Inflation is way down, so I take a point off for that reason. The EGX 30 continues to go up, and there's no sign of debt default anytime soon. For these reasons, I would be reluctant to be higher than the low single digits unless something changes.
0.375028
Relative Brier Score
Questions Forecasted
Scored Questions
52
Forecasts
15
Upvotes
Forecasting Calendar
Past Week | Past Month | Past Year | This Season | All Time | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forecasts | 9 | 12 | 237 | 52 | 1246 |
Comments | 5 | 8 | 67 | 36 | 518 |
Questions Forecasted | 9 | 11 | 48 | 23 | 183 |
Upvotes on Comments By This User | 0 | 2 | 71 | 15 | 491 |
Definitions |


Why do you think you're right?
Why might you be wrong?
I may be underestimating how rapidly things can change.

Why do you think you're right?
Thinking about the base rate, adjusting for factors such as ECOWAS focusing on coup prevention reducing it, but at the same time political crisis in Mozambique and a new travel advisory for Guinnea-Bissau warning of political instability .
Why might you be wrong?
The 40% might be a bit high, since I might be overweighting recent history. On the other hand though, I do think that the dismantling of USAID, as flawed as that agency no doubt was, might boost the odds of coups in some of the countries. Less aid from the US means less money keeping things stable.

Why do you think you're right?
Reiterating at 5%. You start with base rate, which the last time Iran did this in a way that would have resolved as Yes was in 1980 with the Iran-Iraq war. Somehow that was 45(?) years ago. (Time flies.) One divided by 45 is 2%. That is the base rate.
I then bump the base rate up, due to the news. Tensions are building up due to the Iranian-back Houthis, Iran building its capabilities including potential nuclear capabilities, the US is flowing in forces, and of course there is the possibility that Israel could take aggressive steps even without US support.
On the other hand too, it's important to think about factors against a war occurring. It could be catastrophic to the Iranians, and from the US perspective it could become another Iraq-style quagmire, if US ground troops are drawn in.
Why might you be wrong?
Trump is reported to be in heavy negotiations with Iran (good summary here by Antiwar.com), and it's easy to envision a strong ultimatum that gets out of control, and one thing leads to another.




Why do you think you're right?
The pace is around 82 in the time period, so I'm boosting the higher bins. There has been a spate of misinformation lately, with respect to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Why might you be wrong?
If there is a quick ceasefire and everything seems to go well, then I would imagine the pace would slow.


Why do you think you're right?
I'll come in above the Crowd a little bit on this. There was just an agreement for an energy infrastructure ceasefire, and there is definitely the sense that things are coming to an end soon.
Why might you be wrong?
There's big human element to the negotiations, and it may be nearly impossible to predict that aspect. From Putin's perspective, there's not a lot of domestic political cost to continuing the war like there would be if Russia were a democracy. Russia is reported to be making a lot of aggressive territorial demands.
Why do you think you're right?
There was some initial promise a few weeks ago, but negotiations seem to have gotten bogged down. The Ukrainians and Russians are well-entrenched, and it's not clear to me that either side has a lot of incentive to have a ceasefire. Russia by all accounts is driving a hard bargain. Ukraine so far is able to keep Russian forces at bay as long as it gets the materiel it needs.
Why might you be wrong?
Love him or hate him, it's hard to deny that Trump is a good negotiator. Maybe he can pull something out of a hat.