[prostheticvamp]

I couldn’t tolerate this writing long enough to get through more than half the article. There’s the “history is cyclical” trope, the “I have learned how to read history” repeated self-aggrandizement without any specifics, despite going on long enough to repeat himself, and really obvious statements meant to read like profundity (“when there’s great inequality of wealth, there will be social tensions”, paraphrasing only slightly.)

I read a book by him once. It was short and vapid and full of pseudo-profundity. It was cheap and highly rated on Amazon, so I’d given it a try. I didn’t realize he was banking on his name as an investor. Now I understand why anyone would bother reading his writing once, but not why they would read it twice.

[sameerds]

On the flip side, the writing has an increasingly rare property that the whole article (essay?) is divided into sections with proper titles. More often than not, I lose patience and give up on most articles these days, simply because there are no visual markers when scrolling through. I have no way to know where to stop and scan a few lines as I scroll through ... it's all just a continuous torrent of words and sentences.

[justinzollars]

Not everyone is a great messenger. I recommend Graham Allison Destined for War. Similar message but delivered differently.