In reply to Sean,
I’ve just come back to this thread, after being thoroughly pissed-off by what I perceived was the dismissive and condescending tone of Sean’s reply to what was a genuine question by me.
But reading your following reply about anti-vaxxers etc. (which I hadn’t seen) explains a bit more. I share your distaste of people ‘into bullshit’ so thanks for explaining.
In case there’s an assumption behind why I asked about that blog in particular - for e.g. me being one of those bro-science cat-nippers ‘excited by a new thing’ (as hinted).
I posted a request for opinions on that guy’s theories because there seem to be some relatively knowledge people on ukb who’s opinions I respect, or at least am always interested to hear. I was hoping Sean and maybe one or two others might reply.
It had nothing at all to do with any ‘fascination in alternative theories’, in case that’s how it looks.
The reason for asking about that blog was because the author, Gervaise Heddle, is the ceo of a company which I researched in the late summer of 2018, and then went ‘all in’ in autumn 2018. My investment now has the potential to be life-changing (and already is to some extent) by allowing me to retire at 45. Provided a few more events play out as research suggests they might (but might not). I don’t assume anything, I could be working until I’m 80
So, when I found out last week that GH had written a personal blog in 2014 expressing some of his personal theories on economics I was naturally curious to read it - as an interesting, but very minor, side note to the 2 years of ongoing research I’ve already done in the company and its management team.
I was just curious about the coherence of some of the personal views, of someone who’ll play a central role in the outcome of what is a life-changing investment for me.
That is literally all. Nothing more than that. All I’m interested in is trying to understand more than I do.
The theories being above my head, I thought I’d ask the options of more informed people on here.
I was hoping for some factual rebuttals (or otherwise) of GH’s personal views, by people with more knowledge of economics than me. (What do I know - only looking at making a million through research, instinct and nerve
)
I think you could have just as easily replied factually without the haughty tone, and without presuming I was someone with an unhealthy interest in alternative theories. But you gave a great answer so thanks.
I didn’t appreciate the comments that I’m ‘excited by a new thing’.
or being told ‘sorry to piss on your bonfire’, not that I’m ‘loftily proclaiming’.
I could have just explained in the first place why I was asking for opinions on THAT blog in particular. But I naively thought I shouldn’t need to explain.
edit: grammar