“So you have a filter with many layers: you need areas which fulfill a stringent set of conditions for such an educational newsletter, and you need a very unusual sort of individual, someone who is expert in the area and has preferably gotten their hands dirty, who is good enough to work professionally in it, but who also is capable of explaining it well, at a beginner level, many times, endlessly without burning out or getting bored, because of their intense interest in the area (but again, not quite intense enough to make them go do it instead of write about it).”
I think the first filter is a much bigger factor, but for a reason that’s not mentioned in the post: $$$s to be gained. A large number of people read finance blogs because they think they themselves make money with the knowledge therein.
This is hard to replicate with other examples given: for purely abstract topics, eg Greco-Roman philosophy, the prize is purely intellectual. For others, eg fracking and drug discovery, you can make tons of money but pool of interested people is much smaller.
The only combination of general appeal and personal gain that could be interesting, I think, would be dating. You have recurrent patterns, clear outcomes, and pretty much everyone is interested and want to learn how to get better at it.
> $$$s to be gained. A large number of people read finance blogs because they think they themselves make money with the knowledge therein
Levine's blogs aren't geared to this audience. The pitch is simpler: people in finance have money and the people with the most money in finance tend to enjoy (or at least spending way too much time) thinking about finance. (I'm in finance and I'm good at it.)
If I could pay for Matt Levine separately from Bloomberg, I would. Not because I expect to profit off it. But because it's fun, informative and once in a while helps me explain something to someone else (usually a friend) more concisely.
I didn't mean to imply anything about Matt Levine or his financial well-being. I'm all about supporting people who I believe in, and personally I appreciate uos writing.
I'm less in favor of propping up inefficient organizations as a byproduct. Bloomberg is a bit sus at this point, I'm not clear on whether the top has your and my best interests at heart.
I was always a boring passive investor and reading Money Stuff has made me more boring and more passive. Every day it's stories of people smarter than me getting hosed in ways I wouldn't have thought of
If you were to commit a financial crime, he points out the numerous blunders that lead to someone getting caught. So, you could use his blog as a What-Not-To-Do guide. Most of which comes down to: 1) keep your mouth shut, no matter how much you want to brag about your great scam 2) one play only, repeats at bat is how you get greedy and sloppy 3) no huge options trades because of your one-time insider information
Money Stuff is a weathervane and a lightning rod. Things show up in Matt's writing sometimes months before they make a splash in the rest of the world.
I work adjacent to finance, but I'd read Money Stuff even without that link. It's a good way to keep myself up to date on happenings in and around finance, and of course, the newsletter is often funny. I don't expect to ever make money from my reading activity, but I have found that being well informed of weird and/or interesting developments within that world makes me more valuable at work.
Being able to predict what kinds of compliance and governance related curveballs may be coming, a few months before they land on our desks? Surprisingly valuable.
> I think the first filter is a much bigger factor, but for a reason that’s not mentioned in the post: $$$s to be gained. A large number of people read finance blogs because they think they themselves make money with the knowledge therein.
Anyone doing this with Money Stuff is, well, extremely confused.
I think the first filter is a much bigger factor, but for a reason that’s not mentioned in the post: $$$s to be gained. A large number of people read finance blogs because they think they themselves make money with the knowledge therein.
This is hard to replicate with other examples given: for purely abstract topics, eg Greco-Roman philosophy, the prize is purely intellectual. For others, eg fracking and drug discovery, you can make tons of money but pool of interested people is much smaller.
The only combination of general appeal and personal gain that could be interesting, I think, would be dating. You have recurrent patterns, clear outcomes, and pretty much everyone is interested and want to learn how to get better at it.