Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by spikels 4466 days ago
Don't waste your time trying to understand the rantings of this lunatic. Like many of the uber rich he made his money from being lucky and political connections not from actually learning anything new. His incoherent theories (e.g. reflexivity) are simply cover for whatever scheme he is currently perusing to gain even more weath and power.
5 comments

This is a textbook ad hominem attack. It's trying to discredit someone using insults, and it is considered a logical fallacy. It's not the insult that makes an ad hominem, it's using with insults as an excuse to dismiss someone's arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

It doesn't help that the OP's insult premise, despite its frothing anger, is your garden-variety, vaguely conspiratorial hate of evil rich people. This sort of stuff should come with a big [CITATION NEEDED] for those of us who don't believe the rich are a big conspiracy of fortunate sons, out to get the common people.

But what's most ironic is that Soros being one of the world's top finance guys gives him more credibility, not less; unless you believe he has a nefarious plot to make billions by lying in magazine interviews or something.

I think it is correct not to trust what he says. He has a history of currency speculations, so stuff he says publicly might be just him trying to stir some shit. Is he short on euro again like with pound in 1992? If he discloses his positions, perhaps we can take what he says at face value.
He is one of the few people in the world who consistently make money off of forex trading, and the scale of his bets are huge. Saying he is just a rich person who got lucky completely underestimates how smart and powerful he is.
Do you have a source for that forex claim? I remember reading in one of his books that he was never able to consistently profit from fx trading.
I think this a bad advice. Trying to ignore Soros is a bit like trying to ignore an earthquake.
I have read one of his books and somewhat agree with your assessment of his "reflexivity" ideas. However wonder why you think he is a lunatic, and if you have examples of how you think his success is attributable to connections rather than intellect?
And what if not? What if people get rich not due to being lucky?

Said that, I agree that there is little value in the article.