We could until you dropped in. :-)
>Particularly when they are rather large as is the case here. You've got to
multiply them and then take the nth-root. So
1.063x0.91x0.937x0.867x0.988x1.111x1.089x1.131x1.053= 1.1187 over the cycle
>
>1.1187^(1/9) = 1.0125
That this is even lower strengthens the point I made, such as it was.
>No?
Yes. Thanks, though all this precision is disproportionately high relative to the crude argument that transpired (e.g., the trustees prediction is not credible because it is lower than the awful depression decade vs. it isn't very much lower and, on this account, is marginally more credible).
In spite of all I've said, I do agree it is useful, if not sufficient, to say the prediction is tantamount to assuming a depression-like business cycle for most of the next century.
MBS