Economist Gary North: “You May Be Good. Your Site Is A Disaster.”

Gary North is an economist who runs the Specific Answers web site. Yesterday I sent him the following words by e-mail:


My name is Rob Bennett. My bio is here.

I’d be grateful if you would take a look at an article that I have written titled Academic Researcher Silenced by Threats to Get Him Fired From His Job After Reporting on Dangers of Buy-and-Hold Investing.

I think it’s a big deal. If it pulls you in, that would be super.

If not, I of course understand and I certainly wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors.

Take care.


Gary sent me the following response:

I tried to navigate your site. I gave up. It is a combination of promotionals, long, rambling articles by you, and articles unrelated to the site (front page). The site is jumbled, at best. There is a reason why you are below 700,000 on Alexa,

The first two are dead: (“I write three weekly columns on these issues: (1) Investing: The New Rules at the Death by 1,000 Papercuts site; (2) Valuation-Informed Indexing, at the Value Walk site; and (3) Beyond Buy-and-Hold, at the Out of Your Rut site. You might want to review some of the columns (which address the many issues in bite-sized chunks of argument) if I have sparked a little interest but you remain skeptical.”)

You may be good. Your site is a disaster.

I sent Gary the following words in response:


Thanks for taking a look.



  1. Evidence Based Investing says

    There are two approaches you could take Rob.

    1) Take note of Gary’s comments about your site and do something about them.

    2) Write Gary off as a goon and ignore his comments.

    If history is any guide I think we all know which approach you will take.

  2. Rob says

    I don’t think Gary is a Goon, Evidence. I think it was kind of him to spend some time looking over my site and to put in the effort to send his thoughts in an e-mail to me.

    That said, I also think his comments are odd. The article I pointed him to is the most important econ/pol story of our time. His comments are an odd response to that story.



  3. Evidence Based Investing says

    The article I pointed him to is the most important econ/pol story of our time.

    But you failed to convince him of that.

    Your “jumbled” “disaster” of a website contributed to Gary’s dismissal of what ever point you thought you were making.

  4. Rob says

    But you failed to convince him of that.

    That’s so.

    Your “jumbled” “disaster” of a website contributed to Gary’s dismissal of what ever point you thought you were making.

    I don’t think that’s so, Evidence.

    Our story has been playing out for 10 years now. What I have seen from the first day is people who for all sorts of reasons do not want to believe that long-term returns are predictable come up with all sorts of rationalizations for not accepting this OBVIOUS (in my view) reality.

    I believe that there will come a day when a large number of people will WANT to understand the realities. When that day comes, all of these silly objections will fade into the mist. There’s no substance to them. They don’t matter.

    What matters is the 30 years of academic research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. We all need to focus on that.

    We are obviously not there yet. I’m working on it, I’m working on it!

    You take good care, old friend.


  5. Drip Guy says

    “I also think his comments are odd…”

    Geez, Rob, let’s just be glad you didn’t send him over to JR’s wacky site — you coulda permanently ruptured the poor guy’s higher thinking centers, by him trying to make sense of the insanity smeared on the walls over there!


  6. Rob says

    We all have our crosses to bear as we journey through this Valley of Tears, What.

    I wish you well, my old friend.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Comments links could be nofollow free.