←back to thread

Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

(passingtime.substack.com)
349 points paulpauper | 5 comments | 06 Nov 24 17:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.426s | source
Show context
Centigonal ◴[06 Nov 24 18:07 UTC] No.42066519[source]▶
There was the opendoor ipo, there was Jason Calacanis "sharpening the knives" ahead of the Twitter acquisition, there was what David Sacks did to Zenefits, and there's more. People are going to keep trusting these guys, simply because they have a hard-on for charismatic people with a lot of money, an extremely short memory, and refusal to believe that they will be the next ones to be scammed.
replies(4): >>42066584 #>>42066750 #>>42066755 #>>42068257 #
schnable ◴[06 Nov 24 18:21 UTC] No.42066755[source]▶
I find these guys are pretty insightful when discussing tech and VC news. The politics talk is awful. Chamath is a lightweight who doesn't know anything about how our government works but speaks confidently -- I remember one time he was talking about how raising the debt ceiling will allow the President to spend more money. Sacks is a partisan hack who will spin everything as a positive for Trump and MAGA politics. That's after he was a hack for Desantis.
replies(5): >>42066853 #>>42067153 #>>42067213 #>>42067328 #>>42068731 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[06 Nov 24 18:52 UTC] No.42067328[source]▶
> these guys are pretty insightful when discussing tech and VC news

They seem insightful. They’re generally behind the curve and remind of Stratfor.

If anything, All In is better connected on politics. But that may be my Gell-Mann amnesia at play because I know the finance side of tech very well, and they’re not only frequently but paradoxically consistently wrong on it in ways that one sees institutional-versus-retail flows profit off.

replies(4): >>42068880 #>>42068941 #>>42069853 #>>42069903 #
2. TeaBrain ◴[06 Nov 24 20:31 UTC] No.42068880[source]▶
Do you think that of the four of them, Friedberg has a best grasp of the finance side of things? I would think he would be since he was apparently formerly involved in IB, PE, then corp dev when he was younger.
3. lxgr ◴[06 Nov 24 20:35 UTC] No.42068941[source]▶
Sounds like it is. When somebody is confidently wrong in an area you're familiar with, and confidently speaking about areas you're not, isn't that an instant epistemic red flag?
4. avs733 ◴[06 Nov 24 21:38 UTC] No.42069853[source]▶
they perform insightfullness
5. takinola ◴[06 Nov 24 21:42 UTC] No.42069903[source]▶
Interestingly, I agreed with the idea that they are better when discussing tech and VC (after all that's their day job). Do you have any examples of where they have been significantly off on tech finance?