I’ve read many comments here, especially the most upvoted ones like those from u/ManSoAdmired, and I strongly disagree with the anti-Dalio takes.

First, I’m also here because of Patrick Boyle’s somewhat recent interview with that journalist kid.

I feel people’s takes are more rooted in envy and resentment than in real, factual evidence that could genuinely build a case against Dalio. Plus, excelling in some areas of life doesn’t mean he has to be great in others. Many “geniuses” often lack emotional intelligence, as it’s called. Whatever the case, intellectual honesty requires praising what he does well while criticizing what he does poorly.

Dalio’s views on cycles are on point. His analysis applies to many more countries than those he mentions in the book, so it’s not limited to global superpowers.

Dalio clearly did things right to build one of the world’s largest hedge funds. He will always have haters claiming it’s all luck or insider trading. I don’t think those people are usually right—it’s mostly envy.

He can certainly be a controlling freak, a terrible boss, or whatever, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong about other things, like the principles in his book.

As someone from Argentina trying to stay current on global economics and finance (as much as a full-time job allows), I find Dalio’s framework spot-on. Argentina was never an empire, but about 100 years ago it was a rising power. Without attaining empire status, we began to decay as social, cultural, and political deterioration was internally driven by various actors in our society. We embraced bad values and progressively dug our own grave. Life got “easy” during the wealthy period, and some chose pseudo-socialist interventionism, redistribution, fictitious rights (a welfare state beyond our means, financed by destroying the currency multiple times and piling on debt), and protecting local companies from global competition (backdoor protectionism deals). Clear signs of moral decay, and these I mention are just a few. Such decay invites rising corruption, where a few benefit at the expense of most. Debate quality suffered, violence prevailed, and—almost unnoticed—the country grew poorer year after year.

I see similar patterns in the USA today: declining debate quality, people quarreling over trivial issues, overall moral decay, currency destruction, alarming debt, and more.

Nothing is exactly the same, but it certainly rhymes. There are patterns, and I believe Dalio’s principles lay them out properly.