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

[DGuller]

Perhaps consulting a dictionary would help with you two. 

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/predictable

1 if something is predictable, it happens in the way that you would expect
Most of the films we've reviewed this summer have had one thing in common – predictable plots.

Are you seriously claiming that the word "predictable" can't mean this? That it must mean "accurately foretelling the future"? In spite of me, fahdiz, and everyone except Garbon telling you repeatedly ... ?

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 lastly, there is no need for ad populum fallacies, counselor.

[Phillip V]

Teens Talk More About Economics, but No Better Informed

The nation's "Report Card in Economics," released Wednesday, found no improvement in high-school seniors' economics knowledge from six years ago, on the eve of the crisis. The U.S. Department of Education project surveyed and tested nearly 11,000 12th-graders in 480 American public and private schools.

"More students say they're talking about economics with their friends and family," than before the downturn, said Jack Buckley, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. "Economics is more a part of their lives than it was in 2006."

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/04/24/teens-talk-more-about-economics-but-no-better-informed/

[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?

[DGuller]

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.

[CountDeMoney]

Teens Talk More About Economics, but No Better Informed

The nation's "Report Card in Economics," released Wednesday, found no improvement in high-school seniors' economics knowledge from six years ago, on the eve of the crisis. The U.S. Department of Education project surveyed and tested nearly 11,000 12th-graders in 480 American public and private schools.

Like they'll need it.
The only thing they need to know is payday is every other week until you die.

[garbon]

I don't know why you'd expect a drunk driver to have an accident. The odds clearly show that the expected result of drunk driving is that you get home safely.

I don't "expect a drunk driver to have an accident".

Then a drunk driver who gets into an accident is not something you'd predict and thus it was not predictable.

[DGuller]

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.

[garbon]

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"?

[mongers]

Savings come out of income.  And middle class income is stagnating as well.

Either they can save more or they can expect their net worth to stagnate.

I don't understand.

Sure the middle class could keep apace with double digit net worth gains despite decreasing income by reducing their consumption to third world levels.  Except they couldn't because the resulting depression would tank the entire economy and drag down all assets with them.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

So early I was in part thinking along similar lines to you ?

Either they can save more or they can expect their net worth to stagnate.

So you have stock markets at near historic highs, built in part on the back of a unprecedented consumer boom. And now you're advocating people take their money 'out' of the economy, so they can rebuild their assets; what could possibly go wrong ?

[crazy canuck]

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.

Wow it only took you 3 or 4 pages to actually read what he was writing...

[mongers]

It was entirely predictable, nay inevitable that a languish thread, as it lengthens, resolves into a debate about semantics and word-meaning.   

[crazy canuck]

It was entirely predictable, nay inevitable that a languish thread, as it lengthens, resolves into a debate about semantics and word-meaning.   

I'm not sure I know what you mean by that.  Define "word-meaning"

[DGuller]

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.

Wow it only took you 3 or 4 pages to actually read what he was writing...

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".

Well, Malthus disagrees that it is in fact what he was writing, so obviously you have trouble reading what he's writing as well.   

[crazy canuck]

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.

Wow it only took you 3 or 4 pages to actually read what he was writing...

Well, Malthus disagrees that it is in fact what he was writing, so obviously you have trouble reading what he's writing as well.   

Its a certainty that it will happen.  Anyway you have missed his point all along so I am not going to try where he failed for all these pages.

[garbon]

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