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

[DGuller]

lol, ever occur to you that people realize you just arent listening...

They're not listening themselves if that's what their conclusion is.  In the post that you're ignoring, Malthus confirmed that I was listening correctly, and that we all initially had the same understanding of what "predictable" meant.

[garbon]

I'm always concerned when DGul and I end on the same side of an issue.

[Iormlund]

You are fighting the hypothetical again.

Read carefully: if I drink and drive and get into an accident because of that, this is "not a predictable result" according to you?

I'm confused now. How does the probability of having an accident in the near future depend on whether you've already had it? Have I missed the invention of time travel?

[garbon]

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.

Here it is again.

Odd then that we got on a tangent from here into what is predictable.

[DGuller]

I'm always concerned when DGul and I end on the same side of an issue.

Hey, behind the scenes, I triple-checked my reasoning during this debate, and ran Excel simulations of diversified and undiversified portfolios (with admittedly rather crude assumptions).  Why do you think I checked myself so thoroughly?

[garbon]

You are fighting the hypothetical again.

Read carefully: if I drink and drive and get into an accident because of that, this is "not a predictable result" according to you?

I'm confused now. How does the probability of having an accident in the near future depend on whether you've already had it? Have I missed the invention of time travel?

You have to go with something like with conventional wisdom it isn't surprising that a drunk driver would get in an accident.  The same then can be applied to someone who lost net worth with non-diversified holdings...though I'm not sure in either case that's really fair and instead really the gift of hindsight.

[garbon]

I'm always concerned when DGul and I end on the same side of an issue.

Hey, behind the scenes, I triple-checked my reasoning during this debate, and ran Excel simulations of diversified and undiversified portfolios (with admittedly rather crude assumptions).  Why do you think I checked myself so thoroughly?

[mongers]

Well I'm glad one of the few potentially interesting economics threads on Languish in awhile is now just DGuller and Malthus arguing about the word predictable.

FWIW, I think such an outcome here was highly predictable.

Yes, I agree on both counts. 

Now let someone twist that.   

[garbon]

That said, D, my work at least very lightly deals with prediction. Pharmas wouldn't pay me if I wasn't suggesting something about what might happen with their product.

[garbon]

Well I'm glad one of the few potentially interesting economics threads on Languish in awhile is now just DGuller and Malthus arguing about the word predictable.

FWIW, I think such an outcome here was highly predictable.

Yes, I agree on both counts. 

Now let someone twist that.   

I think that's fine as there is probably a decent chance that any Languish thread will devolve into semantics. So far to say that one could reasonably predict a thread heading towards semantics at some point. Sort of like how our threads used to invariably involve Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk or the ACW.

[mongers]

Well I'm glad one of the few potentially interesting economics threads on Languish in awhile is now just DGuller and Malthus arguing about the word predictable.

FWIW, I think such an outcome here was highly predictable.

Yes, I agree on both counts. 

Now let someone twist that.   

I think that's fine as there is probably a decent chance that any Languish thread will devolve into semantics. So far to say that one could reasonably predict a thread heading towards semantics at some point. Sort of like how our threads used to invariably involve Giant Ants of Brest-Litovsk or the ACW.

So are you saying my post was 'predictable' ?   

[garbon]

So are you saying my post was 'predictable' ?   

Within the expected range of your posting style, sure.

[Eddie Teach]

This thread needs more ranting about 1%ers and less lawyers. 

[Warspite]

Speaking of the rich getting better off, the Bank of England today confirmed that its subsidised lending programme to businesses will apply to property investors.

This means that the buy-to-let market in the South East of England is going to get yet another state-guaranteed shot in the arm, with increasing amounts of money chasing the limited housing stock in the region. Meanwhile, planning regulation reform has, it is revealed, not actually resulted in any great change in the number of new houses being built.

Looks like another property bubble is on the way.

One also has to wonder how the UK economy might be better off if there were not such a large intergenerational transfer of wealth going on through the rental sector right now, siphoning off half of take-home pay from young consumers to wealthy older people.

[The Brain]

Wealthy older people rock.