StopSylviaBrowne - Your Help With 1997 Predictions

All of the input I received with the 1996 predictions was a huge help in getting that article put together, so I thought I would try it again with 1997's list!

Anyone who is interested, I would ask that you do the following in this thread. For each prediction you wish to research or comment upon, add a post, including the following:

1. The category and prediction number (eg: WEATH-01" - see list in second post).

2. Your "score" for the prediction. Currently, those scores are WRONG, UNKNOWN/UNKNOWABLE, RIGHT, COMMON SENSE (for predictions like "There will be earthquakes in California") and ALREADY KNOWN (Such as predicting a medical breakthrough which had already been published in JAMA). Those categories may change, but they will do for a start.

3. Your reasons for giving the prediction the score you have.

4. Links which back up the score you gave the reading. The more authoritative the link, the better. Use Wikipedia sparingly.

Please don't worry about how you phrase your posts, as I will most likely rewrite everything into a consistent tone.

Please do not be offended if the score I give a particular prediction differs from yours.

I will combine any research I have already performed, the research and input I receive in this thread, and come up with my own verdict. I will also be adding comments giving the prediction context within other predictions she has made on the same topic (eg: "She's predicted this three years in a row now.." or "Two years ago she predicted just the opposite").

There are already some articles out there researching some of her annual lists. If there are any for the year in question, I would suggest/request that you NOT read them until your research its done. It would be best to each do our own original research, rather than letting earlier research possibly effect our judgement. I will be taking those earlier articles into account when coming up with my verdicts.

Also, please don't get ahead of the class and start a thread about another year. Let's take this one year at a time.

Finally, don't worry if your research into a prediction leads you to a differnt conclusion than someone else who has already posted theirs. I hope to get as many and varied opinions as possible before deciding how to write each prediction up.

A final note about scoring a prediction: Unless the prediction specifies a different time frame, I plan on judging each prediction based on the year for which the prediction was made. In other words, If the prediction says "Fred Smith will die," I will assume she meant that he will die in 1996. If she says "Fred Smith will die in the next three years" then I would judge it based on THAT time span. Also, unless the prediction speifies otherwise, I am assuming that it is meant to apply to the USA.

On to the predictions, in the second post:

(All are taken from this archived page from Browne's site)

World Affairs / Economy

• WORLD-01: The US economy continues to recover over the next two years.
• WORLD-02: The interest rates begin to climb again in July of 1997.
• WORLD-03: Real estate is in an all-time boom. It is now a buyer's and seller's market, and refinancing comes to a slow crawl.
• WORLD-04: The stock market keeps "roller coastering," especially in March and October. This is when it goes into a downward spiral.
• WORLD-05: There is a freeze on Oriental importing and exporting.
• WORLD-06: The US begins to take back its resources and find that we again begin to work and produce our own steel, oil, etc.
• WORLD-07: Tourism is at an all-time high. Airlines commit to the lowest rates ever for travel.
• WORLD-08: The Middle East still simmers and explodes in February which makes us send more troops to quell Saddam Hussein.
• WORLD-09: Uprising of great magnitude occurs in Russia. This promotes the rise of Communism again in August and September.
• WORLD-10: There will be more bombings. A commercial airline leaving Egypt could be at risk in April.
• WORLD-11: Government buildings, especially in Chicago and New York, are at risk to be bombed or a threat of bombing in May.
• WORLD-12: A mall, perhaps the mall in Minnesota, could be at risk of a bomb in June.

Weather

• WEATH-01: There will be a rash of hurricanes in the South as never seen before. Flooding of great magnitude will also be disastrous in May.
• WEATH-02: Tornadoes will devastate parts of Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri in April in greater numbers.
• WEATH-03: Huge hail devastates crops in Idaho and Kansas in June.
• WEATH-04: Earthquakes come in rapid succession. There will be a series hitting the Northwest in April and September, approximately 4.9. No real damage.
• WEATH-05: There is a series of earthquakes hitting Los Angeles in January again. No real damage: 5.2.
• WEATH-06: Northern California sees another earthquake in October, about 5.0, and in the Central Valley, 4.6.
• WEATH-07: This will be a very cold winter across the country, but not as wet as last year, more moderate.
• WEATH-08: Mexico is in for a 6.4 earthquake in May. Very devastating.
• WEATH-09: New York will have a milder winter.

Health

• HEALT-01: There are more breakthroughs on a preventative vaccine for AIDS.
• HEALT-02: A combination of amino acids and vegetable enzymes will be introduced to help diabetes.
• HEALT-03: Genetic research on DNA to help combat cancer will be a great breakthrough in the middle of 1997.
• HEALT-04: There will be extensive breakthroughs on heart patients. A type of sounding, likened to high-powered radio waves, will break down plaque in arteries.
• HEALT-05: There are two unidentified virus breakouts which attack the liver and lungs and seem to be impervious to antibiotics.
• HEALT-06: The use of the flu and cold viruses introduced into the system to fight cancer becomes perfected.
• HEALT-07: A secondary viral infection, an off-shoot to AIDS, defies detection.
• HEALT-08: Hepatitis A, B and C are at epidemic proportions.
• HEALT-09: Skin rashes that defy diagnosis are also prevalent.
• HEALT-10: UV rays become even stronger and are at a greater risk of causing more skin cancer and eye problems.
• HEALT-11: Hair loss among males and females is also at an all-time high because of the ozone layer breaking down.
• HEALT-12: There is a breakout of very old illness: tuberculosis, measles, and whooping cough.
• HEALT-13: We keep cutting our forest, and more and more viruses are let loose.
• HEALT-14: There will be a shot to help smokers break the habit.

Celebrities

• CELEB-01: Liz Taylor's health fails even more.
• CELEB-02: Katherine Hepburn and Bob Hope die this year.
• CELEB-03: Barbra Streisand marries an actor.
• CELEB-04: Tom Cruise adopts again.
• CELEB-05: The J.F.K. Jr's expect a baby.
• CELEB-06: There is a scandal revealed about Hillary Rodham Clinton and an old affair.

CELEB 1- N/A- Liz Taylor did undergo surgery for a brain tumor in March 1997, had the flu and a seizure but that kinda happens to Liz Taylor every year, having had over 40 major surgeries in her life. And I don't know what "even more" would be.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE0D61F31F930A35750C0A961958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/T/Taylor,%20Elizabeth

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...rence/Times Topics/People/T/Taylor, Elizabeth

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...rence/Times Topics/People/T/Taylor, Elizabeth

CELEB 2- WRONG- Bob Hope died in 2003: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/hope.obit/

As did Miss Hepburn: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/29/hepburn.obit/index.html

CELEB 3- WRONG- Oh, close! Streisand did marry an actor- what a long shot- but in 1998: http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Music/9807/02/streisand.update/index.html

CELEB 4 - WRONG- Tom Cruise has two adopted children with his now ex-wife Nicole Kidman and both were adopted before 1997. Here's a photograph of them together: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=479910&in_page_id=1773

Tom Cruise now has a toddler daughter with his wife, Katie Holmes. She is not adopted.

CELEB 5- WRONG- John Kennedy and his wife had no children when they died in 1999. All of his estate went to other relatives:

http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/wills/jfkjr.html

CELEB 6- WRONG- I can find no such scandal.

"Could be at risk?" Heck, even "are at risk" is too vague to analyze. My pet bunny could be at risk.

Luckily there is some overlap and some of the previous research will apply here, too, such as regarding the earthquake in Mexico.

HEALT-07: A secondary viral infection, an off-shoot to AIDS, defies detection.

So, if the prediction is that it fails to be detected in 1997, that would make it pretty much impossible to prove the prediction as nobody would know about it...

So I give this a rating of UNKNOWABLE. Or maybe just LOOPY.

HEALT-12: There is a breakout of very old illness: tuberculosis, measles, and whooping cough.

WRONG, WRONG, ALREADY KNOWN

The wording of this prediction implies a significant new breakout of these illnesses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the incidence of TB has declined steadily in the US since 1993, measles had decreased since the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963 to a record low in 2000, and pertussis (whooping cough) had already been known to be increasing since the 1980s, if I understood all that correctly.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/pertussis_t.htm

Interesting quote from CDC web site:
"Pertussis is an endemic illness. In the United States epidemics occur every 3-5 years. The most recent epidemic occurred in 1996. Overall increase in cases since 1990, with disproportionate increase in adolescents and adults."

So, the most recent pertussis epidemic occurred in 1996, the year the predictions were made...

HEALT-12: There is a breakout of very old illness: tuberculosis, measles, and whooping cough.

Note:
Robert, this could also be RIGHT, ALREADY KNOWN if you ignore the implication that this is something new and unusual for 1997. According to the CDC, there is still a breakout of ALL of those illnesses each year in some part of the population of the US, which is even worse globally. Sylvia may have been under the mistaken impression that these illnesses had been completely eradicated.

The overall incidence of measles in the US seems to be extremely low. A graph that shows the incidence in the US through 1997 can be found here, showing that in 1997 it was at one of its lower points:
http://phps.dhs.co.la.ca.us/acd/reports/annual/cd97/cd97meas.pdf

Again, these numbers were up at a high point in '92, steadily declining through '97.

RSLancastr said:

[*]WEATH-01: There will be a rash of hurricanes in the South as never seen before. Flooding of great magnitude will also be disastrous in May.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Although since 1995 and '96 were two of the worst in a while, I guess it seemed like a safe bet.

"Never before seen"? is clearly wrong/unknown, given a million years of humanity, but if we go historical, NOAA lists 1997 as one of the calmest seasons on record. The worst, by the way, are summarized:
Here..

To sum up, the worst seasons by # of major hurricanes were:
8 - 1950
7 - 1961
6 - 1916, 1926, 1955, 1964, and 1996

In comparison, 1997 had one major hurricane, Danny, which was a cat1 when it made landfall and caused minor flooding. There were no other significant landfalls. I'll try and research the flooding next, since it could be treated as a seperate item.

WEATH-01 (part b)
Problematic in that flooding happens all the time. I also can't tell if she is tying the hurricane+South to the flooding. Otherwise she means flooding across the USA and that's pretty much a COMMON SENSE.

Here's a list of significant floods of the 20th century from the USGS. In 1997 there were significant floods: In North Dakota, Montana and Minnesota. Ohio gets a mention, but that was in in January and isn't generally considered part of the South.

So, either COMMON SENSE (all of USA) or WRONG (South).

WEATH-02: Tornadoes will devastate parts of Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri in April in greater numbers.

Wrong. Tornado History Project, from NWS data

April 1997
21 F1 Tornadoes, 0 in OK/KA/MI
2 F2 Tornadoes, neither in OK/KA/MI
0 F3 Tornadoes
0 F4 Tornadoes
0 F5 Tornadoes

WEATH-08: Mexico is in for a 6.4 earthquake in May. Very devastating.
Wrong:
1997 quakes:
# 1997 12 05 - Near East Coast of Kamchatka - M 7.8
# 1997 10 14 - South of Fiji Islands - M 7.8
# 1997 09 26 - Central Italy - M 6.4 Fatalities 11
# 1997 07 09 - Near Coast of Venezuela - M 7.0
# 1997 05 21 - Jabalpur, India - M 5.8 Fatalities 38
# 1997 05 10 - Northern Iran - M 7.3 Fatalities 1,567

Major Quakes in Mexico:
# 1965 08 23 - Oaxaca, Mexico - M 7.3 Fatalities 6
# 1968 08 02 - Oaxaca, Mexico - M 7.1 Fatalities 18
# 1979 10 15 - Imperial Valley, Mexico - California Border - M 6.4
# 1985 09 19 - Michoacan, Mexico - M 8.0 Fatalities 9,500
# 1999 06 15 - Central Mexico - M 7.0

HEALT-14: An injection consisting of hyoscyamine, scopolamine and hydroxyzine with the intention of ceasing nicotine addictions has been under investigation since 1986. It was first tested on subjects in 2004, with 64% of smokers having kicked the habit by the end of the study.

Phase II trials began in 2005 and one version of the vaccine could be ready for the public in three years (five years according to the 2005 article.)

Googling "smokers vaccine" has a ton of information, but the vaccine itself doesn't seem to be out yet.

If the prediction was to be realized in 1997 (which is difficult to say thanks to her wording), I'd say it's WRONG. It's still not available to the public.

I'd also call it COMMON SENSE. People will try anything to stop smoking, and the idea was already being studied ten years prior to her prediction.

HEALT-08: Hepatitis A, B and C are at epidemic proportions.

Hepatitis A: ALREADY KNOWN

Hepatitis A was considered to have reached epidemic proportions between 1987 and 1997 so that was ALREADY KNOWN. During the late 1990s, when hepatitis A vaccine became more widely used, the number of cases reached historic lows.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5019a6.htm

Hepatitis B: WRONG

The number of new hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections per year has declined from approximately 450,000 during the 1980s to approximately 80,000 in 1998.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5019a6.htm

Hepatitis C: WRONG

The number of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections per year declined from approximately 240,000 during the 1980s to approximately 40,000 in 1998.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5019a6.htm

RSLancastr said:

[*]WEATH-03: Huge hail devastates crops in Idaho and Kansas in June.

Click to expand...

It hails every year in Tornado alley, so this is part COMMON SENSE. As for unusual hail, I cannot find anything to suggest she's not WRONG
From: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/archive/

I had to do some sorting through NOAA's warning archive
In June 1997 there were 1726 Hail warnings from NWS based on Tornado activity. 51 in Iowa, 178 in Kansas.

# Hail warnings in June, Iowa and Kansas
June 1995: Iowa=11, Kansas=128
June 1996: Iowa=54, Kansas=272
June 1997: Iowa=51, Kansas=178
June 1998: Iowa=75, Kansas=288

Also, from the Casualty Actuarial Society, hail crop damage reports (from 1993, sadly). For insurance! Guess what two states are in the top 5 list, a list which comprises HALF of all Hail insurance. COMMON SENSE ahoy. Anyway, I haven't found any insurance info on Hail-crop policies for 1997 or 1998 (which would reflect a shift if there was some huge 1997 event). Everything so far is coming up "nothing important" in 97

WEATH-09: New York will have a milder winter.

CORRECT!

New York had it's second warmest winter in 1997-1998. Another source reports this winter as almost snowless.

WORLD-07: Tourism is at an all-time high. Airlines commit to the lowest rates ever for travel.

"Tourism is at an all-time high."

There had been an increase in 'pleasure trips by U.S. residents' since 1994. This trend continued to 1998, but it did decline in 1999. As of 1997, however, it could possibly be said that it was at an all-time high, though I have no historical data from prior to 1994. (Curious to note, however, is that fewer trips were taken by air in '97 and '96, than in '95 and '94.) (1)

[The second part of the prediction, (lower rates) doesn't necessarily mean there would be more people flying, however. While it might seem to make sense that if there are more travelers and lower airline rates, more would travel by air, there may be other circumstances, like the narrowly averted American Airline strike in February of 1997. (2) Turns out this was wrong anyway, but I'm getting ahead..]

"Airlines commit to the lowest rates ever for travel."

In response to the possible strike and lost reservations, American cut prices and competitors followed suit, also (2). This seems to have been a temporary cut in prices, however.

I think this ATPI (Air Travel Price Index) chart (3) indicates that 1997 shows, not only a rise in price, but higher than the end of 1995. (Near as I can understand it, the beginning of 1995 is a baseline 100, end of '95 the price rose slightly, for 1996 the price fell, but then rose again even higher than the end of 1995 for 1997 at 103.5)

My conclusion: An increase in "pleasure trips" was a trend of at least a few years and would be a good guess. (There was also a 1% increase of U.S. travelers to outside the country, and while 1% seems awfully small, it is an increase. This may qualify for being outside the US, however, so I mention it only in passing here, though referenced in 'other notes' below.) I would guess this would be 'right' however it doesn't seem much of a prediction. With a higher population and increasing economy, more tourism would just seem to make sense. (Quick links for the economy and population: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap3.htm and http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_popl.html)

However, the second part of this prediction seems to be 'wrong' entirely. It had a moment in February when prices dropped, but as it turns out costs increased for the year.

(1) Characteristics of Pleasure Trips by U.S. Residents, http://allcountries.org/uscensus/445_characteristics_of_pleasure_trips_by_u.html [Source: Travel Industry Association of America, Washington, DC, TravelScope, annual (copyright)].

(2) Major Fare War Heats Up Skies, Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/1997/0219/021997.us.us.5.html

(3) Air Travel Price Index (ATPI) Up 1.8 Percent in Second-Quarter of 2005 from Second Quarter of 2004; Top Increase in San Jose, CA, Top Decrease in Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Transportation, http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2005/bts049_05/html/bts049_05.html

Other notes:

A summary profile of U.S. Travelers abroad (traveling outside the U.S.) and payment figures (expenditures by U.S. travelers abroad). The table is ranked by outbound visitation volume for select countries. (http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/cat/f-1997-15-001.html) The chart (http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-1997-15-001/index.html) lists only a 1% increase in U.S. travelers to outside the country from 1996 to 1997. This is, however, U.S. travelers leaving the country, not domestic travel or tourism.

---

This is just a projection of business travel air expenses, not tourists. It, however, seems to show that prices were high in July and expected to stay that way. This would seem to back up the ATPI chart:

Business Press; 07/11/97, Vol. 10 Issue 11: Business travelers shouldn't expect to find those great airfare deals later this year, industry watchers say. In fact, prices are predicted to stay in the record-high. stratosphere for the rest of 1997.

Also, from that article: Analysts at BTI Americas Inc., one of the country's largest travel service and management companies,' say in the summer issue of Business Airfare Update, the strong demand for air travel combined with a growing economy and fiat growth in the demand for airline seat capacity are producing fares increases as much as 22 percent over last year. And the numbers are climbing, says Chris Miller, BTI Americas air industry analyst.

"Look for business airfares to continue their upward movement in 1997, at a higher rate than in 1996," Miller said. "Despite a slight dip in overall fare prices during the first quarter, corporate travelers in the long-haul distance interval paid the highest ticket prices ever recorded by Business Airfare Update: $1,555 for an average round trip of 1,500 miles or more. There could be an overall 14 percent increase in business airfares for 1997 vs. 1996."

(Whole article not quoted. The article was found, however, though my local library and access is restricted, I assume a service my library has subscribed to. The author is Belinda Willis of The Business Press. It lists this as the "persistent link to this record": http://search.ebscohost.com/login.a...oginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site)

---

Although this seems indirect information, Consumer Reports in an article "How To Beat Sky-High Fares" had this to say:

It's been nearly two chaotic decades since Congress deregulated the airline industry, and travelers have learned to endure gridlocked airports, cramped cabins, and skimpy in-flight service in their search for the low fares that competition was supposed to deliver. Fares have indeed dropped. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) reports that the cost of air travel has fallen from an industrywide average of 12.7 cents per mile in 1981 to just 8 cents today, adjusted for inflation. But low fares often don't show up at all in scores of smaller cities or in large markets monopolized by a single carrier. And airfares are so unstable and unpredictable it's hard to know whether the price you're quoted is a bargain or a bad deal.

(Whole article not quoted. Consumer Reports, July97, Vol. 62 Issue 7, p20, 6p, 5 charts, 39 graphs, 7c. This, also, was from "EBSCOhost" a service my local library seems to subscribe to. The link is http://search.ebscohost.com/login.a...oginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site though will require a login. I could not find the article in a search of consumerreports.org, however, that may be a subscribed service, anyway.)

I would think this supports the 1995 and 1996 trend listed in the ATPI for lower costs. It also gives an indication as to why 1997 would be expected by someone, psychic or not, that it would have even lower airfare costs.

Quick edit: I stumbled upon an article in some restaurant magazine, which I only glanced at because it didn't seem to have a good quote of a source, however it seemed to imply that if the economy is down, more tourists come to America (well, American restaurants) and if the economy is strong, more Americans will travel, in general. I'm not an economist, but could a very broad statement of "Tourism will increase" be always true, just relative of whom? (She did say at an 'all-time high' but just for argument's sake.)

> WORLD-03: Real estate is in an all-time boom. It is now a buyer's and seller's market, and refinancing comes to a slow crawl.

A buyer's market is where you have more houses up for sale than buyers. Like what we are experiencing now. A seller's market is where you have more buyers than people selling. Like what we experienced for the last decade or so. To have both is an impossibility unless you are talking about a *perfect* market condition which really doesn't exist.

Also, as anyone in the market knows, real estate is a local game. It not only varies state to state but city to city. A claim that it's a buyer's and seller's market is impossible unless you break it down to say it's a buyer's market in Town A and a seller's market in Town B.

The claim about housing market is simply unverifiable by impossibility and design.

Still looking for refi data but I'm guessing that it's wrong. We didn't really see a slowdown in refi until fairly recently.



Now to cherry pick:

CELEB-02: Katherine Hepburn and Bob Hope die this year.

Hope and Hepburn both died in 2003.

Hope cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/28/obit.hope/index.html

Hepburn nytimes.com/2003/06/29/obituaries/29CND-HEPBURN.html?ex=1372305600&en=9511324c8d58ec93&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

WORLD-04: The stock market keeps "roller coastering," especially in March and October. This is when it goes into a downward spiral.

If we assume NYSE, as per SB's history, then she's:
Wrong

DJIA opened 1997 at 6544 and ended around 8000, following a trend that has lasted decades. There was very little overall shift for the year. As for Mar/Oct, March varied from 6700 to 7000 and back to 6800, which makes for a pretty boring rollercoaster. There was a fair drop at the end of October (from 8100 to 7100) but that was gained back in early November. There is no downward spiral in 1997, in fact the markets grew until 2001.

NASDAQ could at least be called "interesting" in April/May, but hardly a rollercoaster. It followed the Dow through the second half of 1997, which was up.

WORLD-08: The Middle East still simmers and explodes in February which makes us send more troops to quell Saddam Hussein.

False? I can't find anything like that. Turkey did attack Kurds in the north, but in September. I don't think this qualifies as an 'explosion' though. (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2145576020071021)

Also in November of 1997 Iraq expelled UN inspectors and "Three days later, six Americans were expelled from Iraq and forced to drive 13 hours across the desert to Jordan. They were accompanied by a Briton and an Australian." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/iraq/30549.stm)

This seems to have prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to visit Arab capitals of countries in which we had troops, an Air Force base or a Navy base.

From the Chicago Tribune, Nov. 16, 1997, pg. 3: Albright declined to say whether she would be seeking commitments from Arab governments to station more troops or equipment on their soil. A senior U.S. official said military matters likely would come up, but that this is "not a trip about military consultation per se. This is a trip to consult with our friends in the gulf."

(I tried to find something like this elsewhere that was free, but this was the best I could find and it's another that was available by way of my local library and probably requires a subscription. In any event, the link is: http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.sjcpl...QT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1194292023&clientId=18373 Very sorry I don't have something better but this was the best I could find.)

That, to me, would seem to show that we hadn't even begun to "send more troops" (which is vague and doesn't exactly say where, although it seems it could only be where we already had troops or a base).

The Statistical Abstract of the United States seems to be a great source for all kinds of statistics.

WORLD-06: The US begins to take back its resources and find that we again begin to work and produce our own steel, oil, etc.

We have always worked and produced our own steel and oil. The prediction appears to imply that we began a trend in 1997 to produce more domestic steel and oil compared to imported steel and oil than we had prior to 1997. This is really two predictions (steel and oil) and we have no idea what "etc" might refer to. But let's look at steel and oil production separately:

STEEL: WRONG.

According to this document, which has a table of data collected from the Statistical Abstract of the United States listed above (the data is available as an Excel document), no data on the import and export of steel was available for 1997. However, there is data for 1949, 1959, 1969, 1979, 1988 and 1998. The numbers show the amount of steel produced in the U.S., the amount of steel exported, and the amount of steel imported for those years. According to the document:

Following World War II, the U.S. steel industry dominated the world. Imports into U.S. steel markets were essentially nonexistent, following the destruction of much of the steel-making capacity in Germany and Japan. A significant proportion of U.S.-produced steel was exported. Between 1950 and the end of the twentieth century, domestic steel output grew by about 48 percent. Imports, however, grew by 37,000 percent. Between 1970 and 2000, they grew by 196 percent. Domestic production grew by less than 10 percent during those three decades. U.S. dominance in steel ended by 1970 and domestic purchasers of steel have become increasingly reliant on imported steel (see Table 2).

Click to expand...

In 1988, the U.S. produced 102,700 thousand short tons of steel. In 1998, the U.S. produced 102,400 thousand short tons, a decrease in 300 thousand short tons over those 10 years. Meanwhile, imports went up from 20,000 to 41,500 thousand short tons during the same time period. So the U.S. certainly didn't see any increase in steel production during those 10 years, which means that in order for Sylvia's prediction to be accurate, there would have had to have been a sudden increase in 1997 and then a sharp decline the following year. That seems rather unlikely. Furthermore, Sylvia's prediction seems to indicate a continuing trend, which is clearly not the case with steel.

OIL: WRONG.

According to the Energy Information Association (Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government) document here (see Figure 79) U.S. crude oil production decreased each year from to 1991 to 2006 while demand for oil and as a result imports of oil rose during the same years (see Figure 83), although they seem to have dropped briefly around 1994 and 1998.

The Natural Resources Defense Council has an easier-to-read table (See Figure 2) based on the same data. In that table, you can clearly see that in 1997 the domestic production of oil decreased while demand increased.

-Bri