Earlier quoted context omitted.
False dichotomy, we don't have to continue at 3% for the 20% prediction to be wrong. So far, I've seen jobs lost to tariffs. I've yet to see a job lost to AI. Observations are not evidence, but so far there is no evidence I see that shows AI to be a stronger macro economic force than say recessions, tariffs (trade wars) or actual wars.
> for the 20% prediction to be wrong. The was also not the bet. > I feel extremely confident taking the other end of this bet. I interpret that as full employment, which we are practically at now. It would be amazing if we can stick on to full employment without serious inflation over the next 5 years, and it sounds unreasonable in my ears.
> I interpret that as full employment, which we are practically at now.
Yeah, no, the other end of the bet is that the 20% unemployment outcome will not happen (and it is implied that anything close to that would count, like say 15% or 17%, and of course anything over 20% would qualify too).
20% unemployment is massive depression level of unemployment; so the other end of the bet is that there won't be a massive depression. That is why I stated you present a false dichotomy that the bet is either "depression" or "full employment", the other end of the bet is "not depression"