Comment by ColinWright | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ColinWright | Hacker News Reader

This story was submitted many, many times before finally taking off. Several commentators noted that the speaker involved was likely simply to be self-promoting, and most expressed amazement that the BBC gave him air time at all.

Subsequently we've had a post that the guy is completely unqualified to be commenting, and is just a shameless self-promoter.

Here are the items:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3039997 <- The original

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3041944

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3042404

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3042484

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3042543

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3042573

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3042871

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3042917

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3043146 <- 147 comments (so far)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3045980 <- Hoax!

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3047116

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3048464

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3048578 <- This one!

He didn't promote himself. Why is he unqualified? Is it because he said things that you don't want to hear?

He is right, bankers and traders are there to make money and don't care about anything else at all. He exposed Goldman Sachs and their ilk for the vampire squid they truly are.

The big players have stacked the world in their favor and the fact that this is an unpleasant truth does not make it otherwise.

It sounds to me like you really want to believe that this guy has the absolute line on truth. I see you've made similar comments here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049244

and here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3049240

So I suggest you read the article linked to from here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3045980

Quoting from that article:

    "They approached me," he told The Telegraph. "I'm an
    attention seeker. That is the main reason I speak.
    That is the reason I agreed to go on the BBC. Trading
    is a like a hobby. It is not a business. I am a talker.
    I talk a lot. I love the whole idea of public speaking."

Sounds to me like he has no real qualifications, and I should pay just as much attention to him as other self-proclaimed experts. Whether I want to believe what he says or not, there seems to be no reason to believe he knows more than anyone else.

However, you seem to want to believe him uncritically, and that's your prerogative.

However, you seem to want to disbelieve him uncritically, and that's your prerogative.

No, I didn't, and don't, disbelieve him uncritically. I read the article in the telegraph, and I've come to the conclusion that he is unqualified. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean that I want more evidence, and I want to listen to others who aren't just hobby traders who want to get attention.

Consider this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15095191

That, to me, seems a more balanced position, and a more credible source.

In short, I'd like to believe the things he's saying, I'm predisposed to believe the things he's saying, but I've gone out and looked for more evidence. In the end, I think his position is too extreme, and no matter how tempting, I don't believe it without further evidence.

And I've seen no evidence that he's qualified.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com