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.
Hristo Botev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:39 pm
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.