Hi Patrick Thanks for the reply. When did Ed up the ante? I havent been following all the latest for about a month as I have been concentrating on getting the book tidied up for market. Did he post it on his web page?

You also mention that the new figure of 70% refers to, only the probability of it happening and not the actual degree of severity' hmmm, I seem to recollect that in one of Westergaards early editions (September/November 1997), when quoting Ed's 35% figure they mentioned that an 'OPEC - style' recession would be the result of Y2K. (I am thinking here Pat) If a 35% figure represents an OPEC recession, then hypothetically a 70% one (even though it is only an probability) may then, given that it manifests as such, may be even greater than an 20's style recession.

What are your views on this, can we interpret that 70% probability (given the global interconnectedness) as an depth of severity? My interpretation is, if that 70% proves to be actual ie 'proves to be a reality, then the flow on in real terms would be diametrically interposed into - depth of recession. (as I said I am only thinking here, and am open to correction)

Yours Timothy

-- Timothy J Wilbur (timkaz@nor.com.au), July 06, 1998

Answers

Timothy - just a house-keeping comment: you have 4-5 posts with the same title; you could keep it all one post that gets longer and longer. This is preferable, but it requires that the folks replying to you don't mail you DIRECTLY, but reply here in Ed's posting area. One idea is that when folks reply to you directly, copy the post (without their name - maybe they are trying to accomplish this by emailing you directly) into your reply to the same original post. What do you think? (BTW, I'm enjoying your comments!)

-- Mike McNatt (mcnatt@tellabs.com), July 07, 1998.