<p>If you think this question is not too broad I have an example for you.
On more than one occasion I went to the store to buy milk. I would not have bought milk if it cost more than \$3. The store (its pricing strategist) knew this, because the milk cost less than \$3! This happens like once a week, so he is pretty good at making predictions.</p>

<p>Since you might argue that the above is a monopoly example: If the milk cost more than \$3 I would have gone to a different store.</p>

<p>There are numerous other examples: Stores usually estimate how many supplies they will need and they frequently get it right.
<br> The FED is frequently wrong, but it is sometimes right, e.g. <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20140618.pdf" rel="nofollow">see 2015 unemployment rate</a> vs. the projection.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:19:45.663Z
So the Fed doesn't even have a consistent way to make predictions
D J Sims
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:20:24.530Z
@BillSwartz That is not at all what I wrote but you are free to invent your own reality. You are also free to do a better job than they are. This will be very lucrative for you, so good luck!
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:21:31.603Z
So then prove that the Fed is able to consistently predict at least something
D J Sims
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:22:20.163Z
@BillSwartz I don't have to do that for you? Lol, taking back the accept after I answered your question because you did not ask it properly...
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:22:38.807Z
Yes you do. Or else you havent done anything
D J Sims
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:23:53.780Z
@BillSwartz I am fine with the latter :)
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:16:08.143Z
2016-06-06T11:16:08.143Z
Giskard
<p>See title. Specifically it would be good to see something that proves some type of market economics and not just a simple monopoly model.</p>

<p>This is not too broad because I am asking for literally one example.</p>

<p>It has to be a consistent prediction and not a hit or miss guess. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:08:54.763Z
New username...?
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/12265/has-economics-ever-provided-useful-predictions
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:23:25.340Z
OP accepted my answer. Then changed his question and took back accept. Avoid unless you want to agree with his worldview. (Echo chamber syncophants are welcome.)
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:24:44.853Z
Hopefully this won't stay open long. But Bill, if every economist just made random, uninformed predictions, some of them are still going to be right all the time, so the plain answer is "yes" with certainty.
VicAche
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:25:15.570Z
That's just a guess
D J Sims
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T11:34:40.700Z
Well, every economist implicitly and accurately predicts that inflation will not be 5,000,000,000% year after year.
DornerA
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T12:22:42.313Z
Even that's wrong
D J Sims
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-06T13:00:31.317Z
Was it correct for last two year? Yes it was. Therefore economists have made a successful economic prediction more than once. There is the answer to your question. The answer is yes.
DornerA
<macroeconomics><microeconomics>
Has anyone made a successful economic prediction more than once?
D J Sims
# Has anyone made a successful economic prediction more than once?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-06-06)

See title. Specifically it would be good to see something that proves some type of market economics and not just a simple monopoly model.

This is not too broad because I am asking for literally one example.

It has to be a consistent prediction and not a hit or miss guess.

**Tags:** macroeconomics, microeconomics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: New username...? http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/12265/has-economics-ever-provided-useful-predictions  
> **username_1**: OP accepted my answer. Then changed his question and took back accept. Avoid unless you want to agree with his worldview. (Echo chamber syncophants are welcome.)  
> **username_2**: Hopefully this won't stay open long. But Bill, if every economist just made random, uninformed predictions, some of them are still going to be right all the time, so the plain answer is "yes" with certainty.  
> **username_0**: That's just a guess  
> **username_3**: Well, every economist implicitly and accurately predicts that inflation will not be 5,000,000,000% year after year.  
> **username_0**: Even that's wrong  
> **username_3**: Was it correct for last two year? Yes it was. Therefore economists have made a successful economic prediction more than once. There is the answer to your question. The answer is yes.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-06-06. Score: 2

If you think this question is not too broad I have an example for you.
On more than one occasion I went to the store to buy milk. I would not have bought milk if it cost more than \$3. The store (its pricing strategist) knew this, because the milk cost less than \$3! This happens like once a week, so he is pretty good at making predictions.

Since you might argue that the above is a monopoly example: If the milk cost more than \$3 I would have gone to a different store.

There are numerous other examples: Stores usually estimate how many supplies they will need and they frequently get it right.
  
 The FED is frequently wrong, but it is sometimes right, e.g. [see 2015 unemployment rate](http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20140618.pdf) vs. the projection.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So the Fed doesn't even have a consistent way to make predictions  
> **username_1**: @BillSwartz That is not at all what I wrote but you are free to invent your own reality. You are also free to do a better job than they are. This will be very lucrative for you, so good luck!  
> **username_0**: So then prove that the Fed is able to consistently predict at least something  
> **username_1**: @BillSwartz I don't have to do that for you? Lol, taking back the accept after I answered your question because you did not ask it properly...  
> **username_0**: Yes you do. Or else you havent done anything  
> **username_1**: @BillSwartz I am fine with the latter :)  

---

