What About All That Youtube Stuff?

Let's do a quick survey of all that Youtube stuff that so many of us suck up these days. We'll focus on financial offerings; but there's stuff out there for just about anything you can think of.

On the financial side, there's an huge - and seemingly growing - stream of interview-format videos. Not sure how or why the hosts got into this, given the spread of types who do the interviewing. Favorites are those who seem not to be "professional" investment types. The ones who seem to be less tied into the industry tend to give the better interviews.

As for the professionals, their technique typically lags. Many seem to want to show off how much they know. So if you're there for the guest's views, it's frustrating to have to listen to blow-hardiness taking up your time.

Of course, some of the interviewers play off of their lack or experience, even knowledge. One particular woman plays this role, and sometimes I've thought it's part of her schtick.

Anyway, there was a long stretch where, as the offering mushroomed, it seemed you might glean a good bit of insight from differing points of view. Having put quite of bit of these under my belt, it's not so certain that's the case.

For one thing, you find that certain guests, when they're interviewed on one channel, show up on many others. Some do this in a kind of seasonal fashion. It's like they've carved out a month or so every years, or every few months, to opine via Youtube on their latest views of what's happening and what's going to happen. Both can be interesting, the former perhaps more than the latter. The former because they're dealing with current events like recent market activity or economic reports, etc. that we all either have seen or can access if we want. You thus can assess if their interpretation makes any kind of sense.

The latter - the prognostications - can be interesting or enticing especially when they're more dramatic. For example, those who respond to apocalyptic forecasts might very well get a charge out of hearing how the world as we know it will be overturned. You know the types. But do they really provide any benefit outside of the charge you get of them?

Now, occasionally, a prognosticator might hit the nail on the head. You know: They predict interest rates will go up and they do. Or they predict they'll go down and...

But here's the thing: How often is this or that prognosticator right, or at least mostly right?

Of course, if the prognostication is general or broad enough, in one sense, they'll seem like they're right a lot of the time. A good example of this: The slow decline in the value of the US dollar (and all fiat currencies). Since 1971, the dollar has consistently lost value. Yes, there have been periods where it strengthened. But these were periods of correction in the long-term downward trend. So a prognosticator that says the USD will lose value will mostly be right.

But once you get it that the USD and all fiat currencies will ultimately lose value, is there any need to hear someone predict this anymore?

So here's a personal take:

With the increase in Youtube stuff, I made it a pracitce to check out a bunch with the idea that some might be significantly better than others. And for some spell, I did find some that seemed to be just that. These tended to be those with good interviewing skills. Such skills consist of the ability to ask good questions and let the guest talk. Naturally, the quality of the guest matters. But a quality guest being interviewed by a blowhard doesn't really cut the mustard. (For those of you who never heard this expression, it's old and venerable.)

So for a spell - less than a year to be sure, but more than a couple of months - I checked in with a handful of such Youtube interviews. And I found those with quality, interesting guests and good interviewers engaging. But after a while, engaging didn't cut it. The fact is, if you have a pretty packed schedule of tasks that need doing, the Youtube stuff starts to get pushed to the side or pushed off entirely. 

Then there's the repetition. Even the highest quality guests tend to repeat certain themes they believe in from one interview to the next. If you listen to one good interviewer, then another talking to the same guest, you'll hear the same stuff repeated. Makes sense, right? But doesn't make for a good use of time when time can only be stretched so far.

The result of my intelligent and effective (if I say so myself) vetting of interviewers and guests was a stretch of time being engaged. But life and work were packed more and more with more and more important items that needed my attention. And with the 24 hours in a day remaining fixed, something had to give. The Youtube stuff was that something.

Now, it's possible that after a break, I may circle back to those good interviewers for a shot of Youtube stuff. But that'll likely come when there's some easing up of life and work stuff.

Summing up, all that Youtube stuff - stuff that grows day by day - doesn't really pack enough of a punch to make it worth paying attention to.