New at Reason

January 2, 2006

Behold, the prophecies of Ronald Bailey. (2006 edition)

Comments

|1.2.06 @ 8:33AM|#

You missed one.

Demos in Congress will seize on the failure of the Reps to pass the AMT patch, calling it a "middle class tax hike." Reps will indignantly claim that it's not a tax hike despite 75 million people now paying higher taxes...

|1.2.06 @ 9:28AM|#

What, nothing about Jennifer Anniston or Brad Pitt?

My own personal prediction is that I will still only iron my clothes about half the time.

|1.2.06 @ 10:36AM|#

On a related note, on March 2, 2005, poster "Andrew" (who is a big believer in "democratic domino theory") made several predictions in this thread: http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/03/and_the_new_yor.shtml , let's check in on them:

I will venture some predictions, too. BEFORE the end of 2005: Non-governmental militias in the territory of the PA will be disarmed

No.

Syrian troops will be out of Lebanon

Yes, but they had already started withdrawing at the time he made the prediction, as I recall.

the Hizbollah Militia will be disarmed

No.

the regime of Baby Assad in Syria will be replaced by a democracy

No.

Egypt will hold genuine competitive elections

An election, yes, genuinely competitive, no.

the mullahs will be gone, and Iran will be a free republic

No.

Jordan will have largely complete the transition to a constitutional monarchy

I haven't heard anything about any significant government reform in Jordan, but I haven't heard about it getting more oppressive either, so I'll call this a "maybe".

the Gulf states (including Saudi Arabia) will commence the transition to constitutional rule

There were some dubious elections held in the Gulf region, so I will also call this a "maybe".

Pakistan will reach a favorable agreement with India on Kashmir

No.

Musharif will become the father of his country in a way Jenna never was

I don't know how one would measure that, so I'll put "maybe" for this one too.

Not exactly stellar.

|1.2.06 @ 10:54AM|#

BTW, related to Jonathan Rauch's essay that the U.S. pullout from Iraq has begun, it was announced that the administration will not ask for any more money for reconstruction in Iraq in the next budget: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/01/AR2006010101072_pf.html So we can apparently congratulate Bush on cutting wasteful government spending somewhere!

|1.2.06 @ 12:44PM|#

A rising tide of voter disgust with corruption will toss the Republicans out of the U.S. House of Representatives in November elections and a new blessed era of gridlocked government will begin./i>

Three cheers for gridlock! Hip Hip...

|1.2.06 @ 1:01PM|#

Hey SR,

Thanks for bringin' up that thread--you big archivist you!

...I loved that thread! ; )

|1.2.06 @ 1:11PM|#

Rick Santorum will be defeated in his Senate re-election bid and (hopefully) fade away into oblivion.

|1.2.06 @ 1:25PM|#

"Thanks for bringin' up that thread--you big archivist you!"

I saved a copy of Andrew's predictions back when he made them. Although he said they would come true before the end of 2005, I thought I'd generously wait until 2006 before calling him on them.

|1.2.06 @ 1:28PM|#

the mullahs will be gone, and Iran will be a free republic

Not only did this prediction not come true, Iran actually took a step backward.

|1.2.06 @ 1:38PM|#

I think that the social conservatives will start losing their influence in politics even more. I also predict that the Republicans will lose some seats in the house and we will have a Democrat in the Oval Office in 2008. Republicans will still be the majority party in the senate. Pres. Bush�s job approval rating will not be high and the Republicans will blame it on the bias of the liberal media. More moderate Republicans will start to emerge into the political arena. Sen. Ted Stevens and Sen. Rick Santorum will lose their seats in the senate.

|1.2.06 @ 1:49PM|#

Of course, Sen. Stevens will not lose his seat until 2009 and Sen. Santorum in 2006.

|1.2.06 @ 1:58PM|#

"Musharif will become the father of his country in a way Jenna never was"

So there's someone who believes that "Jenna" is the founding father of Pakistan. Interesting ...
I'm restraining all the jokes.

|1.2.06 @ 2:00PM|#

The mullahs in Iran will ban ALL Western music, but will squirrel away a handy stash of Kenny G CDs to torture enemies of Islam.

|1.2.06 @ 2:03PM|#

"So there's someone who believes that "Jenna" is the founding father of Pakistan. Interesting ...
I'm restraining all the jokes."

I'm not.
Jenna Jameson: "Fuck me harder! Fuck me harder! Get down on the prayer rug and fuck me harder! Cum on my veil! Cum on my veil!"

|1.2.06 @ 2:29PM|#

"but will squirrel away a handy stash of Kenny G CDs to torture enemies of Islam"

Kenny G. as torture? That's like a mild wedgie.

ZAMFIR!!! Master of the Pan Flute!!!

Now THERE'S some torture...

|1.2.06 @ 3:10PM|#

He also missed:

1) Politics will become more corrupt.

2) The general public will be more easily fooled.

3) We will get less for our money.

|1.2.06 @ 3:43PM|#

Kudos to Ron for giving an accounting of his predictions. Both liberty and science are nurtured by the light of truth.

I prefer my gridlock in the form of a Dem president and a GOP congress. It slowed down the rate of growth of government pretty well in the Clinton era. A Dem congress with Bush sounds like even more agreement on growing government.

Thanks to SR for shining the spotlight on Andrew's predictions. So a big disciple of intervention got it wrong. Imagine...

|1.2.06 @ 3:52PM|#

Peak oil fears will subside and oil prices will decline to below $50 per barrel.

My corollary will be that the professionals pimping Peak Oil will do the same thing most other pro disaster-mongers do - move the date forward.

Most of the amateurs pimping Peak Oil will either shut up when anyone brings it up or defensively rant about how they were just, you know, open to the possibility while everyone else was dogmatically resisting it with stodgy old facts and logic. A minority will still buy the professionals' work and will periodically remind us that the imminent end of the world is, as always, coming Real Soon Now.

|1.2.06 @ 3:56PM|#

Peak oil fears will subside and oil prices will decline to below $50 per barrel.

Will this price decrease come from reduced worldwide demand for oil, or the discovery of new oil fields, do you think?

|1.2.06 @ 4:39PM|#

Jen,
I am sure it will come from the long suspected source of oil sucked off the faces of teenagers worldwide. ;)

Sandy|1.2.06 @ 4:46PM|#

I suspect those per-barrel oil prices will remain highish, but that Peak Oil fears will continue to diminish as in the US they are fueled by gasoline prices, which were largely spiked by refinery shortfalls from Katrina and other causes, not supply shortfalls.

|1.2.06 @ 4:50PM|#

"There are many methods for predicting the future. For example, you can read horoscopes, tea leaves, tarot cards, or crystal balls. Collectively, these methods are known as 'nutty methods.'
Or you can put well-researched facts into sophisticated computer models, more commonly referred to as "a complete waste of time." -- Scott Adams

"When men speak of the future, the rats laugh in the attic." - ?

|1.2.06 @ 4:51PM|#

Sandy, you think the price of gasoline and the price of a barrel of oil are unrelated? From what I read, the reason prices are currently lower even than pre-Katrina levels is that we imported so much gasoline after the storm that we're still burning through the glut. Once the glut is gone, so too are the low prices.

But as I've said many times before, I hope I'm wrong. I actually like living in an insanely wealthy consumer society, and I enjoy "recreational shopping," and I'd especially hate to think the whole thing woud fall apart just when I'm getting comfortable in it.

And for the benefit of those who don't know what I'm talking about: my belief in Peak Oil doesn't involve any Mad Max scenarios; I just think that energy prices will in the next few years get considerably higher, with no corresponding gains in productivity, which will hurt the economy, perhaps even to the point of another great depression. Not a catastrophe; just very, very unpleasant.

|1.2.06 @ 5:05PM|#

"There are [...] in the attic."

"When Le Mur tries to post to the 'Expert Predictions' thread, the rats laugh in the attic."

|1.2.06 @ 6:14PM|#

Will this price decrease come from reduced worldwide demand for oil, or the discovery of new oil fields, do you think?

discovery...and actually exploiting many of the sources we know already exist but are not being exploited. ANWR, Coal, natural gas, etc

Demos in Congress will seize on the failure of the Reps to pass the AMT patch, calling it a "middle class tax hike." Reps will indignantly claim that it's not a tax hike despite 75 million people now paying higher taxes...

i think you are thinking about the Dems before Bush got elected...yeah they are all gone now and only the moonbats remain.

Three cheers for gridlock! Hip Hip...

Don't we have gridlock now? Oh wait sorry I keep confusing what the republicans say they are going to do with what they actually do.

3) We will get less for our money.

I thought the trend has been less taxes since the late 70's.

A Dem congress with Bush sounds like even more agreement on growing government.

well put.

|1.2.06 @ 6:37PM|#

My dream for divided government:

In 2006 the Dems retake the House or Senate (but not both). They pass a budget so awful that Bush finally discovers his veto pen. Gridlock ensues. The Dems also launch investigations of secret prisons, torture, detentions without trial, and illegal spying. They can't actually pass any bills to deal with the problems because the GOP has the other chamber and Bush has finally found his veto pen, but there's enough outrage that the worst excesses are abandoned.

In 2008, a Dem wins the White House by a narrow margin, but his coattails are non-existent, and the GOP takes back Congress. The GOP spends eight years investigating every single bad thing ever alleged about the Dem President, and makes it impossible for the Dem President to actually do anything.

And, with zero sense of irony, Republican Congressmen give the Dem President some well-deserved criticism for violating civil liberties.

|1.2.06 @ 7:41PM|#

While the Democrats may very well re-take Congress, conservatives will take the defeat as a either a "betrayl by the American people" or the result of election fraud or MSM manipulation. As the result, the GOP will swing further to the extreme becoming more paranoid, jingoistic, hateful, and enamored with the Christian Right.

Meanwhile, seeing the way cleared, the Dems themselves will swing to the hard left and propose every welfare statist proposal they can dream up.

|1.2.06 @ 7:53PM|#

Right on Ron, nice predictions last year - seems like the more things change..well, the more they stay the same..

Thomas Paine's Goiter|1.2.06 @ 8:22PM|#

I predict that the global warming shills will continue to shriek and continue to be proven wrong by the facts.

|1.2.06 @ 8:43PM|#

"I predict that the global warming shills will continue to shriek and continue to be proven wrong by the facts."

I agree and yet, I also predict that the Global Warming 'Skeptics', aka fossile fuels industry shills, will shriek and continue to be proven wrong by the facts.

:D

mjs|1.2.06 @ 9:18PM|#

Somebody said Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK, would be out of office either this year or 2009?!?!? What the hell?

There are only two ways Ted Stevens will not be in the Senate: (1) he retires, which doesn't seem likely at all; or (2) he dies, which hopefully is getting more and more likely each year.


mjs

Thomas Paine's Goiter|1.2.06 @ 9:26PM|#

I agree and yet, I also predict that the Global Warming 'Skeptics', aka fossile fuels industry shills, will shriek and continue to be proven wrong by the facts.

Good point.

|1.3.06 @ 12:14AM|#

Doesn't anyone remember Ashcroft in 2000? Take the Santorum thing one step further.

He will lost his Senate seat and promptly be given a Cabinet position.

|1.3.06 @ 2:05AM|#

I predict libertarians will remain irrelevant to whatever political shifts take place in the United States in 2006.

Happy New Year, y'all! :)

|1.3.06 @ 2:57AM|#

discovery...and actually exploiting many of the sources we know already exist but are not being exploited. ANWR, Coal, natural gas, etc

I think the problem is, that new sources will be exploited, but at a higher cost. Most new oil sources are at higher extraction costs than the dirt cheap middle eastern variety. And new coal plants require new investment; existing coal plants are exempted from more stringent environmental regulation, but adding new capacity requires compliance. Thus, as demand grows, either compliance costs go up or supply is constrained; either way, prices go up.

As for Ted Stevens, isn't he in the Strom Thurmond Memorial Senator-for-Life Club? Here's my prediction- if he doesn't die in office, I'll eat my hat.*

*provided my hat is made of chocolate or pizza.

|1.3.06 @ 6:40AM|#

(1) he retires, which doesn't seem likely at all;

He was apparently pretty close to resigning over the ANWR drilling failure. He's also been a Senator for so long that he's stopped believing that anyone else should have oversight of the money his State recieves, if indeed he ever believed it in the first place(ex. the famous 'bridge to nowhere') A couple more blows like that and I bet he could get just agitated enough to walk out.

|1.3.06 @ 10:03AM|#

I predict that Ron Bailey, over the course of the year, will move from the "we don't know if global warming is caused by human activity" argument to the "we don't know what is the best way to mitigate human-caused global warming" argument.

tomWright|1.3.06 @ 11:30AM|#

The Dems will NOT take the house majority.

There are many reason I detail over on my site, but basically: Reps hold a 29 seat majority, Incumbents rarely lose except for scandal, districts are tailored to them better than a Saville Row suit, only open seats stand any chance at all of a party switch and there will not be enough open seats with weal incumbent party candidates to allow for this to happen.

The Senate is more interesting, but only one third of the seats are up for challenge. So while there are some real stinkers in there, like Santorum, (hey, is that a simile? Stinker/Santorum? hehe), the same criteri apply.

Can the majority be weakened? Definitely, but reversed? Not likly. Possible? Barely, but not likely.

tomWright|1.3.06 @ 11:34AM|#

um, "weal incumbent party candidates" should reak "weak incumbent party candidates"

"criteri" should be "criteria"

|1.3.06 @ 11:37AM|#

twoPoints, tomWright:

First, "except for scandal" isn't the most reassuring qualifier to incumbant House Republicans these days, now is it?

Second, it's starting to look like a mistake that the GOP gerrymandered under the assumption that "Reagan Democrat" types were a safe part of their base, rather than swing voters.

Lotta people with Chinese ribbon magnets on their cars who don't like the direction the GOP is moving in.

|1.3.06 @ 1:40PM|#

2006 will be the warmest year in the next 12 months.