I always appreciate hearing your take on this issues, but unless you can
propose a more detailed theory, I still think the Y2K theory seems much more
likely and reasonable at this point.
Since nothing happens for me in the years 2000 and 2001, the peak in
expenses seem to be in error. Even if it turns out to be a bug unrelated to
a classic Y2K bug, and just happens to*up my forecast for those 2
years, it's still appears to be a bug.
However, it also interesting coincidence that I found it only after someone
else reported having trouble with the forecaster around 2000.
I agree that the forecast rules are quite complex, but that only means bugs
will be that much harder to reproduce, as we've all discovered.
I spent quite a bit of time experimenting last night, but nothing I tried
moved those expense peaks. If I discover anything else that might explain
the behavior, I'll post it.
>I doubt that it's a Y2K problem. It must have to do with one or more of
>the many inputs into the lifetime forecast, some (but not all) of which
>are detailed at
>http://www.veryComputer.com/'t know what
>the reason could be, but my own forecast, which is shown in today's
>dollars with zero inflation, shows no change whatever in living expenses
>from 1999 to 2002.
>The problem lies with the complexity of the forecast rules, not with