I remember that time Lonesnark refused to pay out on a bet when the price of oil went through the roof.

6/16/2008 2:15:02 PM

Quote :

"IMStoned420, you are predicting that the way things are going will continue forever... Now, which of us is being optimistic? The future is nothing if not unpredictable, otherwise recessions and wars would never occur."

You're being overly optimistic. I'm being pragmatic.

6/16/2008 2:17:36 PM

nutsmackr, then you have a terrible memory. The bet was with SandSanta and he lost by a wide margin (58 cents or something) and then refused to pay up. Hence why I always start any conversation with him using the words "Don't you owe me $100?"

IMStoned420, optimistic? How optimistic is it to predict that the future will be populated by recessions, depressions, economic contagions, wars, and intermitant suffering? You have a terrible definition of "optimistic". It is, afterall, you that is predicting relatively smooth economic progress free of market misallocation for the rest of history.

[Edited on June 16, 2008 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/16/2008 2:24:46 PM

I've never once seen you post anything remotely negative about the economy. That's being overly optimistic. Bad things do happen. To realize them does not make me a bad person.

If, however, your sorry excuse for a post was a failed attempt at sarcasm and turning the tables, I would have to say that over the short term I see the economy as going through one of the rougher patches of the past several decades. Especially for the people I generally am around most often (non-rich people and college kids). I understand that recessions do not affect all people equally and that some people thrive in them while others sink. To me, it seems like the average person is being pressed quite a bit right now and predicting a recession at this point is a fairly valid assertion. I also understand that they are cyclical and I have total faith that it will be fairly short and the economy will be steamrolling again soon enough.

But to criticize me for seeing reality while you play in Never-Never Land is a little harsh.

6/16/2008 2:45:54 PM

IMStoned420, you misread my post (perhaps that is my fault).

Oil prices are pro-cyclical: in good times they go up; in bad times they go down. By predicting that oil prices will never go down that far again is to predict that times will never get that bad again, hence my assertion that it was you that was being over optimistic. It was I that was predicting the future would be populated with intermittent bad times, and thus low oil prices, and hence I was the one being pragmatic.

To be a little more blunt about my point: if you want the people to stop being squeezed by high oil prices then you need them to be squeezed by unemployment.

6/16/2008 3:03:34 PM

That's because you changed the argument to where the price only mattered on the merchantile exchange, and not the national average.

6/16/2008 3:05:31 PM

nutsmackr, ok, so you admit you were wrong, but then you go and make yourself wrong again!

The bet was made on TWW, the thread still exists, and I was quoted as saying:
"New York Harbor Gasoline closed friday at $1.7387 a gallon. You are betting that on July 31, 2006 it will close at $2.7387 a gallon or higher. I would happily bet $100 against such as absurd statement. I would bet more, but I don't want to encourage you to skip out more than you probably already will."

On July 31, 2006 New York Harbor Gasoline closed around $2.30, more than 40 cents shy of the betted amount. Had the bet been run a second time it closed on July 31, 2007 around $2.10 a gallon. Best I can figure, my bet did not become a loser until March of 2008, 32 months after the bet was made and 20 months after it came due.

But, since you care so much about that bet, NYHG closed friday at $3.4626, I will happily bet $100 that it closes below $4.4626 on June 16th, 2009.

6/16/2008 3:23:37 PM

Where am I admitting I am wrong?

I also bet you it will close below $17.00 next tuesday.

[Edited on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2008 4:07:02 PM

nutsmackr: "I remember that time Lonesnark refused to pay out on a bet"

lonesnark: "nutsmackr, then you have a terrible memory. The bet was with SandSanta and he lost"

nutsmackr: "That's because you changed the argument"

In other works, you proclaimed that you were wrong because of a technicality. In truth, it was not a technicality, but at least you recognized that you had been wrong.

[Edited on June 16, 2008 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/16/2008 4:39:39 PM