OK.

Thank goodness we have the Fed to provide these prognostications...and as a  student of obfuscation, I personally love the use of "basically" in this instance.

“There’s basically an 80 percent chance over the next 10 years that productivity growth will average between 1 and 3 percent,” the Fed official said.

And of course, "leading economists" would have more economists working on an issue (predicting productivity gains) that is inherantly un predicatble.  Is it infinite regress or recursive?

History shows how important it is that the central bank get the productivity outlook right. A sudden slowdown in the 1970s blindsided the Fed and led to a double-digit increase in inflation because officials kept monetary policy too loose as oil prices surged. In the late 1990s, then Chairman Alan Greenspan correctly saw that output per hour was accelerating and held back from raising interest rates, allowing unemployment eventually to fall below 4 percent.

Blinder, now a professor at Princeton University in New Jersey, said he’d have more economists at the central bank working on the issue if he were still there, adding this would be a “productive” use of their time.