It can also be a case of confirmation bias however. I have seen some people that have seemingly made some apparently near perfect predictions about wild far out things only to check their back record and find 1000 misses on other things. If you have the time to dig through these kind of site they can be really cool and useful however it is usually only in hind sight that you can figure out what was really worth paying attention to.
I am not down on ZH, they do some really neat things, it is just that it sometimes they need a little boiler plate warning on their content.
I know close to nothing about this website. But in a matter of seconds I'm confronted with things that make me want to take it less seriously - an ad for a mail order bride, the article's author is "Tyler Durden", obvious editing errors (though sadly these are more common since many websites like this don't actually have editors).
The article might be bang on but I wonder whether it makes sense to take it seriously when there's red flags like this.
By all means don't take it seriously, but in the interest of conversation, Tyler Durden is a pretty obvious reference to the quote "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero". Would you be more inclined to take a website seriously if they simply said their articles were penned by "anonymous"?
ETA: One thing I appreciate about ZeroHedge is that they include their sources. For example there was an article earlier today about a court ruling and the text of the ruling itself was embedded right there, inline with the article. Similarly when they mention a post on Twitter you can usually read the tweet for yourself and decide if their analysis is appropriate. That is a breath of fresh air after spending time on so many news sites (both major and more "fringe" ones) that just expect you to take them at their word. I'm not saying everyone should follow their lead exactly, but is it too much to ask that the primary source that is the focus of an article at least be linked somewhere at the bottom of the page, CNN?
The book/film Durden always seemed a bit like a hypocritical villain. Did I enjoy the character, the gags, the twist? Sure! But seeing an article with this identity as the pen name makes my eyes roll pretty hard. Are some of the pressures imposed by society bad things? Yes, some certainly are. But the folks who see Durden as a champion often rally behind him because they don't like the fact that their beliefs draw scorn from society. It's not because they're unsung heroes brought down by popular culture but instead because their beliefs are anti-social.
> Tyler Durden is a pretty obvious reference to the quote "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero"
It's an obvious reference to the character, using his name. It's not at all obvious from this article alone that it's referring to this quote. But you probably have some more context about this website? What is it about this website or this article that makes you think it's referring to this particular quote?
It's sort of Q adjacent and appeals to a similar set. Thus the 4chan-like signifiers (every author writes as "Tyler Durden" and the topics tend to be paranoia inclined).
> Zero Hedge (or ZeroHedge) is a far-right[13] libertarian[18] financial blog and news aggregator.[14][15][19] Zero Hedge, per its motto,[a] is bearish in its investment outlook and analysis, often deriving from its adherence to the Austrian School of economics and credit cycles.[23] While often labeled as a financial permabear,[24][25] Zero Hedge has also been described as a source of "cutting-edge news, rumors and gossip in the financial industry".[26]
> Over time, Zero Hedge expanded into non-financial political content,[c] including conspiracy theories and fringe rhetoric[3][28] advancing radical right,[15][29] alt-right,[30][31][32] and pro-Russia positions.
A few of the others for you since you don't see them:
[31] "The role of technology in online misinformation"
[7] "Who 'Created' Covid?"
[11] "How social media platforms are fighting coronavirus misinformation"
[28] "MAGA speech clashes with coronavirus misinformation crackdown"
[54] "Twitter bans Zero Hedge after it posts coronavirus conspiracy theory"
[3] "Conceptualizing "Dark Platforms". Covid-19-Related Conspiracy Theories on 8kun and Gab"
Here's a direct quote from that last one:
> ZeroHedge is infamous for making controversial commentaries on socio-political issues; during the pandemic, its Twitter account was suspended for propagating conspiratorial claims that blamed the Wuhan Institute of Virology for creating the novel coronavirus.
Each of these articles are saying different things, so either you didn't actually bother to skim them or you're grossly generalizing anything related to covid in the citations.
E.g. #11
>The most high-profile instance came when Twitter permanently suspended the account of Zero Hedge, a far-right site that purports to share finance and economic information, for circulating a theory blaming one Chinese scientist, without evidence, for creating COVID-19.
It is getting harder and harder to believe that you are participating in this conversation in good faith, and this post is dead anyway so this will be my last reply.
The argument was over whether Covid-19 evolved naturally and was spread to humans from a colony of wild bats or was engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and was subsequently leaked. The leak theory was, in those unenlightened times, considered "right wing propaganda".
The article says that the outbreak probably originated from the lab, and this is the guy that is capable of engineering it. It then goes on to list papers he published and research he was involved in. That list of papers, and the job posting cited in the article coupled with the geographic origin of the infection being colocated with the lab sure look like evidence to me. Circumstantial evidence, sure, but evidence all the same. Talk about mischaracterization.
Again, you are failing to discern between 'covid leaked from a lab' and 'covid was engineered in a lab.' You're all too happy to take a victory lap because the current administration suggests the first scenario is possible, when in reality what Zero Hedge was pushing was a very different narrative. That's intellectually dishonest.
This is completely expected in a higher interest rate environment. Home prices are sticky and don't change very fast. A good example is the financial crisis of 2008. Housing prices didnt bottom out for 2-3 years.
Were basically at the start of the price reset that will likely take years.
“This will be the norm until we get more inventory in the market."
I can see how that would be one analysis in dense and growing cities, but I wonder how much of this holds true in less densely populated areas where there are homes available, but they are unaffordable because of insufficient wages.
First time home buyers have it much better than others. As long as you can come up with the closing costs, the federal housing administration will cosign your loan. It's a great deal. No down payment.
Occasionally their data monsters pull out a winner but it can be a lot to dig through.
Also as an Australian, "First time for you?". We have been waiting for a gap into the market for well over a decade.