Conrad, please!
I respond to a message that, according to IHub, was written in response to my message 1432. It doesn't show from the content, I am afraid. I just explained what risk means in investment terms, and you go on talking about bombs ticking on planes. This is totally beside the point, as in your case you only look at the people on the unfortunate side. Assessing risk is not done by supposing that everything will go bust, but by assessing how much on average will go bust. On that you build your expectations, and on that you assess your risk.
But you did react on Jonathan Lyons in the first place. Now, to extend your message to Jonathan (1392): do you really suggest that your bomb on plane argument is an effective rejoinder to his Classical economics holds that profit is the reward for taking risk? I am afraid it just shows your ignorance, and you magnify the insult by just butting into a discussion, and going off on a tangent in full heat.
Small wonder that Jonathan was mightily pissed off, and I haven't seen you apologize yet. It would be a nice thing to do. Of course, a formal rebuttal of the risk vs. reward thesis would also be welcome. It might win you a Nobel prize (if you can leave the bombs out). But after your apologies to Jonathan please.
Karel
