"It cannot be guaranteed that the use of mouthwash represents an independent risk factor for the development of head and neck cancer. However, the risk does increase when it occurs in association with other carcinogenic risk factors."
Yes, exactly. The statement contradicts the author's position that is "exceedingly unlikely" to be a cause of oral cancer. Taken together with the medical consensus that alcohol itself is a considered to be a cause of oral cancer I have to wonder why anyone would be completely surprised by the conclusion that alcoholic mouthwash also increases the risk of cancer.
"Listerine also has years of comprehensive clinical research supporting the health benefits, as well as potential risks, of its use. This should greatly reduce concern around the possibility of future product lawsuits."
I should have elaborated in my previous comment - I don't think there is zero risk. When I said exceedingly unlikely, I meant as an overall material risk.
If you do hold the belief the risk is material, you can factor a scenario analysis and create a blended EV to apply to valuation approach. This would help reflect the risk when trying to price the royalties.
I appreciate the criticism! Love reading all these different perspectives.
>Bitcoin's decentralized nature makes it impossible for anyone, even governments, to fully kill it.
Can the government kill any shitcoin really? Hell, Luna is trading at $0.0001. Therefore, it is not dead! Therefore Luna is the future!
>Furthermore, the cat's out of the bag, so to speak. In the US, several members of congress already own bitcoin, and the list of elected (and unelected) officials who take pro-bitcoin stances publicly is getting longer.
Since some powerful peoples' salary depends on them not understanding bitcoin critiques, bitcoin is the future!
>Additionally, adoption of bitcoin and cryptoassets continues to grow rapidly.
I'm going to try you to get you to invest in bitcoin by telling you lots of people are investing in bitcoin!
Safedean Ammous isn't 100 % studied economist. But according to his CV he studied at London School of Economics, also gave economics lectures and was/is assistant professor of economics at Lebanese American University (Beirut). [1]
I'd recommend listening to his interview with Lex Fridman. [2]
Do not read idiots like Ammous. I don’t like to restrict people’s reading choices but this is equivalent to reading Deepak Chopra for economics. Between that and someone like Lee Smolin who is also extremely anti establishment, only one of them is an incredibly deep thinker.
People’s appearance on Lex Fridman shouldn’t be used as an indicator of anything. He interviews very widely and he does it well. But he isn’t very selective about guests.
A comparison of Safedean Ammous to Deepak Chopra isn't useful IMO. Chopra does likely have views on economics but it's not the focus of his work. Ammous' work is about economics.
Thus it appears you're merely trying to discredit one person by comparing them to another person whose views (on a totally different topic) are ridiculed/controversial (for potentially legitimate reasons).
As to Lee Smolin .. he appears rather off-topic to me in this discussion. I like his view on "There is only one universe." though [1]. Makes him stand out from the many many people who handle the meaning of words with insufficient rigor and then come up with useless conclusions.
> People’s appearance on Lex Fridman shouldn’t be used as an indicator of anything.
I was just linking to this interview because it's reasonably well done and Ammous' views come over, not because it was done by Fridman.
I wasn’t clear. I should’ve said it is equivalent to reading Deepak Chopra about quantum mechanics or string theory vs reading Lee Smolin. Not economics.
Additionally, imagine why and how someone with an Econ degree who wasn’t very well known became incredibly famous. Enough for Taleb to write a foreword for him (although I suspect that was motivated by their ethnic common origins and less so by the rigor in the book). This is a common grift. Several professors in extremely high end Ivy League universities tried the same tactic. Including that one fucktard from MIT who claimed he’d done simulations for a million years and Terra (or some other coin, I really can’t keep all the scams straight in my head) couldn’t fail no matter what. Same motivation. New shiny thing? Let’s use it to try and increase our social capital. Less erudite crowd? The better.
> Additionally, imagine why and how someone with an Econ degree who wasn’t very well known became incredibly famous.
Whatever you're implying here, I'm too stupid to get it.
You mean: he became famous enough despite only talking trash but in a way that fools dumb people like me? Or: he became famous through illegitimate means? Or: he became famous purely out of luck? Or: he became famous because he understood how to tell these people who mistrust some official institutions what they want to hear?
Or: something else?
I just think he's got a few points right that go against today's mainstream economics. Somehow I haven't yet heard sound arguments from people who oppose the "deflation is an acceptable and possibly even better state of the economy" notion. They mostly put up strawmen.
> This is a common grift. Several professors in extremely high end Ivy League universities tried the same tactic. Including that one fucktard from MIT who claimed he’d done simulations for a million years and Terra (or some other coin, I really can’t keep all the scams straight in my head) couldn’t fail no matter what. Same motivation. New shiny thing? Let’s use it to try and increase our social capital. Less erudite crowd? The better.
I don't see why this is relevant here at all. The world is full of people trying to come out on top, almost everybody is. And some people tell lies to achieve that, some do scams or criminal stuff. Humans use tactics that "work" with humans, so what?
There's no law of nature from which follows that every person who curiously becomes famous for uncertain reasons can only be telling stupid things.
Discussing the person rather than their ideas is IMO a telltale sign that the subject (and gaining new insights about it) isn't really top priority here.
>Enough for Taleb to write a foreword for him (although I suspect that was motivated by their ethnic common origins and less so by the rigor in the book)
Ironic since nowadays Taleb seems to enjoy trolling bitcoiners.
Yep. I don’t fully trust him either. I understand his point that there’s no cash flow etc but suddenly he turns around and says gold is not limited by this argument.
hmm, no government in the world supports his thesis I guess. From what I understand of his position: deflational currency is the best type of currency. Any inflation is bad etc. The reason governments create inflation is to keep population poor and control them I guess?
Putting aside the weird trash-talking of status quo economists, in order to evaluate the correctness of his position, I would have to do way too much homework.
His prediction of human behavior under a deflational currency though does raise some flags. He says people will buy stuff regardless. If know I can use the same money to buy two cars next year instead of buying a car this year, I will not buy a car this year. He seems to say I will.
> The reason governments create inflation is to keep population poor and control them I guess?
When I listened to the interview I didn't hear him say that.
My view on this: governments simply cannot help increasing debt to spend more on whatever purpose they deem right at a certain time. It's simply the easiest way (least opposition from voters) for them to enact their programmes. The only other option (cutting other spending to increase spending on what's current high priority) doesn't get them reelected.
> Putting aside the weird trash-talking of status quo economists ...
Yeah, I admit he does too much of that, not optimal. But that doesn't mean the message is wrong.
> He says people will buy stuff regardless.
You won't? If your car breaks down, you won't let it get fixed right now but next month because it's cheaper? If you're hungry today you'll wait till next week to buy food because it costs 0,005 % less? You'll wait 10 years to fly to Fiji because it'll be cheaper? Oh wow, you must be a special person then.
> If know I can use the same money to buy two cars next year instead of buying a car this year, I will not buy a car this year.
You sure? You just watch everybody drive around? Besides: same money, next year worth 2x is dramatically exaggerated. What are typical gains of efficiency through technological advances? Maybe 5 % per year? I say you're putting up a strawman here. With 5 % deflation you'll have 2x the buying power in ~ 14 years .. you're going to wait this long?
> He seems to say I will.
Nope, as I understood what he says, he just says it somewhat shifts time preference.
>If your car breaks down, you won't let it get fixed right now but next month because it's cheaper?
Which car? The one I don't have because I'm saving to buy two next year? You're changing the example I gave into something else entirely. If you're saying that drastically reducing or eliminating the purchase of everything that is not absolutely essential to have won't be bad for the economy, or if it is, it won't be bad for society in the long term -- then say that.
>> If know I can use the same money to buy two cars next year instead of buying a car this year, I will not buy a car this year.
>You sure?
Yes. (I lived someplace where there was a ridiculous price markup for electronic goods. I needed a new phone and laptop but I refused to buy them because of the ridiculous prices. Then the currency crashed a year later and I immediately bought them by exchanging US dollars before they could markup the prices or pause sales. I ended up getting them for less than the US price incidentally. Otherwise I would have waited until the old ones were preventing me from doing essential tasks. This is same for cars.)
"People consume because there's a limitless desire to consume" he says. And when Fridman calls him on it, he says yes well people economize due to constraints no matter what.
>same money, next year worth 2x is dramatically exaggerated.
Well yes that’s the point. aren’t we talking about a bitcoin economy in the end after all? If a transition from fiat to bitcoin standard starts happening, this is the path its going to take until the price stabilizes, no? People doubled their money in half a year in 2021 after all.
EDIT: his odd comment that he is migrating from anarchism towards supporting benign dictatorships doesn't exact endear him either.
> Which car? The one I don't have because I'm saving to buy two next year?
So eventually you'll have two ... and what will happen? Yes, some time your car will need repairs. Will you have the repair done months later because it'd be cheaper then? Highly unlikely.
> If you're saying that drastically reducing or eliminating the purchase of everything that is not absolutely essential to have won't be bad for the economy, or if it is, it won't be bad for society in the long term -- then say that.
I think people would - as they always have been doing it - still spend money on things that aren't absolutely necessary. If not for mere hedonistic pleasure then for status or whatever.
>>> If know I can use the same money to buy two cars next year instead of buying a car this year, I will not buy a car this year.
>>You sure?
>Yes. (I lived someplace where there was a ridiculous price markup for electronic goods. I needed a new phone and laptop but I refused to buy them because of the ridiculous prices. Then the currency crashed a year later and I immediately bought them by exchanging US dollars before they could markup the prices or pause sales. I ended up getting them for less than the US price incidentally. Otherwise I would have waited until the old ones were preventing me from doing essential tasks. This is same for cars.)
You ignored what I read about the buying power doubling over not one year but rather fourteen years ... you're writing about "currency crashing" which is something completely different from a gradual steady deflationary currency.
> "People consume because there's a limitless desire to consume" he says. And when Fridman calls him on it, he says yes well people economize due to constraints no matter what.
What's the point? Of course people try to find a balance between spending now and saving, nothing new here.
> If a transition from fiat to bitcoin standard starts happening, this is the path its going to take until the price stabilizes, no? People doubled their money in half a year in 2021 after all.
Yes. But as with most such developments, there's the dynamics that you see at first glance (adoption grows --> people are more confident Bitcoin will become even more valuable --> demand increases --> price increases --> ...) and there's lots more secondary dynamics that will also happen and dampen the obvious dynamic (price increases --> too expensive for some --> demand decreases --> dynamic equilibrium). There's surely more such secondary dynamics and they're important.
> EDIT: his odd comment that he is migrating from anarchism towards supporting benign dictatorships doesn't exact endear him either.
Well, I'm not a fan of dictatorships.
I don't think it's a very useful heuristic to discard all ideas of some person because one doesn't share/like one or a few of their positions.
You'd have to discard the positions of almost every person on the planet then, right?
>Also, uh, don't drink your mouthwash, spit it out.
doesn't cut it for me. someone I know who doesn't smoke or drink and was sub-40 years old got diagnosed with tongue cancer. Cancer specialists were miffed at the cause. The only thing that stood out: he was a meticulous user of mouthwash 3x a day since he was a teenager.
Sometimes people just get unlucky and there's not some direct causal factor. Yes, it could have been the mouthwash. It also could have been a combination of their germline genome having some unfortunate mutations and/or a series of unlucky somatic mutations.
If mouthwash has harmful ingredients keeping it in your mouth for a prolonged duration and spitting it out instead of drinking it will not solve your problems, contrary to the quoted line.
If an patient who is an outlier exhibits an extreme habit related to the affected cancerous organ, it seems advisable to take note even if it is possible there are undiscovered more serious contributing factors.
I mean, you are making a jump from correlation to causation. There is a reason science does not use anecdotes and relies on statistics, p values, and, confidence intervals.
That being said, did you happen to know what ingredients were in play, since he was using the same product for ~>20 years it sounds like, maybe the carcinogen landscape was much more under researched that long ago? I mean leaded gas was still sold in the US 'til 96 -- even though theres just so much evidence of it being harmful to the nth degree.
Even more reason not to use alcohol mouthwash, interesting. I did not previously use it just for the fact it dries your mouth and that exacerbates bad breath.
>And why pray tell, should I disregard cancer specialist
Not doing such a thing, your words were directly "someone I know who doesn't smoke or drink and was sub-40 years old got diagnosed with tongue cancer." -- which is different from your words here where you link a study -- and I appreciate you for doing.
Also:
"Alcohol-based mouthwash as a risk factor of oral cancer"
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6982979/