[ephbit]

A comparison of Safedean Ammous to Deepak Chopra isn't useful IMO. Chopra does likely have views on economics but it's not the focus of his work. Ammous' work is about economics.

Thus it appears you're merely trying to discredit one person by comparing them to another person whose views (on a totally different topic) are ridiculed/controversial (for potentially legitimate reasons).

As to Lee Smolin .. he appears rather off-topic to me in this discussion. I like his view on "There is only one universe." though [1]. Makes him stand out from the many many people who handle the meaning of words with insufficient rigor and then come up with useless conclusions.

> People’s appearance on Lex Fridman shouldn’t be used as an indicator of anything.

I was just linking to this interview because it's reasonably well done and Ammous' views come over, not because it was done by Fridman.

> But he isn’t very selective about guests.

Which is IMO a good thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin#Views

[hnews_account_1]

I wasn’t clear. I should’ve said it is equivalent to reading Deepak Chopra about quantum mechanics or string theory vs reading Lee Smolin. Not economics.

Additionally, imagine why and how someone with an Econ degree who wasn’t very well known became incredibly famous. Enough for Taleb to write a foreword for him (although I suspect that was motivated by their ethnic common origins and less so by the rigor in the book). This is a common grift. Several professors in extremely high end Ivy League universities tried the same tactic. Including that one fucktard from MIT who claimed he’d done simulations for a million years and Terra (or some other coin, I really can’t keep all the scams straight in my head) couldn’t fail no matter what. Same motivation. New shiny thing? Let’s use it to try and increase our social capital. Less erudite crowd? The better.

[ephbit]

> Additionally, imagine why and how someone with an Econ degree who wasn’t very well known became incredibly famous.

Whatever you're implying here, I'm too stupid to get it.

You mean: he became famous enough despite only talking trash but in a way that fools dumb people like me? Or: he became famous through illegitimate means? Or: he became famous purely out of luck? Or: he became famous because he understood how to tell these people who mistrust some official institutions what they want to hear? Or: something else?

I just think he's got a few points right that go against today's mainstream economics. Somehow I haven't yet heard sound arguments from people who oppose the "deflation is an acceptable and possibly even better state of the economy" notion. They mostly put up strawmen.

> This is a common grift. Several professors in extremely high end Ivy League universities tried the same tactic. Including that one fucktard from MIT who claimed he’d done simulations for a million years and Terra (or some other coin, I really can’t keep all the scams straight in my head) couldn’t fail no matter what. Same motivation. New shiny thing? Let’s use it to try and increase our social capital. Less erudite crowd? The better.

I don't see why this is relevant here at all. The world is full of people trying to come out on top, almost everybody is. And some people tell lies to achieve that, some do scams or criminal stuff. Humans use tactics that "work" with humans, so what?

There's no law of nature from which follows that every person who curiously becomes famous for uncertain reasons can only be telling stupid things.

Discussing the person rather than their ideas is IMO a telltale sign that the subject (and gaining new insights about it) isn't really top priority here.

[throwawash]

>Enough for Taleb to write a foreword for him (although I suspect that was motivated by their ethnic common origins and less so by the rigor in the book)

Ironic since nowadays Taleb seems to enjoy trolling bitcoiners.

[hnews_account_1]

Yep. I don’t fully trust him either. I understand his point that there’s no cash flow etc but suddenly he turns around and says gold is not limited by this argument.