August 7th, 2010
|03:41 pm - Fiction prediction|
I find the blog format an irresistible medium for prediction, perhaps because it is date-stamped. I don't mean mystic prognostication, I mean guesses about what will happen next. That can be serious political stuff or trivial guesses about who Moriarty will be.
And then it's quite fun to track the success of your own predictions. Of course like any pundit one might - in all innocence - remember one's successful predictions better than the others. I wonder whether the recording function of the Internet will change the way predictions are made and received. Will the better predictors be rewarded with increased attention? Does it make any difference that some commentators made stupid predictions and pronouncements (for example about the Iraq war), all of which were proved wrong, in short or long order?
I'm not sure it does, because like everything else in our culture, power relations are decisive. We can see a struggle over narrative going on right now in politics, to do with the banking crisis, and its effects on the economies. It is a power struggle: was it the greed of the bankers or the greed of the poor which caused the budget crisis? Anyway, that makes political prediction frustrating, because by the time you have been proved right, the powerful have rewritten the back-story to prove themselves right.
Fiction prediction is more fun. I've got three examples in mind: one past, two to come.
The Little Stranger. I thought Sarah Waters was dropping clues that mild-mannered Dr Faraday was the source of the evil which afflicted the house. Many online friends felt this too, but the professional reviewers took a very different view. I think in this article in the Guardian she more or less states that we were correct about her intention. 'Hooray for us'
Moriarty. I feel that in his article yesterday in the Guardian, Moffat strongly implies that Moriarty will be a lone male character, not a woman or an organisation:
Moriarty's coming back this Sunday. We're not telling you how, or who, or why, but careful where you step and avoid the shadows, because he is back in business.What do you think? I think the other options would have been excellent approaches, but I don't think we will see them this time.
Mad Men. It wasn't exactly a prediction, but I think executrix might be on to something. She asked whether the ad agency's major client (keep sweet at all costs), had sexually harassed Don Draper yet. The more I think about it, the more I think they are setting it up. Mad Men doesn't feature much karmic justice, but if anyone's due a taste of his own medicine it's Don, who sacked Sal last season for not playing nice with Mr Harassment. I hope he is maximally discomfited this Sunday night.
No Exit MadMen style...Don gets to spend *eternity* with Mr Harassment and one of the innumerable women he Done Wrong.
Sounds like a party! I just remembered (and this is a mild spoiler) that Don brought his shenanigans to the work place last week, so he's ripe for a comeuppance.
Ummm... I'm not sure when I'm going to see this episode of Mad Men. The last couple of things you revealed weren't particularly significant, but I read enough of a sentence here to avert my eyes from the rest of it. Any chance of a cut?
I only mention facts from season 3, and a speculation about season 4 episode 3. But I've cut just in case.
was it the greed of the bankers or the greed of the poor which caused the budget crisis?
Bit of an excluded middle going on there. Many people would say much of it was the gross irresponsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in running an unsustainable deficit from 2002 onwards.
I think that's just a cover-story for the 'greedy poor' model. Basically, the banks broke the economy, and single parents in Belfast are going to pay for it.
|Date:||August 8th, 2010 12:34 pm (UTC)|| |
The consistent 2-3% deficit spending from 2002 onwards was always bound to his a brick wall sooner or later. The banking crisis just made it happen a bit quicker. The bulk of our debt, and a substantial amount of our structural deficit, was built up since 2002 by irresponsible levels of public spending. And sooner or later, single parents in Belfast were going to have to pay for it.
Labour politicians of course try to shift all the blame onto the banks. They're a convenient scapegoat, insofar as a chunk of the mess was actually caused by them (enabled by the regulatory regime of Brown and Balls), and of course they are mostly quite unpleasant people. But we shouldn't allow Labour to wriggle out of responsibility for the 2002-2008 budget deficit. There is nothing progressive about building up public debt.
Well, I'm sure you know that there are different economic theories, which I could go into, perhaps link to left wing people expressing what I believe, and then you could counter with links to right wing people expressing counter views.
Instead I make a prediction. I predict that the current method chosen to manage the economy is a hugely worse one. I predict that the current growth will stop, will reverse, that the tax base will dwindle, that unemployment will soar. I predict that the economy will begin to shrink.
Now, I genuinely hope I am wrong. The minor irritation of being proved wrong on the Internet that one time is peanuts to the misery I will feel if my prediction is true.
And furthermore, I do not think there will even be the futile satisfaction, if the prediction comes to pass, of anyone on the right ever acknowledging that the left wing might have a point.
Which is why I prefer to make predictions about Moriarty.
That was me, sorry. Forgot to log in.
And I should have replied here, to trigger a notification.