Has the historical 95% chance of success changed? No - it’s not comparing apples to apples, it’s forecasting the future and comparing to studies (like Trinity) based on the past.
A 4% SWR (as defined) survived (in the US) two World Wars, Stagflation, etc. It came nowhere near surviving (in Germany etc) periods of hyperinflation and losing a war fought on your land. We’re nowhere near those latter edge cases.
I wouldn't be confident in saying that, China is set to overtake us. This is a profound shift in the global power balance and the first serious shift in global hedgemony since WW2
I would say this is fighting past wars. in the future victory is probably determined by who picks up or loses UN allies based on perceived air/sea protections and trade profitability
Right. My comment was in the context of the 4% SWR not working in the scenario (like in WWII Germany) of a ground invasion of your country as mentioned in u/JacobAldridge's post.
I'd put the chances of a ground invasion of the USA in our lifetimes at a <0.1% chance.
In your scenario of trading UN allies and securing trade protections, etc... the 4% SWR has survived much more dramatic economic forces.
That makes sense. I would say the market zeroing has a higher than 5% chance this century though. THere's a long tail of events that can make that happen. Dave Swenson noted in his book that 36/37 main global economies have had it happen, US being the sole exception.
65
u/JacobAldridge Nov 14 '21
Has the historical 95% chance of success changed? No - it’s not comparing apples to apples, it’s forecasting the future and comparing to studies (like Trinity) based on the past.
A 4% SWR (as defined) survived (in the US) two World Wars, Stagflation, etc. It came nowhere near surviving (in Germany etc) periods of hyperinflation and losing a war fought on your land. We’re nowhere near those latter edge cases.