3 ms·
>We all know the weather forecast isn't absolutely 100% accurate forecasters who forecast "sunny" paid handsomely, while forecasters who forecast "fog" aren't
by VladRussian 15y ago
>We all know the weather forecast isn't absolutely 100% accurate
forecasters who forecast "sunny" paid handsomely, while forecasters who forecast "fog" aren't paid at all - what would be accuracy of a given forecast for London from these forecasters?
- hugh3 15y agoIf your conspiracy theory were true, then why would S&P be rating the US Treasury at anything other than AAA?
- VladRussian 15y ago>If your conspiracy theory were true, then why would S&P be rating the US Treasury at anything other than AAA? do you really think that the US Treasury buys the rating like mortgage bond junk issuers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_rating#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit_rating#Criticism "Starting in the early 1970s, the "Big Three" ratings agencies (S&P, Moody's, and Fitch) began to receive payment for their work by the securities issuers for whom they issue those ratings, which has led to charges that these ratings agencies can no longer always be impartial when issuing ratings for those securities issuers."
- mdda 15y agoYour point is spot-on, except that it really isn't foggy in London much. It's a US misconception that's a hangover from Victorian smog, Jack-the-Ripper movies, and various songs. More apt would be if the weather forecaster wouldn't be paid for forecasting 'dreary, drab, grey, occasional pathetic rain, etc'. Which would be most of the UK summer...