to sound a common theme on Iraq, and also outfoxed by a well-publicized midyear withdrawal of several thousand troops from Iraq, will pick up seats in the midterm elections, but will not do nearly as well as they originally expected. Their wise leader Howard 'The D Stands for Defeat' Dean, will cease to be of importance, as the challenge of two non-contradictory thoughts at once becomes simply too much for him.

The troops in Iraq will be reduced to about 100 000 this time next year, but then again that is really not much of a prediction, but a predication.

Some major hurricane landfalls on the Gulf Coast, causing serious damage and posing newly found challenges to the Administration and the post Katrina apocalypse.

Although half the female population has a crush on Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court will virtually belong to Anthony Kennedy in 2006, and may be dubbed as the "Kennedy Court", not to be confused with the much despised Edward, who is predicted to simply collapse under the strain of his huge overweight balooned body. He is likely to provide the deciding vote on every major case, and play a key role in the direction the Court takes.
Justice Kennedy will no doubt be the swing vote in many of the most controversial cases, including parental notification on abortion and other abortion issues that may come up and a wide variety of criminal, federal law and civil rights cases.

Judge Samuel Alito will of course be confirmed early in 2006, adding the token conservative to The Supreme Court, with  an unfortunately pitiful vote of perhaps 69/31.

The resilience of the U.S. and world economies in the face of record-high oil prices in 2005 has been remarkable. I am assuming that growth in 2006 will remain strong, in fact slightly above trend. The United States and China will continue to be the main locomotives of global growth. Furthermore, without the convergence of two or more big shocks, the risk of a recession in the next couple of years will remain small. The U.S. and global economies were able to withstand a number of major shocks in 2005—one of the worst tsunamis on record, one of the worst hurricanes on record, and the highest energy prices ever—without missing a beat. This remarkable resilience indicates that growth will be sustained over the next couple of years despite most shocks. Only if two or more severe shocks were to happen simultaneously would a recession become inevitable.

On that same note, this is a 'just in case' prediction' in case that a global recession is triggered? Well what kind of events would have to take place? The answer: a combination of oil prices above $100 per barrel, inflation and interest rates running 3 percentage points above current levels, and a 10% drop in home prices across many industrial country markets. All possible, but unlikely in 2006. So we can leave that great big sleeping dog lie, unless....

Unless we hit a major world Bird Flu pandemic, which will definitely throw a spanner in the works. We are unprepared, to say the least. Food health and safety (quarantine) barriers will loom larger than ever in world trade in 2006 thanks to fears about the spread of this and other epizootic diseases. The health care system is close to breaking point and we have no vaccine for the pandemic, which will bring us to that fateful breaking point.
Spread of epizootic disease such as bird flu represents an enormous threat to markets because few governments manage them in a rational way based on a cost-benefit assessment of risk mitigation strategies. If this happens, which is likely by late 2006, we really are royally.....and even Iran and their crazy Thug-In-Chief President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nuclear threat will fade into insignificance. Well not quite....

As my readers know I have been speaking about him and the threat of Islam, the religion of peace, ad nauseam. I predict that Israel will have to strike Iran, and soon into 2006. The Iranians have long said that a few nuclear bombs on Iran would still leave an awful lot of Muslims in the world- even in Iran- whereas one nuclear bomb on Israel would render the state completely unviable, since most of its population would have been already wiped out. Iran would gain enormously in stature in the Muslim world if they could pull such a thing off, even if it meant the deaths of several million Iranian "martyrs." Given all of the above, Israel obviously has to go in there if the US won't. The problem is that, unlike the Osirak bombing in 1981, it would a) probably require ground troops as well; b) require a large number of planes- much larger than the Osirak business- because Iran is on alert and waiting for such a thing. Also, Israel as a state would have to be able to survive such an attack: that is, it could not send all of its fighter planes over, because it could not afford to be left exposed and defenseless if too large a proportion of its air force were shot down.

Iran will test a nuclear weapon. The European nations will issue a joint statement declaring their very, very grave displeasure. Really. They might say STOP or I'll say STOP again. Heh.

And now our favorite subject of The Blogosphere.
The blog craze will make the Internet an ever more interactive medium and a hotter global social-networking scene, causing the MSM's jealous glaze to get heavier and more vicious.
Already a number of nations censor or regulate blogs, and free speech online will continue to become harder in 2006 as nations seek to legislate against political speech in particular, including the United States. Blogs will be placed under more scrutiny as the big boys in the MSM realize that we are a force to be reckoned with, and I predict that one of our biggies, likely to be Michelle Malkin, will break a huge story in 2006, which will highlight the need to come down hard on us whichever way they can, and with whatever nuclear power they have. The NYT fires blanks as we all know, so it will have to be one of the big media tycoons, with mega connections. It may be a project that will take them more than 2006 to complete, but we will certainly be the first, as we always are to hear the dragon rumble.
I also predict they will not suceed.....

And this kind of video blogging will become all the craze in 2006. I give you Mickey Kaus and Rob Wright @ Bloggingheads TV and their 2006 prediction:

Here is the range of predictions from NRO, in case you are a glutton for punishment and want more.
Sigmund Carl and Alfred,  Dr. Sanity, Blogs for Bush (don't miss the comments section), Ann Althouse  with a Supreme Court prediction, Prof. Worley aka Beanie Boy @ The Persistent Burrito, The Moderate Voice, Jack Kelly Red State, Blog For All Attack Machine Thoughts of a Regular Guy Bernard @  A Certain Slant of Light  St.Wendeler @ The Rovian Conspiracy has an extensive and fun list of predictions in groups of interest from his co-conspirators..

Here are a couple of funnies from John Pitney @ The NRO:

"The California branch of the American Civil Liberties Union makes a shocking discovery: Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco have Spanish names meaning "The Angels," "Holy Cross," and "St. Francis." It sues to rename them "The Angles," "Cruising," and "Frank."

It comes out that on Christmas Day 2005, some youngsters find stocking-stuffers from Malaysia. A New York Times story alleges corrupt product placement by Santa Claus. The story includes memos detailing payoffs from lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Senator Harry Reid calls for hearings and Santa's resignation. Christmas 2006 is in jeopardy until bloggers show that the memos bear signatures in Jayson Blair's handwriting."

Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds discuss the year in blogging......

Michelle Malkin reviews the War On Blogs 2005. I love her article she has always been an ardent  defender of The Blogosphere against the MSM, and her unwavering support of Bloggers big and small is exemplary. She supports us, links us, carries us along as her special babies, and we are very lucky to have her on our side:

"To the dismay of the MSM, the blogosphere didn't go away in 2005. Here are some of the more memorable moments in the clash of the bloggers vs. MSM:
[...]
Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker's description of bloggers as "creepy" wired squatters who are "untempered by restraint and accountability" and "insidious enemies of decency, humanity and civility - the angry offspring of narcissism's quickie marriage to instant gratification." MSM outlets, by contrast, "are filled with carpal-tunneled wretches, overworked and underpaid, who suffer near-pathological allegiance to getting it right." You know, those poor, truth-telling, underpaid ink-stained wretches like Jayson Blair, Mitch Albom, Stephen Glass, Eric Slater, Janet Cooke, Barbara Stewart, Patricia Smith, Mike Barnicle, and Jack Kelley.
[...]
Judging from the thoroughly unhinged tone of the old media, I'd say bloggers had a fabulous year."

Patterico, who after the Miers withdrawal is finally off the ledge, has the most incredible article, extensive, well researched and throrough, slam dunk pulverizing the LA Times. It's an absolute must read!

Adam deserves a special mention, not only because he is a great blogger, and a wonderful husband (he lists saying "I love you" to his wonderful wife, amongst the seven things he says the most often), but because flattery will get you absolutely everywhere Adam: He lists me as the second of the seven bloggers he'd like to join, in his seven times seven meme. Check it out.

Comments

[Ally-Oop]

Let's see here:

Democrats fail to win in November - Wrong

Iraq troop levels decline to 100,000 - Not exactly

Major hurricane hits - Wrong

Kennedy king of court - Wrong

Alito confirmed - Correct

Global economy still strong - Correct

America and China lead the way - Europe had the strongest economy in '06.

Bird flu pandemic - Wrong

Israel attacks Iran - Wrong

Iran detonates nuclear weapon - Not so much

Your final score is 8 lies and 2 truths, which isn't bad ... for a conservative.

[Fiona]

How much Exactly would this Piece be worth? "(Fickle Finger)"??

Please Respond.

[Alexandra]

Hey Honeybadger, NOW that is seriously good news. We have to have someone to drool over at all times, when we get bored with the substance....or lack thereof. Nice one!

[honeybadger]

Pardon my interjecting a bit of minor fluff, but I beg to differ:

"Although half the female population has a crush on Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court will virtually belong to Anthony Kennedy in 2006"

IMO: In person, Justice Kennedy is a THOUSAND times more sexy than Roberts. Seriously. I can't for the life of me explain why, but there you have it.

He can read me Shakespeare anytime!!

[Darrell]

I don't have the time now to explain why, but I just wanted to let everybody know not to fear. Unless you make the mistake of putting the Left into power, that is. Remember Leftists in Paris sit around in cafes drinking wine, smoking cigarettes, and contemplating suicide. For good reason. Their way always leads to this post-apocalyptic future. See how they always picture the future in movies? Capitalists know that higher prices start a chain of events that bring all sorts of discovered, but currently uneconomical, oil and substitute energy sources on-line. OPEC, and the Saudis in particular, are sweating bullets right now knowing what high prices are doing. You will see them take bold steps soon to bring prices down to a level that stops the process. We have somewhere near 185 years of crude oil ressrves at current levels of production and that number won't change much over time. Current recoverability is based on prevailing prices and that number changes as prices rise. Sources like tar sands, shale oil, ultra-deep oil remain to be tapped, as well. Beyond that, we have coal liquefaction and others. The future is only bleak to those with no vision.

[Huan]

Joseph

In a global economy it no longer really matter where things are made. The fact that it is made in China should tell you that it is made in China because labor cost is cheaper there, which means the chinese are being paid dirt. Look at who is making the profit. Those who provide the raw material tend to make the least, those who assemble make a bit more. those who distribute for sales make the most.

The consumption of products and materials in China remains primarily state control practice and businesses. China remains a state run economic entity. Time and time again state run economy start well and better than free economy, but falter and stumble. This is true whether it be the Soviets, the socialists of Europe, or the leftists of Latin America. The winner will be free and open market. If China truly adopts capitalism, then it will likely will surpass that of the West. I do not see this happening anytime.

I foresee India's rise as sustainable more so than China's precisely because they have similar population base but India has a better open market and less central statist economy.

Lets also not forget individual worker productivity level, especially if you start looking into who is consuming what.

Regarding oil. I am not concerned. When free oil reserve start to dwindle, and the price rises, then it will become more economical to get oil from shales. Assuming other technology do not surpass it.

the sky is not falling anytime soon. and definitely not in 2006.

[Joseph Marshall]

Let me suggest a little test: Go to somewhere like Wal-Mart, pick out ten items at random and check out where they are made. Dollars to doughnuts at least five will be made in China and three will be made in India. There is also a good likelihood that none will be made in the USA. China's consumer population with disposable income lives in Weehawken, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

And the corresponding increase of personal prosperity in urban China, where the economic growth is taking place is not doing that badly either. Certainly it is doing well enough that China is seeing a massive urban swell.

Both China and India are experiencing explosive growth and in both cases it is explosive capitalist growth. The explosiveness of it can be precisely traced in oil consumption. China now consumes 200% more oil than in 1990. The corresponding period saw a 15% increase in the USA.

It is also worth noting that the vast majority of our oil consumption goes into driving around in cars--a demand both inelastic and non-productive in a country organized like we are. Most Chinese oil consumption goes into manufacturing things that can be sold. And they are selling like hot cakes.

The Chinese have learned both from what used to be called the "first world" and from the Russian experience of economic anarchy in the Yeltsin years and have used their draconian state power in a way which probably should be called neo-merchantilism.

They have steadfastly refused to alter their currency value in relation to ours because an undervalued currency with your major trading partner means the maximum profits for your home industries. This is how they have driven that explosive growth, perhaps the fastest transformation to mature industrial capitalism in history. The French have not done exactly this.

The best estimates of British Petroleum suggest that the peak of total world production, based upon known and probable reserves will occur some time in the next ten years, and that a decline in production, at the same rate as the increase in production between 1980 and 2005, will continue to mid-century and beyond.

China is clearly preparing to be a re-supplier to its own industries on favorable, discounted terms and to make maximum concentrated use of the buying power of its fast growing GDP in the world oil market.

If the BP estimates are right, this strategy is probably very shrewd and will likely be quite successful.

[Huan]

China's current economic growth is currently state supported if not sponsored. Remember too that the Soviet Union once had very promising official economic growth figures as well. But sustainable economic growth requires a consumer population with disposable income and this China still lack.

[Darrell]

It's funny. The people that put Joe's words into practice have economic growth rates of 1% or less and double-digit unemployment rates. And still the US continues to confound and enrage them with spectacular growth. Hmmm. Their confusion and anger leads them to a brilliant revelation--it's all the US's fault! So they attempt little tricks like Kyoto to pull us into the same sinkhole and raise the cost of doing business in the US. Maybe France could lock in an oil price of, say, $100/bbl for the next twenty years with guaranteed delivery. Sounds silly? They did it in the early 80's (~$45/bbl). I was at the press conference when the French representative announced the agreement. I asked her why she thought oil prices were destined to rise indefinitely, given the cost of production at the largest fields was around $2/bbl at the wellhead, and she said "You Americans are so stupid...I mean, what's the word, naive?...We are guaranteeing our supply for the long term." But at what price? I said. A few years later, world crude oil prices dropped to around $7/bbl.

[North by Northwest]

Joseph,

You also fail to mention the long term implications of what is happening in China.

It's a 12 months prediction, not a 10-year-plan. If I am not mistaken, I am however detecting your desire to increase the government's role in favor of a more centrally planned economy, say, a '5-year plan'...

deteriorate vis-a-vis the World Economy as "economic success" here continues to be defined as "the optimum atmosphere for stock speculation"

Your statement is predicated on the assumption, that the Rest-of-world is going to fundamentally and abruptly change hitherto US-equivalent investment criteria. But there is absolutely no indication to support such an assumption.

I would however like to ask you to explain as to how you have come to believe in this prognosis.

Inescapably, therefore, if your prediction is correct, Israel's strike will either fail because it is insufficient--at most delaying Iranian progress at considerable political cost--or it will be nuclear.

This causal chain is far too much of a an oversimplification to warrant such a deterministic conclusion. For one, you completely ignore the fact that the US forces are precisely where they need to be in the event of an escalation so as to assert the maximum threat and act as a credible deterrent. The numbers argument is really not applicable in so many different ways. Much more important is the question concerning the required political will.

[Joseph Marshall]

I am in far more agreement with you than you might expect, Kenny. Unfortunately, I think some of the proposed cures are far worse than the disease.

I have been in the education business, myself, and I can tell you that there is absolutely one factor more than any other which makes a difference to quality: class size. The more teacher-to-student contact time, the better the results. Other things may make a difference, too, depending upon circumstances, but the effects of class size are universal.

Moreover, I absolutely fault the adult voters of this country for much of the deterioration of public education. There is nothing in our politics more amenable to local public pressure than a school board. And there is nothing more useful to education than a local school levy. Yet how many who complain about the results make the time and effort to get involved?

Most particularly I fault ordinary Americans for not asking what needs to be taught, and acting on it politically. This is not a matter for "specialists". We need to air out thoroughly any and all curricula.

For example, most science classes taught outside of college appear to me to be a waste of time. They are classes about science rather than classes where you do science. And math classes, more than anything, require lower class sizes to be successful.

Beyond this, we have failed to face the fact that talents are unequally distributed and largely have committed ourselves to trying to teach everybody the same thing with the same degree of success. This is foreordained to failure, particularly if other conditions are not favorable. But who among us would be willing to admit that our Johnny is not the brightest crayon in the box.

Beyond that, however, what I meant about the diminishment of American life comes as much from how businesses are run as it does from how much capital is invested in them.

This is where the sacrifice of all to stock speculation has been the most destructive. Stock speculation doesn't require a healthy economy, a healthy market, a healthy market sector, or a healthy company. It only requires a predictably volatile one. Speculation has nothing to do with making things, serving people, or doing business, and it can be a leech on all three.

Functionally, over the last 25 years, the long term health of most publicly capitalized enterprises has been sacrificed to short-term quarterly profit gains.

Such gains, constantly pursued, create both the market volatility and the predicability that pure speculation requires. But they are frequently against the long-term interest of the company, the employees, the industry served, or the country as a whole.

[Kenny Pierce]

Joseph, the relative situation of Americans will diminish if, when, and because the per capita capital investment in America diminishes.

Having an educational system that continues to be run by the American government and the entrenched American educational system is as good a recipe for continuing to turn out a dumbed-down, math-and-science incompetent, undesirable-to-capital-investment workforce as any I can think of off-hand. If you think about that one carefully you might realize that it is not at all intended as a compliment to our Esteemed Leader's "No Child Left Behind"... [mentally running through and discarding a number of inappropriate terms]...initiative, let's call it.

[grinning] And I've put less thought and more prejudice into this comment than into any I can think of in the last month, so have fun demolishing it.

[Joseph Marshall]

Not bad. Particularly the economic analysis. You have been hiding a good deal of worldly knowledge from us, Alexandra.

Though what you fail to mention is that the relative position of most people in the U.S. will continue to slowly deteriorate vis-a-vis the World Economy as "economic success" here continues to be defined as "the optimum atmosphere for stock speculation". You also fail to mention the long term implications of what is happening in China.

I am also impressed by your treatment of the Iran situation, though I am astonished that you don't connect some of the dots about it:

The problem is that, unlike the Osirak bombing in 1981, it would a) probably require ground troops as well; b) require a large number of planes- much larger than the Osirak business- because Iran is on alert and waiting for such a thing.

This quandry has been absolutely and solely manufactured by our bumbling misadventure in Iraq. The troops simply aren't available from us and they won't be anytime soon. Nor do we have any serious place to put them to prepare to invade.

Besides the fact that Iran is about three times bigger than Iraq--and we have yet to establish real control with the troops we have, even in Iraq.

We might be able to reliably destroy Iran's nuclear capacity with conventional weapons. We have enough planes and enough of the right type of munitions, such as cruise missiles. Israel doesn't.

Inescapably, therefore, if your prediction is correct, Israel's strike will either fail because it is insufficient--at most delaying Iranian progress at considerable political cost--or it will be nuclear.

If it is nuclear, the collateral damage in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India from radioactive fallout [the bombs would have to be ground bursts and very, very dirty] will be great, since they are downwind. This will, of course, include a fair number of US and European troops. I'm sure you can extend the probable political consequences from there.

Happy New Year!