I never offered the ability for either of us to get paid personally on this. Read it up thread that is clear. It was about 'others' validating which of us is correct and them being enticed by the payment to do the work and make the case.

If you want to change my offer such that you make money from this then so do I. Fair is fair. We are not only going to change my offer so you can make money.

So if Rococo says he will act as escrow and decision maker for $1000 then you put up $2000 so I can (and will) get paid the other $1000.

Oh man, if only I had said something like in that thread Cuepee said this or that, this would be some elite nit-picking but I had never said that. I said this was the rough summary of what you had said, and the fact that it was spread across two threads is irrelevant. Nice try at goalpost shifting.

So clear:

I don't understand - why am I putting up any money? I have nothing to gain here.

Edit: I mean I'm enjoying your extended freakout here but again I have absolutely nothing to prove here.

lol, the bet is off if you cannot dishonestly frame it. Nice.


And that full context quote does nothing to help you.

In expanding on the 'knock on effect' on GDP which was part of my position and you were arguing was fully priced in, I could have used the Detroit auto sector collapse (job lost... homes lost LATER, communities devastated LATER STILL) or the 2008/9 Banking collapse to explain what I meant by knock on effects and the damage they can do if not priced in.

Using either the Banking collapse or the Auto sector collapse to illustrate knock on effect DOES NOT MEAN I am saying it is going to be the same or as devastating in this covid case. And i never said it was. I merely said WE DID NOT YET KNOW what that knock impact would be. You argued it was already priced in.

So your lie fails again.

Lol. You are still just utterly confused if you think great rote learning skills is the relevant skill to be an educational super star. It just isn't. Even in your own examples, you suggest maybe rote learning is the bottom 5%. It is the easiest, lowest level on bloom's taxonomy. It is the thing almost everyone can do, like little kids can memorize without understanding. In contrast, to be a superstar in math, you should be able to creatively prove things. Well sorry, but you don't accomplish that by being great at rote learning skills. You are just massively, massively overvaluing the significance of this pretty inconsequential factor.

Utter nonsense. As rote learning is, to borrow your estimates, the bottom lowest level simplest 5% of higher education, the mismatch is almost entirely in the higher level learning outcomes. For example, I teach an advanced mathematical modelling course that involves collaborative projects to tackle real world problems (like modelling covid, say) in part because it is trying to prepare students for real world applications of mathematics and is arguably better for preparing such students than a bunch of proofs in complex analysis. But neither course is about "rote learning". You are just massively overvaluing how significant a role this plays.

Did you miss the whole 1990 GDP thing?

Then why would I put up money? I have nothing to gain either.

The purpose was to have 3rd parties review and make the case from the thread if they could to collect the money. Not you to selectively edit a case.

if you want to present the case to win money then so do I. Seems you fear (know) I will win and thus that is a deal breaker for you. If you thought you would win that should not matter as you are getting your money back.

Don’t have a dog in this fight, but it sure seems like CP owes this guy $10k.

5% maybe NOW.

NOW.

Not prior. NOW.

Read that again uke as that is key as not everyone in the work force over the last 40 years is in school now. I agree it is maybe only 5% (but still a gaiting 5% NOW).

No, the bet is off because I can't get paid. Like, why am I putting up money for no chance to collect anything? I have nothing to gain here. I mean, you already owe me money but we both know you're going to welch. This entire thing is about you using the theatre of risking your own $$$ to mask how badly you got owned way back and how badly you misremembered your own position such that you reacted angrily to my perfectly reasonable summary of your position then. You seem to have this need to escalate this in order to prove (presumably to yourself) that you weren't actually wrong - I have no such need but I really don't mind an extra $10,000 and getting you to pay up for something that had already happened is kind of funny. Hence my indulgence of your nonsense.

I don't know but you did put up the money.

I know right? It's pretty clear-cut to me but it's pretty obvious Cuepee is going to welch here.

Well I don’t like to call anyone a welscher, but I don’t see CP paying you your money any time soon.

Nope, read it again and focus on 'if/when'. Then see the context prior.

candybar : I think the entire GDP impact is priced in. This knock on effect stuff you mention does not exist or matter.
QP : disagree. Knock on effect is very important and is not yet priced in IMO. If you look at Detroit during the auto collapse the knock on effects were more extensive than the initial job losses. So we will need to wait and see what the covid knock on effects are

Candybar : omg that means you are saying the covid knock on effects are as bad as the Detroit ones. I can now quote you.
QP: no only an idiot would extrapolate that. I am not saying they are equivalent. You keep quoting that in isolation to pretend i was is not accurate. My view is WE DO NOT KNOW YET what they knock on impact is and it is not priced in and I said that over and over in the thread. Not that we were doomed ala the Detroit or Mortgage Collapse examples. Just that we need the latter data to come in which has not yet.

oh wow, reading through the exchange that is a brutal self-pwn for Cuepee. Unless you want to be permanently known as the guy who weasles tiny and insignificant differences as phraseology to welch on a bet, you clearly owe $10k.

lol. No you already lost and owe me money. That is why you are ducking now.

You answer your own question because 'why would I bet if I cannot get paid'?

Wow, that question goes both ways doesn't it?

the point was to prove who was right and who was wrong. That is the reward. The bet was the enticement to get others to try and be the third party to make the case to remove the biased parties from doing so.

Anyway there is nothing more to come from this other than you recycling clear lies and me repeatedly debunking them so I will put you on ignore since you refuse to bet if you have to take any risk where I could win and get paid.

So your contention now is that you were using a 50% drop in GDP hypothetical in multiple posts and clearly thought talking about the impact on the stock market in those scenarios is a meaningful thing to talk about even though you thought the GDP drop was going to be less than 4.2%. Btw, the GDP had already dropped by more than 4.2% by that point. Cuepee, never stop being yourself. You're so brave.

What I've got from the last 2 dozen posts is that Rococo has people dying to send him money. Well played, sir, well played.

lol. How do I clearly owe him anything with no arbitration?

You guys are pure clowns as you are saying with no outsider deciding I must simply take Candy saying 'see I am right, Here is my proof' and then I must pay up because he selectively cuts the very posts that are in dispute?

No bet in the history of bets gets decided that way with the sole arbiter being one of the participants selectively quoting his own arguments, declaring them as proof and then others saying 'oh well you must pay up now or welch'.

But oh you guys got me, you can seize on this sides thing to get QP!!

You are just ridiculous uke. And I promise you I will put $50k with Rococo first versus you putting $5k if you want to bet that candy cannot be sole arbiter of this and that I welch if I do not accept his ruling and pay up based on his say so.

Yes, you uke, can get all $50k. I'll make that clear. But I get anything from your portion that Rococo does not want for his service.

You want to take that bet uke? Do you want me to up it with yours proportionally upped? I would really enjoy getting some of your money and exposing how eager you are to be oppose me even when you know you are hopelessly wrong.

Or do you want to bow out and expose you are full of it and just trying to finally win by jumping on someone else side?

Just another day for Cuepee though. I mean he was getting wrecked in that thread too. This is from *before* reality completely proved him wrong (and I'm not selectively quoting stuff - I believe this is pretty much every meta-post on the Cuepee experience, though ToothSayer then jumped in and proceeded to end up on sort of the same side as Cuepee (loosely) and get owned:

What the hell is the actual bet that you're proposing?

I know right? And he's nowhere to be seen! What a legend.

Why is this so important to you? I mean your hilarious accusations that I was lying aside, does it make a difference if I had said you thought GDP would decline significantly as a result of small business closures instead of what I had actually written? Like that's not even the point - the whole point is that this whole chain (Small business closures -> GDP decline -> Stock market decline) which was basically the hill you died on is a ridiculous argument, primarily due to the stability and predictability of the GDP series. Precisely what language you had used or I had used to summarize your position doesn't matter at all. You're focusing on this because you want to run away from the actual substance to find the one tiny little win that would, somehow in your mind, erase all the ways in which you've failed.

I mean, as I said, I greatly enjoy your extended freakout here so thank you for your service and continue the show.

lmao at throwing out bizarre 50k "bets" about god-knows-what because someone said you were wrong on the internet. I don't know what to say, other than I strongly recommend taking a bit of a break.

Why on earth would anyone take him up on a $50k bet when he didn’t pay out his $10k bet?