Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

passingtime.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 297 posts

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#41

Post by KK7NIL »

kemiller2002 wrote: post #6

Please don't beat me up too much on this. Even if their faulty assumption was true, wouldn't that just be a Keynesian approach to solving a recession? I though Keynes approach was that the government should step in a spend more to prevent a recession, essentially equalling what is lost in the free market. Fully admit could be totally wrong on this. Just curious.

This is for Q3 of this year, for which the government is saying we're not in a recession.

The problem with Keynesian economics is that no one wants to turn off the money printer when the times are good.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#42

Post by ilya_m »

kemiller2002 wrote: post #6

Please don't beat me up too much on this. Even if their faulty assumption was true, wouldn't that just be a Keynesian approach to solving a recession? I though Keynes approach was that the government should step in a spend more to prevent a recession, essentially equalling what is lost in the free market. Fully admit could be totally wrong on this. Just curious.

Are we in a recession? I don't think so. There was (still is) a possibility of a recession, due to elevated interest rates, but the way fiscal policy works, through Congress's appropriations, it is hopelessly lagging behind monetary policy (the Fed).

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#43

Post by senkora »

The one that I always remember is how they shilled for Solana immediately before it crashed hard. (I have never had any position in any crypto)

I feel like their show has an implicit subtext where you’re expected to understand when they are lying. You get to feel smart by recognizing when they’re just talking their book.

The tricky question is whether there is any value in the podcast besides understanding their book.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#44

Post by red_hare »

xrd wrote: post #26

The irony of people like this misinterpreting government data as they orchestrate and cheer on a change in government.

In this past Friday's episode, Saks made some pretty terrifying statements about the FCC selling the VHF/UHF Frequencies.

He seemed wildly unclear about how leasing that space by the FCC has worked until now and pitched it as a "fixing the woke media" solution.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#46

Post by ks2048 »

greenie_beans wrote: post #5

I watched their election result livestream last night. They had some notable guests, like Donald Trump Jr. and Steve Bannon. Bannon was excited about the prospect of deporting 15 million people. Jason seemed shocked, as if this wasn't what he's been supporting all along. Does he not realize that he's in bed with fascists? Or he's just a fascist too? They hinted at knowing who will be the secretary of state and treasu…

> Seemed like Elon Musk will be Trump's righthand man

That seems like what Musk is angling for. I wonder what Trump will do. He could easily backstab people who helped get him elected if he feels they are too famous and taking some of his spotlight (Musk, RFK Jr). I suppose more likely, he just gives them everything they want and goes golfing.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#47

Post by seattleeng »

senkora wrote: post #43

The one that I always remember is how they shilled for Solana immediately before it crashed hard. (I have never had any position in any crypto) I feel like their show has an implicit subtext where you’re expected to understand when they are lying. You get to feel smart by recognizing when they’re just talking their book. The tricky question is whether there is any value in the podcast besides understanding their book…

I think you’re exactly right, it’s a show for insiders to know what these 4 people think so the next time they directly or indirectly encounter them they are known quantities. Its masked as news & informative media but its principally brand marketing for these 4 people and their funds & companies.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#48

Post by dktoao »

piva00 wrote: post #29
dktoao wrote: post #22

Thank you so much for this analysis, even as a person with layman's grasp on economics you made the deception in host's apparent off the cuff assertion very obvious. I think a big part of the problem that we have in America (and the rest of the world) right now is that it takes these charismatic individuals (All-in, Joe Rogan, etc.) 10 seconds to confidently make these false claims based on personal bias and vibes. T…

If you haven't ever read about and came to this thought independently I'd say Brandolini's law[0] is an interesting one for you to read about. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Thanks! I will have a read. Looks very interesting.

Re: Learning not to trust the All-In podcast

#50

Post by ks2048 »

bongodongobob wrote: post #28
kemiller2002 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anybody who is going to be shocked at what happens as far as aggressive policies aimed at women, minorities, immigrants, the elderly, and the lower income brackets really has no excuse. They haven't been shy in stating their intentions. You can say you made a choice to support it, but don't hide and say you didn't know.

They won't be shocked, it's literally what they wanted and why people voted the way they did. You can't just blame corruption or something anymore. It's what people want.

I think lots of voters want "let's deport all illegal immigrants!"

I think they would be shocked if they understood what kind of operation it would take to deport 15 million and what the side effects would be. For comparison, the entire (huge) prison population is 1.9 million.

I think some terrible things will happen to immigrants (and people suspected of being immigrants), but this scale doesn't seem possible and will be fought against by powerful interests (businesses employing them, etc).

Post reply on HN