I know you didn't but as per usual you miss the point because you do what you always do.

That's fine as long as you don't interfere with others too much - which to be fair to you you don't.

chezlaw's "look for what people have to offer" standard, unsurprisingly, is not applied to Trolly. Trolly's just a dick.

It's very confusing to figure out, if we put on our SMP hat, which viewpoints are "fun to explore" and which are "preventing an honest discussion" to chezlaw.

It's very easy, of course, when we take that hat off.

Nope. Trolly has a fair bit to offer, he does enjoy behaving like a dick which isn't necessarily as bad thing. In fact he is probably the poster I agree with most on many things political.

You have a lot to offer as well but of all the people who would rather be a dick than offer the content they are capable of you must be one of the favorites. Very amusing at times which is something

Wait, is this another you reply to someone but then pretend like you're making a point unrelated to who you're replying to?

My bad, I should have realized that. I'd ask you to explain your point but you won't and I probably wouldn't care anyway.

No

This kills me. How do people who are supposed to understand E(x) and Var not understand how market returns occur?

By which, I mean it is a huge societal failure that high schoolers in a capital-based economy graduate without a basic understanding of simple stats, market economics, NPV and CAPM. And it definitely makes the existence of politards who SOCIALISM!!! much more understandable (though still lol).

uhhhhh all high school grads need to understand CAPM? lol why? Seems like the same sort of nonsense where people say all high school students would benefit from learning calculus.

Obviously, Deuces finally succumbed to the pressure of having his screen name in the bad posters thread title and has gone off to the wild to consider the error of his conspiracy theory ways.

They don't need to know the equation by rote, they just need to know that investing their savings has risk and reward tradeoffs, which is what CAPM is all about.

Considering the percentage of people with zero savings, zero investments, and a negative net worth, I think maybe education efforts could be better focused elsewhere.

Which is why I suggested a comprehensive personal finance program involving market economics, etc etc. Pay attention.

What is your brilliant financial advice for people who have nothing and are very unlikely to ever accumulate anything over the course of their lives? Because that is a pretty large number of people, and it is growing.

Yeah, failing to teach kids how to manage personal finances will totally not help solve that problem. Let's teach them about Christopher Columbus instead.

Don't blame Columbus, it's mostly the Canadians and Israelis in BFI messing up.

The CAPM isn't complicated either FWIW. Sklansky stock market advice is pretty much not following CAPM risk and reward precepts I will admit.

I know this was a discussion with JJ that effectively ran it's course but I'd like to point out to you why I think you're wrong.

It's not that people look for problems with DS posts it's that people who have studied those topics see them immediately. It's not difficult to identify flaws in his reasoning when he shows a pretty blatant disregard for the actual stuff he's supposed to be good at like numbers and stuff.

And what irks me a little about these posts is that you seem to think that because you are looking for what someone has to offer it makes your position better than those who would be critical. This is wrong looking for the good in someones post when it's drowning in rubbishness is not better than pointing out clear errors.

In any case I think DS is probably the worst poster in P or PU that has not yet had his name in the titles of either of the bad poster threads.

Not going to talk about DS specifically. I think your way off but whatever

In general (and towards DS btw) I can be as critical of errors as anyone else but missing the good stuff because all you look at is the often uninteresting errors is simply a mistake.

Also there's a huge amount of seeking interpretations of what is being said to make it wrong. That's a poor method we all fall into at times.

There is no good stuff, there's none in his sheriff Clarke OP, none in his Social Security OP and none in his comments regarding black people only having to work 10% harder and none in his extremely privileged ideas about the average american being dumb.

I didn't need to go looking for specific interpretations that make those posts terrible their terribleness jumps from the screen.

Oh and by the way saying that you think I am way off but that you are not going to talk about something is the kind of passive aggressive posting of yours that irritates me. If you aren't willing to talk about something just don't talk about it.

yeah ok.

I'm willing to talk about almost anything and it's very rare that I don't address the content but there's a limit to what'a possible at times - it takes two to want to understand each other, I'm usually up for it but it's tiresome when people overly seek the misunderstandings.

and sorry if it irks you but the ridiculous nonsense that goes on in P/PU about carrying water, apologizing, bad look, etc deserves to have the piss gently taken out if it. it's weird how seriously some posters take themselves over something so silly but that's another matter.

You are talking about something else. I am specifically referring to you posting

This is not about water carrying or apologising it's merely saying if you don't want to talk about something then don't talk about it. If you don't want me to respond to a claim that I am way off because it's a topic you don't want to discuss then don't make that claim.

What good stuff do you think is in any of those posts I mentioned? I admit you don't actually want to respond you just can't help yourself.

Chez wistfully musing about nothing, taking twelve posts to semantic up the most inane point, and getting mad when people criticize obvious bad or racist posts and countering with a dose of passive aggressive nonsense. Just more of the usual/usual from the forums least interesting blowhard.

I'm struggling to understand your meaning but I'll have a go anyway despite your bit at the end which just appears (not for the first time) to be silly nonsense.

The SS post raises the issue of positive discrimination which imo is not an easy topic but is an important one. On the one hand we can criticise the specific example as some did based on the actual facts about SS (fair enough but actually fairly dull and of course accepted by DS easily) other including me talked about idea that if we can we should focus on the underlying factors such as poverty which removes any need to discriminate (still fairly dull). then there was the point I mentioned about positive discrimination being a good thing at times but in this type of case it appears wrong even if we couldn't isolate the factors like poverty - this is an interesting issue imo. Then it quickly degenerated into the usual ding dong about racism which it appears is all you were able to notice.

I don't know what's tough to understand about me asking you not to talk about stuff you then say you don't want to talk about. I know you think it's group think when people claim you are intentionally vague and avoid stating positions clearly but my very clear point is that telling me I am way off at the very same time you are telling me you don't want to discuss it is ****. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

I don't recall a time when you've left a conversation without responding irrespective of whether you have expressed a desire to continue the conversation. I don't mind you thinking I post rubbish I'm not a fan of being told I'm wrong at the same point someone tells me they don't actually want to discuss it.

With regard to the SS thread it is not the fact it degenerated into a ding dong about race it is that he couldn't see the problem with his premise from the very beginning, DS admitted that he wanted to challenge us with a position that he understood to be a "bit racist" assuming that posters in the forum would be all right about it because it is somewhat reparative while generally what happened was people saw it and thought no that's a **** way to improve the position of African Americans and discriminatory against poor white people. Just as you think that people are being silly when they accuse you of water carrying the truth is you've just assumed you know what my objections to his posting are, and you're wrong.

What does that mean? I talk about the stuff I do want to talk about, that sometimes includes explaining there's some stuff I don't want to talk about.

Sometimes I'm intentionally vague and often I don't have a clear position. These are not bad things, plenty of stuff i'm not certain about and lots to learn.

I'm saying to you I'm happy to discuss the general issue but not willing to get into a detailed analysis of DS because I think that's a ridiculous thing to do. I'm also giving you my very clear view that DS brings lots of value

I've no good idea why that upsets you in any way even if you disagree.

Your recollection is faulty. Sorry if it bothers you but you may notice it's usually when discussing a third person when imo it's sometimes appropriate. More rare it's on a topic though it happened recently regarding rape. Probably not great to tell you you are talking rubbish, what can I say, I'm an arse sometimes.

I wasn't assuming anything about your view except you seemed to have missed me addressing the content but even then I wasn't sure what you meant as I mentioned.

I don't think DS though people would be alright with it but again and I'm sorry this bothers you - apart from disagreeing with you I don't wish to discuss it in detail because I think it's ridiculous to keep analysing another poster this way unless they wish to get involved.

It means saying I'm not talking about that but you're wrong is not a great way to not talk about something, it is not better than not talking about it as an example of not talking about it. However it seems clear now.

This contains a clear assumption on your part with regard to my view.

To be clear I do not want a detailed conversation with you about DS posts, what I objected to is you saying that you didn't want to discuss them while disputing my view with regard to his posts. If you don't want to discuss something just don't.

It's like he was setting up a gotcha then got **** all.

My argument with you this morning is about your original takes on peoples objections to DS, just as you interpret his posts favourably I don't, I think he's ****ing awful and it's not because I'm making a mistake or just looking for the awfulness as the posts I originally responded to implied.