Radigan Carter

[Hristo Botev]

https://www.radigancarter.com/dispatche ... to-bitcoin

I've mentioned this guy a couple times before, since @Mister Imperceptible introduced him to me, and I have REALLY enjoyed his perspective. I don't necessarily know if I agree with the guy on Bitcoin (I've really managed to give it very little thought), but my last book (Family Fortunes) and my current book (Lords of Finance) were both selected based on his referencing them in his blogposts. And I certainly appreciate his perspective as he is someone who has lived and worked outside the Western bubble, and who has seen some of the worst of humanity, and is now taking that perspective to learn everything he can about finance, economics, and investing. And his writing is very engaging.

Also, I'm sure I'll start a recommended reading topic on Lords of Finance once I finish it (200 pages in currently); but I'll just say for now that as someone who is historically minded (I guess? I majored in history), looking back at the origin story of our current macroeconomic climate (i.e., WWI) certainly seems to me to be the way for me to grok something.

[Qazwer]

Just placed Lords of Finance on hold on my Libby app - thank you

Not sure I am a fan of Carter though - will have to read more - but linked article has a basic fallacy
A and B are bad. C (Bitcoin) is not A or B. Therefore, C is good


How about A and B have problems
C has nothing separating it from other block chains - the history of new technologies is about not being able to predict the winner (rail roads, canals, internet etc)C could be worse than A or B

[JCD]

Related more to the man than to the article, you might enjoy the nearly 4 hours of interviewing that was done by Hidden Forces with Radigan Carter:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knmF_GxiUX4
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueqGkI5LOKc

I found the interviews to be really interesting in how he was assessing the international world. If I was only looking for analysis of how some of the poorer regions of the world work, how to run a NGO or some such, I'd think he was great. The only concern with regards to investment advice I found, which might or might not still be true, is during the interview he said something to the effect of 'I didn't want to go to a typical college and be told that the military shouldn't be in Afghanistan.' That isn't an exact quote and ultimately this was the decision that drove him to go to a military college. I'm not going to go through hours of audio to find the quote, but it struck me as someone who didn't want to hear any alternative views to their own. Depending on your philosophy, you might find being "sure of yourself" as either an asset or a liability. That being said, I did appreciate that the man is passionate about growing and going in new directions, so perhaps his past self which didn't want alternate points of view might not be the man of today. The interviewer never touched on the topic, so it is hard to judge.

Given his interview, I think he is very articulate and thoughtful within his problem scope. He seemed to have a vibe of "I must succeed at any cost" and was willing/able to do creative things to solve his problems. On the other hand, he also didn't seem willing to be critical of institutions that handled things badly or treated him badly. Many of the issues he described were very matter of fact, tactically, but I didn't see lots of second order thinking about what caused the issues in the first place. I personally would worry about him getting too attached to a thesis and not being willing to hear the critical side of the fence.

Reading the article I get the same feeling of a lack of second order thinking. The gov't may make holding bitcoin a unpatriotic, traitorous act and thus make it an extreme crime, like automatic death penalty. Not because it is financially important, but because it is symbolic. See the 1950s and the red scare for how insane history gets. He also fails to see the sort of reasons inflation started up in the 1960s, why the gold standard was broken, the neoliberal order, the end of history, etc. Perhaps all that doesn't matter in assessing bitcoin, but if you only see the simplicity of the narrative you miss that history is hard to predict. If gold demonstrates dollar losses over time, then why look at bitcoin for digital goldness? Because gold was outlawed in the past? What if the market-OS system gets rewritten in some new way that eliminates the value of bitcoin? Central bank digital wallets that you are legally required to register your bitcoin in and the bitcoin is taxed/inflated away from you. Mind you, I'm not bad mouthing bitcoin, just saying if you want to conclude something from history, its that diversity of strategies works better at flattening tail events than centralization. Holding just marks leads to tail events, as does just holding USD or just gold. If and only if you believe you can predict tail events should you concentrate. Charlie Munger might be able to, but I'm less sure about myself...

If Richelieu only needed 6 sentences to hang a man, an interview as wide ranging and as exhausting as that one could certainly give critics lots of ammo. This is not to bad mouth the man or his writing or thinking, just urging you to be aware of a possible tendency he has when assessing his opinions. Could I just be imagining it or might it be my own bias? Maybe. Either way, I enjoyed his writing and his interview and hope he continues to write.

[Hristo Botev]

This is not to bad mouth the man or his writing or thinking, just urging you to be aware of a possible tendency he has when assessing his opinions.

Thanks for the warning, but if it wasn't clear in my initial post let me make it clear now: I'm as likely to take investing advice from Radigan Carter as I am to take advice as to how to raise a family from Rob Greenfield. That said, I enjoy reading both of their blogs because they read like really good personal ERE journals; folks who are trying to figure stuff out and letting us in on their journey. That's pretty obvious from looking at the handful of blog posts he's written in a relatively short amount of time, jumping pretty dramatically from The Dragon Portfolio, to overseas investment, to gold, to bitcoin, based on whatever book(s)/interviews/blogs he just finished or is in the process of reading. That's basically my own ERE journal and several others on this forum, except he's a better writer than I am and actually puts some effort into editing before hitting "submit." Apart from his (clearly and admittedly evolving) thoughts on investing, RC's perspective is a lot more in line with my own than a lot of other folks who type things on the Internet for me to read while I'm pretending to work at the office. That's probably got something to do with the fact that I grew up in a military town and am the son of a Vietnam combat veteran, who knows very well that the government won't give a second thought to sending its citizens off to be machine gun fodder and manufacturing a false narrative to make the public accept it. There appears to be an edge to RC's particular form of "patriotism" that resonates with me, and that edge is that flag waving aside, a little healthy skepticism as to the motives and the actions of those in Washington (or in Silicon Valley, or NYC, or LA), regardless of the party, is a very good thing. And ultimately, it's up to you to make sure you and yours are taken care of. And a solid foundation in history has the double benefit of making you (a) skeptical about whatever narratives are being pushed out by "them" (government, bigcorp, bigmedia, etc.), and (b) extremely grateful for how good we actually have it, especially when viewed relative to history and relative to the other places in the present.

[Hristo Botev]

The only concern with regards to investment advice I found, which might or might not still be true, is during the interview he said something to the effect of 'I didn't want to go to a typical college and be told that the military shouldn't be in Afghanistan.' That isn't an exact quote and ultimately this was the decision that drove him to go to a military college. I'm not going to go through hours of audio to find the quote, but it struck me as someone who didn't want to hear any alternative views to their own. Depending on your philosophy, you might find being "sure of yourself" as either an asset or a liability. That being said, I did appreciate that the man is passionate about growing and going in new directions, so perhaps his past self which didn't want alternate points of view might not be the man of today. The interviewer never touched on the topic, so it is hard to judge.

Thanks for the interview link; I'm about 40 minutes in to part 1 at this point, and I like the guy even more; he's got a future as a Jordan Peterson type, who can speak to and inspire young men who need some direction and discipline in their lives in a world that, if we're being honest, can be a bit confusing for young boys trying to figure out how to be a man, and what that even means anymore.

Regarding your paraphrase, I think it's worth being a bit more precise and understanding the context, because you couldn't be more off on your gloss that he just "didn't want to hear any alternative views to" his own.

Here's the quote:

I couldn't have handled going to a civilian college and having someone tell me that we shouldn't be there or they didn't agree with what we were doing; that wouldn't have been a good environment for me.

And here's the context: He'd just finished a 4-year deployment in the Navy out of high school, as part of the initial invasion of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he expressed how jarring it was to come back home and to see that no one in the US really was even paying attention, unless they'd been there or had family members there. And so in answer to the question as to why he chose to go to a military college as a ~22-year-old combat veteran, instead of a typical university, his answer was that he knew he needed to stay among guys who were invested and knew what was going on in the wider world; rather than folks (academics, administrators, fellow college students) who he expected to find at a typical college who wouldn't let the fact that they had absolutely NO skin in the game and no real knowledge prevent them from parroting whatever they'd heard on TV or wherever to tell Radigan that the last 4 years of his life and that of his fellow soldiers/sailors had been a complete waste, or whatever. My dad relayed a very similar experience to me about going to a typical civilian college as a combat war veteran during Vietnam; it's just not a good place to stick someone who has just returned from seeing some of the worst of humanity. And Radigan was wise enough to know, at the extremely young age of 22 or whatever, that wasn't going to be a good environment for him.

[Campitor]

I read the linked Radigan Carter article. I agree with many things that he said but I somewhat disagree with his assessment of bitcoin being resistant to government interference. There are many ways governments can eliminate bitcoin; he just hasn't pondered that aspect enough or at least didn't elaborate on it within his article.

Governments can come up with their own digital currency and make it easier to use which lessens the utility of bitcoin which may impacts its price. They can also start searching for bitcoins - According to the MIT Technology Review, people are working on the ability to search for stolen bitcoins: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/0 ... -bitcoins/.

If the NSA was able to modify that program and trace all bitcoins, they may be able to find all bitcoin holders and arrest/detain them for using non-sanctioned digital currency. They may already have the means to do this. Caveat emptor.

[Hristo Botev]

I'm not a bitcoin guy, if only because it's just a rabbithole I've yet to go down. I linked to that particular article cuz it just happened to be his new one that'd come out that day or the day before (I'd recommend reading his "essentials" posts before I'd recommend the specific article I linked, actually). What I like about RC's blog is that it shows his evolution, as he's reading and trying to figure things out coming from a background where he didn't grow up with money, and so he's now just trying to figure out how to be disciplined with the money he's earned. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's certainly how I read it. I'm not taking anything he says as investment advice, because if I'm being honest, whatever investment knowledge he has probably isn't that much more beyond my own, which is to say, not much. But I like reading his blog for the same reason I like reading a number of the journals here; it's not a completed project, it's a journey that is being chronicled, and there's something I can learn from reading along to see the mistakes that were made, the insights gained, differing perspectives, etc.

[JCD]

I'm as likely to take investing advice from Radigan Carter as I am to take advice as to how to raise a family from Rob Greenfield.

Fair enough, I only noted it because my understanding of Radigan is he wants to become a more financial-advisor type persona. To quote him, "This is the mission I have... I'm going to build wealth, live well and I'm going to try help people as best I can." In the interview he talked about his contact with Mike Green and trying to generate ideas of safe ways to navigate the world, saving the earnings he had made during his time in the military. I don't know exactly how that might turn out, but having seen his post on the dragon portfolio and a post on bitcoin it seemed like he was trying to generate a sort of narrative-investment advice blog. Might it turn into something else? Maybe.

Regarding your paraphrase, I think it's worth being a bit more precise and understanding the context, because you couldn't be more off on your gloss that he just "didn't want to hear any alternative views to" his own.

I suppose in my head I heard the boos at Chris Hedges speaking in 2003 at Rockford College as he was warning of what he felt were disastrous consequences of going to war in Iraq. Hedges, as a long time war correspondent was willing to face a crowd that hated his message and disagreed with him to the point of having his microphone pulled. Perhaps that isn't a fair comparison, but it was what came to mind to me when he said it. Hedge's view is one that Radigan would not appear to approve of and seems like the sort of view he would intentionally be avoiding, but again I might be reading into it what isn't there. Perhaps your characterization is more accurate and that he felt that the civilians would not accept the sorts of stories he would have to tell, would only repeat stories that supported their narrative and thus left them untold. I simply read it as a mutual agreement to disagree about the purpose and value of the wars with no interest in hearing what the other side had to say. I don't want to go much further into the topic as it veers into politics a little too much, but hopefully you at least now can see how I was reading it. I do agree it isn't the only way to read it, but it was a feeling I got when listening to him.

[Papers of Indenture]

Not sure i'd give him $1,000 for a "membership" but a couple of the blog posts are fun reads. Thanks for link.

[Hristo Botev]

I do agree it isn't the only way to read it, but it was a feeling I got when listening to him.

It's not a question of interpretation, it's a question of listening to what he said (as opposed to what you kind of thought you remembered him saying, or the "feeling" you got when you heard it) and putting it into the context of why he said it. It's not fair to take your "feeling" and then to extrapolate from that that he doesn't want to hear any alternative views to his own. There are plenty of ways to poke holes in his specific investing advice without engaging in ad hominem claims based on how you interpreted what he actually said about a decision he made 20 years ago.

[Hristo Botev]

Not sure i'd give him $1,000 for a "membership" but a couple of the blog posts are fun reads. Thanks for link.

Ditto, but I sure hope he ends up writing a book about his experiences; or at least keeps the blog posts free to read, cuz I think we can all do with some more reminders that yes, someone actually has to step up and volunteer to do the dirty/dangerous work that no one else wants to do, even if we'd have made different decisions if we were in charge (I say this as I'm simultaneously following a text thread of otherwise perfectly healthy middle aged guys trying to figure out the various ways to "fudge the truth" so that they can cut in line for their vaccine--"I mean, my parents visited a couple months ago, that makes me a 'senior caregiver', right?"; that seemingly "upstanding" folks are able to morally justify their self-serving line-cutting actions, just so they don't have to cancel their precious spring break plans, makes me want to just jump ship, cuz this shit is bananas).

[JCD]

...ad hominem claims based on how you interpreted what he actually said about a decision he made 20 years ago.

Whoa, I did not attack him, I have nothing for nor against him as a person, I noticed a possible trend, pointed out one place where I thought it was most clear. The idea that one can hold two ideas in ones head at once-- notice a perceived flaw and still respecting a person is possible. I very much like Mr. Carter's writing and thinking even when I say I think it is a bit weak on the intellectual front.

I couldn't have handled going to a civilian college and having someone tell me that we shouldn't be there or they didn't agree with what we were doing; that wouldn't have been a good environment for me.

I still think, even with all the context you gave, that you are reading into it one version of what he might have meant. I read into it differently. Why couldn't he handle going to a civilian college? Because someone would tell him things he didn't want to hear and that disagreement was a place that wouldn't be good for him. Given investing is largely about camps dividing up (e.g. inflation vs deflation, CPI good or bad), it strikes me as a yellow flag. It isn't a red flag, as you note, it was many years ago and while I did see other cases of the same sort of linear thinking, I also think he is clearly trying to grow. Depending on how you read it, he is either already grown(*) into a systems thinker or he is still working at it. My warning was about trusting his growth rate in regards to investing. I tried to give an example of comparable individual, in similar circumstances who choose a very different path that came to mind. That is to say, someone who appears to have grown(*) past the "avoid conflict at all cost" phase of life. As an aside, I'd love to hear those two individuals talk, I'd find that fascinating as long as it didn't turn into a shouting match.

(*) I personally view that as growth, but you might argue linear thinking or avoiding conflict is a higher ideal. I accept that different people value different things differently. That is the point about respectful disagree in the principle of charity this forum subscribes to. I don't insist you agree with my assessment, I just want to make sure my assessment is legible.

[Campitor]

@Hristo Botev

I think Radigan (I keep hearing Radagast in my head - a consequence of reading the LOTR trilogy too many times) is worth reading. Being a non-professional investor, he may post some of the lessons/mistakes he's made on his investment journey. I plan to peek in on his blog posts in future - thanks for sharing.

[Hristo Botev]

Where are you getting that RC is/was pro-Iraq or Afghan war from, at a policy level, such that he would have a policy disagreement with the typical college kids, or the professors, or the journalist you cited? Maybe I missed that--or I haven't gotten to the point of the podcast interview where he says all the ways why OIF and the Afghan war are great--but volunteering to serve doesn't necessarily mean you agree with the reason or the need for the call to serve, especially when it comes to the military. But someone has to do it, because we all elect folks who make decisions that send kids to war, and why shouldn't it then be you or your kids that have to answer that call?

And yes, you questioned his ability to provide sound investing advice not because he's new to it, or because the logic behind that advice is demonstrably flawed (both of which appear to be true), but only because your "reading" of the explanation he gave for a decision he made 20 years ago means he is someone who doesn't want to hear any alternative views to his own. That's ad hominem.

[JCD]

I cited multiple examples, that being one of several. You can certainly decide I am wrong in my view. I don't think a political opinion on the war is needed to conclude that it is weak logic. Consider the inflation v deflation argument. If you only listened to inflationist views and said you didn't want to hear deflationist views, one might assume you were a inflationist. But let us assume you are not. Do you think it would be reasonable to say, nah, I don't want to listen to any deflationists, they will make me mad? I simply don't understand your logic of why that wouldn't be concerning, given someone is selling their views for cash. It isn't like in those four hours he said, "but you know, after all this, I decided to try to understand alternative viewpoints." Even if he concluded such a statement with a "...and I still think my view is correct" I'd not have included that point. I admit he does seem to be growing, but I don't know if he is simply still listening to one side of arguments-- the one he prefers, or if he gives equal time to both sides. Thus yellow card on that.

That is the point, not if he was for or against any particular war, war in general or systems that generate wars. I enjoy hearing differing views that are well thought out, be it Ron Paul on the anti-fed view or Janet Yellen in a very pro fed view. Chris and Peter Hitchens, brothers, who disagreed on the Iraq war and I very much enjoyed their debates and their acknowledgements of the others side of view. I have since gone on to study from both their works, even though they are really opposite sides on many issues. In most sorts of debates, ones own money is not on the line and most of the time you are not being sold their expertise. I was pretty sure he was selling his views and while I didn't know the amount, at 1000 dollars I think a note on how he at least in some cases he did not give much time to other perspectives is warranted.

And yes, you questioned his ability to provide sound investing advice not because he's new to it, or because the logic behind that advice is demonstrably flawed (both of which appear to be true), but only because your "reading" of the explanation he gave for a decision he made 20 years ago...

Reading the article I get the same feeling of a lack of second order thinking. The gov't may make holding bitcoin a unpatriotic, traitorous act and thus make it an extreme crime, like automatic death penalty. Not because it is financially important, but because it is symbolic....

I don't think you understand I was giving an example, not trying to cite each and every incident I heard it. I also read the article and cited a second example, as quoted above to try to demonstrate it wasn't just a single issue or even a single venue. Others have also cited examples, so it isn't like the conclusion is what your debating about. I didn't want to write a dissertation on all the flaws I saw and no one else has either. RC reminds me of Yuval Noah Harari in that Harari noted one of his books was "banal". One of his critics, an expert in the field Harari was writing on, said Harari said almost nothing new in his book and almost anything new he did say was wrong. Yet Harari's books have sold millions of copies. Why? Because Harari can write well and the audience enjoys it. I think the same captures Radigan. At best his content is banal and at worst it is biased towards his own preferences rather than being systematic.

Even if you don't like one example I cited, it seems like all the other examples fit within the same logic, be they from me or others. Your conclusion appears to be around the question of my politics which I have not stated in public and don't intend to now. To give another equally politically questionable example, in economic terms, it is clear he felt he had to join the military or be trapped in construction. He clearly rejects blaming economics for forcing particular groups to join up, as he believes in stepping up to challenges. I have deep respect for that view, but the question can remain--is their any validity to any attack on an economic system that forces poor folks to choose between war and hard construction work that will eventually lead to back surgery? It seems he would say no, but he never made it clear why he thinks that or how he reached that conclusion. You might interject like you did regarding the Iraq war, 'what if everyone behaved like you proposed' and of course the answer is that we would have a different world and a different system, just like if everyone became a devotee of ERE. When someone keeps leaving questions unasked, the conclusion you may reach is they don't even know these questions exist. Could that interpretation be wrong? Surely it could, but all the rest of the evidence stacked up seems to indicate it is unlikely. Why does this piece of evidence bother you so much more? He had lots of statements of similar sorts with a specific ideology in economic views. Those opinions seem to directly lead into his ideology for investing. Having ideology around investing is generally not a good idea as when regime shifts, you can get into trouble. I believe Jacob has spoken about how professional investors were the first group he ever met that didn't have stable political views, rather they were debating the outcome of the system (I tried to find the post but failed. This is the nearest I found). Radigan seems to have stable views. Investing involves a lot of hard questions like how to know when you are wrong. I couldn't find him ever searching for that sort of metric and that troubles me.

Re-reading this, I realize I'm moving from explaining my thinking in order to elucidate to defending myself, so for the sake of not turning into a flamewar, I think this best be my last response. You can judge my claims as valid or not as you see fit. Hopefully if nothing else I have given you something to think on.

[Campitor]

I couldn't have handled going to a civilian college and having someone tell me that we shouldn't be there or they didn't agree with what we were doing; that wouldn't have been a good environment for me.

It seems the quoted section in contention has been removed from Radigan's bitcoin article. I do recall reading that passage myself.

[Hristo Botev]

It seems the quoted section in contention has been removed from Radigan's bitcoin article. I do recall reading that passage myself.

It was from the podcast interview JCD linked to, which, BTW, I've now finished listening to (the entire 4 hours), and it's good stuff. It's nice to hear a perspective on the important issues of the day from someone who is well read and thoughtful and NOT from academia (or from corporate media, or think tanks with policy preferences, etc.), but from someone who actually has firsthand knowledge of the shitshow that is international politics; as opposed to someone who has merely studied it in school and written academic papers about it that no one will read.

Also, per the interview, apparently he's been in some hot water with some of his readers because he (presumably somewhere else? maybe Twitter? which I'm not on) has been highlighting all the problems with bitcoin (he said that will be the topic of his next article), and given his background, it's perhaps not surprising that the biggest problem he sees with folks thinking that bitcoin is going to provide them a decentralized safety net when everything else goes to shit is security; as in, if we're at a place where you've "won" by going all in on bitcoin, we're probably also at a place where there's some sort of combination of: (a) disruptions of the internet and the electric grid; or (b) disruptions of the supply chains such that you probably won't be able to buy much actual value (e.g., food, clothing, shelter) with your bitcoin, regardless of how it stands in comparison to fiat currency or precious metals; or (c) the armed police force/military you expect to provide you with security to protect whatever it is you're able to buy with your bitcoins will be long gone, or at least not particularly willing to help you out.

Also, it sounds like he's struggling with the patriotism and duty/loyalty angles a bit; as in, the anarchist streak among a lot of bitcoin fanatics who are now in a rather selfish (and short sighted) place where they almost have to cheer for it all to come burning down, because that's the bet they've made. I'll be interested to see how he deals with that angle in his next article. Among my young Gen X/old millennial friends, the folks I know who've bought in to the bitcoin thing haven't gone all in in any sort of fanatical way, they just think it's kind of fun (in the same way they threw a little of their IRA money to GameStop for shits and grins when that was a thing). I wonder if RC may be overstating the fanaticism of bitcoin adherents; but perhaps not.

So . . . , yet again I see myself seeing the wisdom in JMG's and Jacob's advice to invest in skills and community.

[jacob]

Say anything that even slightly questions bitcoins et al. and you might be spending the next 10 years explaining yourself to the interwebs on "why you hate bitcoins". It's the current messiah of investing. People want complete release from all their investment worries. It's understandable. Maybe best not to mess with that. Also see "index funds".

[Hristo Botev]

Also see "index funds".

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!

(But yeah, I get it. Also an interesting angle of the RC interview was the generational "warfare" he sees happening where the boomers are going to start getting really pissy that the millennials aren't doing their part to dutifully invest in their 401K index funds so that the boomers can retire like fat cats--spending their stimulus checks on GameStop or bitcoin instead of putting it in "smart" investments. With the millennials responding, basically: f you; thanks a lot for the artificially propped-up and teetering economy, all the debt, the climate change, and all the microplastics in my drinking water, or whatever--hope you enjoy your social security checks and 401K withdrawals made worthless by inflation. Anyway, don't know if he's overblowing this generational standoff; but if he's not, I'm just going to continue hoping my Gen X membership qualifies me for Switzerland status.)

[Qazwer]

I think of index fund as the best of the worst choices of someone as clueless as me. I sort of use the Jacob rule for any of my investments. I do not want to buy anything that someone like Jacob might be on the other side of the bet. It is the poker table where you cannot find the sucker. Guess who it is

I think of Bitcoin as a pure early technology bet with madness of crowds thrown in. Just finished William Bernstein’s new book updating Charles McKay’s classic of Extrordinary Popular Delusions. Tulips were awesome too...