3 ms·

He didn't promote himself. Why is he unqualified? Is it because he said things that you don't want to hear? He is right, bankers and traders are there to make

by LUTOPiA 15y ago

He didn't promote himself. Why is he unqualified? Is it because he said things that you don't want to hear? He is right, bankers and traders are there to make money and don't care about anything else at all. He exposed Goldman Sachs and their ilk for the vampire squid they truly are. The big players have stacked the world in their favor and the fact that this is an unpleasant truth does not make it otherwise.

ColinWright 15y ago
It sounds to me like you really want to believe that this guy has the absolute line on truth. I see you've made similar comments here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049244 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049244 and here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049240 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049240 So I suggest you read the article linked to from here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3045980 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3045980 Quoting from that article: "They approached me," he told The Telegraph. "I'm an attention seeker. That is the main reason I speak. That is the reason I agreed to go on the BBC. Trading is a like a hobby. It is not a business. I am a talker. I talk a lot. I love the whole idea of public speaking." Sounds to me like he has no real qualifications, and I should pay just as much attention to him as other self-proclaimed experts. Whether I want to believe what he says or not, there seems to be no reason to believe he knows more than anyone else. However, you seem to want to believe him uncritically, and that's your prerogative.
- LUTOPiA 15y ago
  However, you seem to want to disbelieve him uncritically, and that's your prerogative.
  - ColinWright 15y ago
    No, I didn't, and don't, disbelieve him uncritically. I read the article in the telegraph, and I've come to the conclusion that he is unqualified. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean that I want more evidence, and I want to listen to others who aren't just hobby traders who want to get attention. Consider this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15095191 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15095191 That, to me, seems a more balanced position, and a more credible source. In short, I'd like to believe the things he's saying, I'm predisposed to believe the things he's saying, but I've gone out and looked for more evidence. In the end, I think his position is too extreme, and no matter how tempting, I don't believe it without further evidence. And I've seen no evidence that he's qualified.

by LUTOPiA 15y ago

ColinWright 15y ago

It sounds to me like you really want to believe that this guy has the absolute line on truth. I see you've made similar comments here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049244 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049244 and here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049240 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049240 So I suggest you read the article linked to from here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3045980 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3045980 Quoting from that article: "They approached me," he told The Telegraph. "I'm an attention seeker. That is the main reason I speak. That is the reason I agreed to go on the BBC. Trading is a like a hobby. It is not a business. I am a talker. I talk a lot. I love the whole idea of public speaking." Sounds to me like he has no real qualifications, and I should pay just as much attention to him as other self-proclaimed experts. Whether I want to believe what he says or not, there seems to be no reason to believe he knows more than anyone else. However, you seem to want to believe him uncritically, and that's your prerogative.

LUTOPiA 15y ago
However, you seem to want to disbelieve him uncritically, and that's your prerogative.
- ColinWright 15y ago
  No, I didn't, and don't, disbelieve him uncritically. I read the article in the telegraph, and I've come to the conclusion that he is unqualified. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean that I want more evidence, and I want to listen to others who aren't just hobby traders who want to get attention. Consider this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15095191 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15095191 That, to me, seems a more balanced position, and a more credible source. In short, I'd like to believe the things he's saying, I'm predisposed to believe the things he's saying, but I've gone out and looked for more evidence. In the end, I think his position is too extreme, and no matter how tempting, I don't believe it without further evidence. And I've seen no evidence that he's qualified.