Malstrom is really throwing around some stupid stuff lately.
Here's the catch: Malstrom is extremely good at explaining what disruptive technologies are. And his posts were simply amazing as long as he simply explained what Christensen wrote in his books. He's got a great understanding of disruption. Unfortunately, he doesn't really know when to apply disruption and when not. He's so focused on it he flat out rejects to consider other fundamental business theories which leads me to believe "The innovator's dilemma" is the only book he read about business. The same goes for things like "financial education". All he wrote about financial education was pretty much copy-pasted from Robert Kuyasaki (or whatever his name was) who wrote a rather famous book called "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". Unlike the authors of these books Malstrom fails to take into account that these theories only apply in very special cases and were never meant to be fundamental to one's understanding of economy / financial education. He does the same with his politics posts. His understanding of voting intentions, polls and the outcome of elections is rather limited and so far he has been flat out wrong with each of his predictions. He just happens to pack them in fluffy words while he really is just a republican voter who wants "his" party to win.
That being said it would be quite shocking to see him stick to his (blog-) roots when he gets so much attention from people. Unfortunately his popularity lead to some people just repeating what Malstrom says over and over again even if there is no reason to believe what he says is true.
I still think he's a cool guy though, to be honest 
