Whoops. We all “know” that? What happens if 30% default? Are you saying that nothing could happen in this country to force 19% (or more) of those loans to default? People say PS makes absolute predictions of the future. What was that?
You said that all soldiers are at risk, but we do not “expect” them all to die. But some will. It would be accurate to say that that percentage (some) is truly “at risk” of dying. That is an “expectation”, but certainly not an absolute (either direction, more/less).
The exact same thing was done in this case for loans. All of them are at some level of “risk”, but we do not “expect” them all to default. There is an expectation that some will. The assertion is that that a percentage (some) is truly “at risk” of default. Again, this is an “expectation” made by the analysis.
Explain to me how you look at all loans, see some you DON’T “expect” to default, and then put them “at risk”.
I agree that the heading is better served with a direct quote, but what she used does not actually alter the real intent of the analysis’ findings. I just felt that the seemingly overly enthusiastic criticism on this issue appeared more personal than it probably should have been. I too have seen PS write some things I don’t agree with (I literally cringe at some of the racial stuff), but on this particular issue, I think it’s being blown way out of proportion. I know it’s an accumulation of other things, but pick a better battle than this one. This just seems petty to me.
As with you, it’s just my opinion though, so feel free to disagree.
