@greyenlightenment's banner p

greyenlightenment

investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...

3 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:26:17 UTC

blog https://greyenlightenment.com/

Verified Email

				

User ID: 68

greyenlightenment

investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...

3 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:26:17 UTC

					
				

				

				

				

				

					

User ID: 68

Verified Email

Of course, Elon is more powerful. But look how Richard Hanania or Curtis Yarvin despite neither really having any special credentials or being CEOs or power brokers, rose to the highest pillars of punditry. Their views are widely shared. They built careers on this. This required mastery of words to cultivate intellectual credibility. Richard probably contributed non-trivially to the decline of wokeness in 2021-2023 (he wrote a book), but I know Yarvin's ideas have been appropriated to some degree in Washington (such as DOGE) and top policy people follow him (Vance probably).

It's not a morality thing. It's about crafting a message that appeals to intended recipients ,and this is deceptively hard, even when trying to preach to choir.

It's more about how the opinion is received, not the morality per se. Goebbels was immoral but was an effective propogandist. The "ratio score" is a clear and visible indicator of this. When something is "ratioed" it typically signifies a misfire (unless it's a poll/question), meaning misreading the value system of the audience. Getting basic facts wrong also tends to result in ratios. This makes for a bad opinion. Getting generally negative feedback without trying (e.g. trolling) is another indication.

If he wanted to do a really good troll he would do something where it's not easy to disprove. A good troll post leaves enough ambiguity. For example, SBF when he said books are inferior to blog posts, which got a bunch of people riled up . https://www.yahoo.com/tech/sam-bankman-fried-once-said-110845327.html

It's not like this can be disproven, yet it's controversial, so it's a great troll. Or Richard Hanania saying that Shakespeare is overrated--again, this is subjective and was a great troll.

Marc's example was getting something basic wrong, doubling down , and looking dumber in the process in trying to dig himself out.

That is why the odds are not zero. 2% seems right for tiny possibility of mutations or unforeseen

For one, the Nazi party membership was effectively compulsory, especially higher up. There was no such thing as being a conscientious objector . Morality is not the same as the good vs bad opinions aspect.

We don't even need to cite those examples: tesla and space-x alone are more than a million people will ever accomplish. His reach is huge, no doubt.

But lot of people wonder, "How can someone so successful and smart be so shallow at politics? Why isn't there more of a skill transfer?" I would argue that this is asking too much--top verbalizers are rarer than top business people. Moldbug has often complained that Elon's views are pedestrian, and I'm like, "yes, compared to you , almost everyone is."

But to answer your question, I think he would be more effective if he tried, or at least ghostwrote, a college-level essay articulating his politics or "worldview". It would go viral and be read by important people and probably move the needle in ways a meme tweet cannot. This would not be a big time investment away from his businesses given he already spends a lot of time on twitter .

I think this applies to Elon Musk. He doesn't seem to take himself too seriously online. He posts memes and doesn't factcheck. It's a "take it or leave it approach". For Marc Andreessen or Chamath, it's harder to tell, and I think they are more serious, so their misfires reflect a combination of poor situational awareness or opinions that poorly calibrated for their audiences. The fact they defend themselves or double-down suggests it's not trolling, but rather their genuine belief, whereas Elon doesn't explain.

This is exactly what I would expect. Of course both sides do it. "Law and order is good, except jan 6th does not apply."

Now it fell to 9%. I think it would be easy to manipulate the market due to thin liquidity.

I don't see any way in which humans are entirely eliminated in the process. At some point someone needs to coordinate what happens next, including instructing the AI what to do (this can include reprograming the AI). AI is very advanced now, and the "email job" is far from obsoleted . If these profit-maximizing firms could find a way to outsource more workers to AI, they surely would. Labor is among the biggest costs for a firm, especially for white -collar jobs. A lot of office work is dealing with coordinating, briefing, strategizing, edge cases --things that are hard to automate.

polymarket is giving a 9% odds of pandemic in 2026. I would put my odds closer to 1-2%. Unlike Covid, it's not spread through breathing. it requires exposure to fecal matter

Me? Not that confident. I think I fall more in the specialist category myself. But I am confident the likes of Tyler Cowen, Moldbug, Noah Smith, Matt Yglesias, Richard Hanania, etc. are better informed about a wider range of issues and are better at articulating their positions. But if Elon was better at articulating his opinions or if he put more thought into what he says, he would be even more effective. Imagine if he wrote a 3000-word opinion piece demonstrating a interdisciplinary mastery of the issues. This would elevate the weight of his ideas and get the attention of intellectuals and other serious/influential people.

Or something like sell a long-dated delta positive at-the-money straddle on SPY. This will collect a lot of premium, and then buy the 3 months far-OTM SPY puts, which will be offset by the premium collected on the straddle. If the market tanks, the puts will surge and easily offset the loss on the straddle. The problem is when the puts don't "explode" despite the market falling, due to the greeks not behaving. You would need something like a -5-7% day to get the explosion effect.

"Good" in this sense means how it's received by others and expectations vs reality. Chomsky, if he had a twitter account, would expect his tweets to elicit controversy and pushback. The bad opinion is more like in the case of Marc Andreessen, where he's not expecting pushback because he believed his opinion was universal, self-evident, or correct, whereas someone like Chomsky presumably is expecting controversy and resistance.

agree, doge was memetic and was Elon's idea originally

I think so too to some extent. But this does not explain how the math/econ people cited in my post (and in general) have high status and good opinions despite their careers/interests dealing with abstractions.

The whole thing went from total crisis mode to the virus being a lot less deadly than feared. So interest waned. Also, a deep investigation would implicate the very people doing the investigating ( governments, scientists, agencies, and leaders). I think there is too much stake to want to lay the blame anyone or any party. Let's assume China is at fault--are US leaders going to risk tanking the economy in retaliation? Probably not.

odds are it's not a big deal. It's not nearly as contagious of Covid.

The school closures were useless because by then it was far too late, and even then it was already established the virus was not nearly as deadly as feared especially among young people. For the vast majority of people, Covid was like a bad cold.

if the Hantavirus can be confined to the ship, then a stronger case can be made for quarainte, with appropriate monetary compensation.

On Polymarket, a Hantavirus pandemic in 2026 trades at around 10%. This is obviously limited by the usual effects -- even if you believe that the probability is zero, 10% gain over seven months or so is not that great of a return of investment. It would be useful if there were pandemic bonds traded on the open market (so one could compare their prices to what they are usually), but from what I can tell there are none.

Out of money put options on index funds can also accomplish this. The problem is these tend to be cash incinerators 95-99% of the time. If you throw 1% of your net worth on these , you can make a nice profit if this is a repeat of Covid...a few people did this in early 2020. This is unlikely though, from Google "Hantavirus is generally not highly contagious between people and does not spread like common respiratory viruses such as COVID-19 or flu."

no, because I haven't looked into the case since then

I use him an example because, regardless of what you think of his politics, it's remarkable what he (and a handful of others ) has done over the past decade. With minimum promotion they created concepts and lingo ( e.g. cathedral, accelerationism, neo reaction) that have gained currency among the media, intelligentsia, and even the highest rungs of power, as well as implanting criticism of democracy as something to be taken seriously. Elon by comparison owns an entire social media platform hasn't really had nearly as much success implanting an idea or meme of similar popularity.

The fancy prose makes his ideas more memorable and taken more seriously by important people. Compare "free trade is bad for jobs" vs "great sucking sound." The latter is more memorable and memetic, and people continue to refer it after Perot's death.

If it were possible to increase Elon's verbal IQ by 1 sd at the cost of 1sd of wealth, he would probably be even more effective.

But "Sam Wilkinson from Sticks" isn't an industry leader. I would argue , on net , the smartest people are less susceptible to bad opinions , even if everyone has bad opinions. Good opinions is downstream from high verbal IQ, which is the most "g loaded" of the IQ subtests.

But in the examples cited they are trying but fall short. Their opinions are not well received despite their business success. Marc Andreessen tries to be contrarian, and it blow up in his face because he gets basic stuff wrong and cannot bring himself to conceding the point. David Brooks and Tyler Cowen for example have consistently well received opinions despite neither of them being on the left. It's not just a matter of political bias. Elon Musk has the biggest platform in the world. If he wanted to write a thoughtful argument, I am sure he would get much more praise if he could write it better than how he normally writes. Swapping Elon's wealth for Moldbug's erudition would produce much more successful opinions on Elon's end. Moldbug would not get basic facts wrong even if his opinions mare controversial.

The S&P 500 is pretty conservative. In over 15 years, the biggest drawdown was 20%. Even >10yr treasury bonds have more downside .