Rich get richer as economy gets better; everyone else is worse off

[Malthus]

I think you are missing how I'm using the word "predictable", despite numerous explainations and examples. 

You are using "predictable" in a way that involves no prediction at all.

You are insisting I'm using a word in a particular way, when I've said many times I'm not, when it is obvious from the first I was not, and when that way doesn't make any sense in context, and when it isn't even the primary meaning of the word - and then claiming that, somehow, this is my mistake.   

Again, consult a dictionary. This has nothing to do with some special super-secret "lawyer's definition".

You keep moving the discussion of what is "predictable" to after the accident already happened.  Well, guess what, after the accident happens, there is no more uncertainty, so there is nothing to predict anymore.  Prediction typically involves some uncertainty as to what the future holds.

In your world, no-one is ever allowed to say "wow, that was predictable" after a stupid pratfall? 

[Malthus]

First, that's a comically unhelpful definition.  Secondly, no, I don't expect a drunk driver to get into an accident.  His expected number of accidents for the trip is 0.01, so in other words, not expected all that much.  And no need for ad populum fallacies, counselor.

Point is that you are insisting, for pages and pages, on giving a certain meaning to the word, and wooden-headedly refusing to listen to the obvious fact I'm not using it in that way, and never was.

What, exactly, is that in aid of?

But you are using a word but not for what it means.  So I guess a fair move at this point would be:

Malthus, please tell us what you mean when you say "If a drunk driver gets into an accident, that bad outcome was predictable"?

That the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk?

Is this some sort of big mystery? 

[DGuller]

I still don't know what Malthus was saying unless your best guess was right, DGul.

My best guess is that Malthus honestly didn't realize that it's about a coin flip whether undiversified portfolio beats a diversified portfolio over the short run.  He believed that a diversified portfolio would grow more most of the time (like 80% of the time), and that when that by far likeliest outcome did happen, it was predictable that it would. 

Therefore, if my guess of his actual thought process is correct, his use of "predictable" was entirely what any normal person would understand it to mean.  It's when he decided to not immediately concede this very minor point that he got snared into an argument, and started throwing every turd within his reach in the hope that something would stick.

[Malthus]

First, that's a comically unhelpful definition.  Secondly, no, I don't expect a drunk driver to get into an accident.  His expected number of accidents for the trip is 0.01, so in other words, not expected all that much.  And no need for ad populum fallacies, counselor.

Point is that you are insisting, for pages and pages, on giving a certain meaning to the word, and wooden-headedly refusing to listen to the obvious fact I'm not using it in that way, and never was.

What, exactly, is that in aid of?

Not in the aid of anything in particular.  It started off with me correcting an unimportant incorrect statement, you coming back to it, me expounding on my correction, and then it snowballed into one of those "anti-intellectual/un-intellectual" debates.  They're utterly pointless, but by the point I realized I got stuck in it, I also resolved to not let you get away with snowing me in bullshit.

The bullshit is comming from you (and garbon, but that's his stock-in-trade --- dare I say, he's "predictable" like that?  ).

Specifically, you attempting to redefine what I said, and then resisting all attempts to say 'woah, that's not what I said at all'.

You said that the rich had done better (i.e. got higher return) because they were diversified, and that this result was predictable (i.e. ensured).  You are right, you didn't say that diversification ensures higher returns, you just said something that is entirely equivalent to it.

I was not, and never was, using "predictable" to mean "ensured". I never said that "diversification ensures higher returns".

What I said ... well, I've said it a million times already: that the lack of asset diversification increased the risk of the actual outcome seen here in a way that was, or ought to have been, foreseeable. In short, that the result seen was "predictable", although one could not, of course, predict the future any more than a shaman could actually read entrails.

Note again that "foreseeable" doesn't mean "certain".

Now, in your book, putting words ins someone elses's mouth, insisting they said one thing in the face of them repeatedly saying another, and refusing to back down when told, may all be reasonable.

[DGuller]

That the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk?

Is this some sort of big mystery?

You're confusing the risk factor and the outcome.  That his risk factor increased is foreseeable.  There is no uncertainty about that.  That he actually did get into an accident is not foreseeable, since the odds are overwhelming in either case that he would get home safe.

[garbon]

That the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk?

Is this some sort of big mystery? 

Sure but then I think we've all agreed all along that drunk driving increases the minuscule risk that you will get into an accident.

[Malthus]

I still don't know what Malthus was saying unless your best guess was right, DGul.

My best guess is that Malthus honestly didn't realize that it's about a coin flip whether undiversified portfolio beats a diversified portfolio over the short run.  He believed that a diversified portfolio would grow more most of the time (like 80% of the time), and that when that by far likeliest outcome did happen, it was predictable that it would. 

Therefore, if my guess of his actual thought process is correct, his use of "predictable" was entirely what any normal person would understand it to mean.  It's when he decided to not immediately concede this very minor point that he got snared into an argument, and started throwing every turd within his reach in the hope that something would stick.

Once again, I'm amazed that you know what I mean in the face of what I actually say. Really, 80%? Do tell me more - this is truly fascinating. I love learning what I really think.

[DGuller]

What I said ... well, I've said it a million times already: that the lack of asset diversification increased the risk of the actual outcome seen here in a way that was, or ought to have been, foreseeable.

Oh, but it didn't increase the risk of the actual outcome.  As I was repeatedly trying to say, diversification doesn't affect the chance of one portfolio growing more than another portfolio.

[Malthus]

That the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk?

Is this some sort of big mystery?

You're confusing the risk factor and the outcome.  That his risk factor increased is foreseeable.  There is no uncertainty about that.  That he actually did get into an accident is not foreseeable, since the odds are overwhelming in either case that he would get home safe.

No, I'm not.

How does the statement "the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk" confuse the two? I've said exactly nothing about the actual odds of him actually getting into an accident. All I've talked about is him increasing his risk factor - nothing else.

Once again, you are adding stuff that is not there.

[Malthus]

That the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk?

Is this some sort of big mystery? 

Sure but then I think we've all agreed all along that drunk driving increases the minuscule risk that you will get into an accident.

Hallelujah! I think you've got it!

[DGuller]

That the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk?

Is this some sort of big mystery?

You're confusing the risk factor and the outcome.  That his risk factor increased is foreseeable.  There is no uncertainty about that.  That he actually did get into an accident is not foreseeable, since the odds are overwhelming in either case that he would get home safe.

No, I'm not.

How does the statement "the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk" confuse the two? I've said exactly nothing about the actual odds of him actually getting into an accident. All I've talked about is him increasing his risk factor - nothing else.

Once again, you are adding stuff that is not there.

Risk factor = odds (times a constant).

[crazy canuck]

That the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk?

Is this some sort of big mystery? 

Sure but then I think we've all agreed all along that drunk driving increases the minuscule risk that you will get into an accident.

Hallelujah! I think you've got it!

I wouldnt be so quick there.  I think he is implying what DGuller continues to say about the second part they keep saying you are missing....

[Malthus]

That the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk?

Is this some sort of big mystery? 

Sure but then I think we've all agreed all along that drunk driving increases the minuscule risk that you will get into an accident.

Hallelujah! I think you've got it!

I wouldnt be so quick there.  I think he is implying what DGuller continues to say about the second part they keep saying you are missing....

This is truly a strange experience.

I say stuff, but really, I might as well save the electrons.

[Jacob]

Did anyone predict the conversation would go like this?

[Malthus]

That the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk?

Is this some sort of big mystery?

You're confusing the risk factor and the outcome.  That his risk factor increased is foreseeable.  There is no uncertainty about that.  That he actually did get into an accident is not foreseeable, since the odds are overwhelming in either case that he would get home safe.

No, I'm not.

How does the statement "the drunk driver foolishly increased his risk that an accident would happen in a way that was totally foreseeable by driving while drunk" confuse the two? I've said exactly nothing about the actual odds of him actually getting into an accident. All I've talked about is him increasing his risk factor - nothing else.

Once again, you are adding stuff that is not there.

Risk factor = odds (times a constant).

Right. And what, Mr. Mathematics, have I said about his "risk factor" in my statement?

That it has "increased" because of his drinking.

As you yourself put it,

That his risk factor increased is foreseeable.  There is no uncertainty about that.

So, exactly what are you basing your "you have confused risk factor with outcome" on? Please, do tell.