Karen, At 09:06 28/09/02 -0700, you wrote: (KWC) >Keith, Merrill Lynch downgraded its GDP growth forecast for next year from >3.8 to 3.3 percent, taking into consideration what a quick war and minimal >disruption from higher oil prices would do to the US economy. > >Salomon Smith Barney cut its projected GDP growth of 2.7 percent for next >year, rather than the 3.4 percent it previously forecast.
I tend to be manic-depressive about these things. As some FWers will remember in the list's earliest years, I was far too hopeful about the potential of the Net. I was thinking in terms of full-blown Net universities by now, and hand-held electronic music readers instead of old-fashioned music scores, and so on and so on. In my own defence, however, even though I was technologically over-optimistic, I became wary of the way share prices were leaping upwards in what I thought was a plainly unsustainable way and withdrew my modest equity investments about four years ago. So I wasn't totally euphoric! (I have to be very diplomatic now when talking about such matters with my neighbours! -- all of whom have lost a great deal of money either directly or in vastly reduced pensions expectations.) So, today, I may very well be too pessimistic. But I certainly don't think that the Merrill Lynch or Salomon Smith Barney forecasts you mention above will be reached -- or anywhere near. I feel that a sharp turning point will be reached quite soon when, finally, US consumers lose their nerve and reduce their spending and start saving (and paying off their credit cards) again. Even slight deflections would have a double whammy effect. (I think this is unconnected with Bush's Iraq policy.) (KWC) >Everyone seems to be confident that vigorous growth is going to happen, but >it keeps getting pushed further into the future, rather than the next >quarter, or one after that, based on all the uncertainty we are >experiencing - and the uncertainty of what we will be doing in the near >future. > >That alone would be good reason for the persistent claim that taking out >Hussein would be a piece of cake, short expenditure, minimal risk. Could be. What's occurring to me in the last few days is that Saddam's position is a great deal more vulnerable than we might imagine -- and, maybe, the CIA knows it. Maybe, a little more pressure and his regime will collapse. But who will take over? Keith P.S. I've been reading the Introduction of Karen Armstrong's book that you posted. To my disappointment, I'm finding it hard going. But the whole issue of Modernism versus Fundamentalism is a fascinating one (particularly within a so-called 'developed' society) and I'm giving it quite a lot of thought. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
