I love how Hamilton puts it. Its a really good read.

I know the pressure to define every problem in terms of a "drop-dead date". I talk to reporters all the time who always want me to summarize any situation, whether it's government debt, oil prices, or the Fed's balance sheet, in terms of when the "tipping point" is really going to be reached. I always try to explain that the world doesn't work that way. Instead, there are risks that gradually increase as the pressures become more significant. How far is too far? I don't know. But why would you voluntarily choose to pile up the risks?

This in particular, hits home for me. When I used to work for government, we were always pressed to give "a due date", an exact date for when the economy would bottom out, an exact date for its uptick, a date when we thought things would drop, literally anything that resembled clear marked out turning points. Its easier to understand and plot things when you have clear targets in mind, but sometimes the haggling over a specific date was tiring. I could give you a number, but it may not mean anything in the end if i have little confidence in its precision. It makes more sense to talk in terms of risks, probabilities and confidence intervals.