> You just admitted you don't have a theory (aka, the tool to make testable predictions).

No, I have stated it long ago. We have a rough idea of a rough model, basically based on lots of qualitative observations.

> Also, you haven't shown the math to be wrong.

Yes, I did. First I've shown how you confused social bias with observation bias, and second I've shown you neglected to take into account that in a feedback system correct predictions don't mean a correct model.

> All you've done is speculated that if we start making bad loans to groups that are disproportionately likely to be deadbeats, they'll suddenly start paying back their loans. If you really believe that (I don't think you do) then go forth and earn your billions.

Why just deadbeats? VCs have been throwing a lot of money at rich, hard working white kids in Silicon Valley, yet they've made a mess of it once, and it seems like they may be in the process of doing it again. Why single out the poor?

But I was wondering when we'll see you again. I didn't say that, and I certainly didn't mean that. That's what you wanted me to have said because that is stupid. I told it to you before: the reason you make such silly arguments is because you keep thinking the other side is an idiot. Seriously, pretend I'm Bertrand Russel, and that while I could make a mistake, I am unlikely to think something really stupid. That would save us a lot of time, and make you sound smarter, too.

And read this: https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm...
It really evoked the conversations I have with you on this site. I particularly liked this opening quote of Steven Pinker:

A classic writer... counts on the common sense and ordinary charity of his readers, just as in everyday conversation we know when a speaker means in general or all else being equal. If someone tells you that Liz wants to move out of Seattle because it’s a rainy city, you don’t interpret him as claiming that it rains there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, just because he didn’t qualify his statement with relatively rainy or somewhat rainy. Any adversary who is intellectually unscrupulous enough to give the least charitable reading to an unhedged statement will find an opening to attack the writer in a thicket of hedged ones anyway.

So there you have it: Intellectually unscrupulous.

> If you really believe that (I don't think you do) then go forth and earn your billions.

If you think -- as you yourself say -- that I couldn't possibly believe what I've written, that's a sure way of knowing that I must have meant something else. Either read my comments more carefully and charitably, or ask.

Now you have two choices: Try to understand what I really meant and maybe learn something new, or keep building an imaginary world around you where everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who believes stupid stuff, and the purpose of that world is to ensure that you never challenge your own beliefs.

Ask yourself this: do you really want to challenge your beliefs or not? I really, really do. One of the reasons I keep arguing with you here is that I see some potential in you. Maybe one day you'll be confident enough to charitably read my comments and then maybe you'll make a truly challenging argument. I sincerely hope that you do.