5 ms·

Can you explain? It’s not obvious to me.

by dieterrams 9y ago

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
What's the crime behind Bezos' fortune? Behind the Google founders? Behind Warren Buffet's?
- Rexxar 9y ago
  For Bezos, anticompetitive moves and very bad working conditions in some part of the company can be seen as crime by some people. No idea for Warren Buffet.
  - golergka 9y ago
    > can be seen as crime by some people That doesn't make it a crime. But it does make those people less credible.
- dieterrams 9y ago
  Google: anticompetitive practices, and the no poach agreement with Apple, Adobe, and Intel, off the top of my head. Berkshire Hathaway was investigated for insider trading, resulting in Sokol’s resignation. Four former execs of BK’s General Re were found guilty of fraud.
  - dmix 9y ago
    > anticompetitive practices, and the no poach agreement with Apple, Adobe, and Intel, off the top of my head. Almost all of those were done (temporarily) well after the fortunes were made. Any examples you'd find I'd bet 95-99% were either the result of subsequent monopoly or as a result of government intervention either directly/indirectly benefiting them. The 1-5% which weren't were likely punished. As the examples you mentioned were...
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Sokols alleged insider trading involved stealing from Buffett. The Gen-Re execs weren’t found guilty, they plead guilty to minor counts of “fraud” after 12 years of grinding prosecutions and after they won several trials. Their crime was claiming to not know that AIG was going to use a profitable insurance contract Gen Re sold it to commit fraud. Gen Re never committed any fraud itself. And Buffett was the richest man in the world well before either of these incidents.
dmix 9y ago
If it's not obvious to you, then the crimes of these people must then be obvious, no? https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ Care to share a few of them which generated their wealth?
- dieterrams 9y ago
  Obvious criminality is not the same as obvious non-criminality. You seem to be getting pretty worked up about this. The reason I don’t think the claim is obviously untrue is because I believe the magnitude of wealth involved, and often the scale of operations/actors, increase the probability of actions ranging from morally dubious but legal to outright criminal. Per one of your other replies, we can quibble about the quote and what “behind every great fortune” means, exactly. You seem to be interpreting it to say that criminal action was a major factor responsible for the fortune, while I interpret it more loosely, the impact being irrelevant. At any rate, I doubt the quote is meant to be taken strictly literally, and is more of an aphorism.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  A fair bit of the point (and much the discussion of the quote's origins, which, again, I've rather pointedly linked) is the notion that the crime is not obvious, but of an undiscovered crime. As in the (translated) version of an actual Balzac version of the concept: "The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed." The concept is metaphorical, but it is not without any merits. And there may be other elements, either on their own or in addition to, that crime, which accounts for the wealth. Blind luck (or some measure of luck-and-skill) being among the less-accounted-for in many instances. As to the list you present, I see among the several monopolists, operators in corrupt countries, gambling and gaming, coal and fossil fuels industries, advertising, and financial services, numerous fairly obvious crimes, in at least a moral sense, though yes, also, quite often literally criminal.

Can you explain? It’s not obvious to me.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

What's the crime behind Bezos' fortune? Behind the Google founders? Behind Warren Buffet's?

Rexxar 9y ago
For Bezos, anticompetitive moves and very bad working conditions in some part of the company can be seen as crime by some people. No idea for Warren Buffet.
- golergka 9y ago
  > can be seen as crime by some people That doesn't make it a crime. But it does make those people less credible.
dieterrams 9y ago
Google: anticompetitive practices, and the no poach agreement with Apple, Adobe, and Intel, off the top of my head. Berkshire Hathaway was investigated for insider trading, resulting in Sokol’s resignation. Four former execs of BK’s General Re were found guilty of fraud.
- dmix 9y ago
  > anticompetitive practices, and the no poach agreement with Apple, Adobe, and Intel, off the top of my head. Almost all of those were done (temporarily) well after the fortunes were made. Any examples you'd find I'd bet 95-99% were either the result of subsequent monopoly or as a result of government intervention either directly/indirectly benefiting them. The 1-5% which weren't were likely punished. As the examples you mentioned were...
- valuearb 9y ago
  Sokols alleged insider trading involved stealing from Buffett. The Gen-Re execs weren’t found guilty, they plead guilty to minor counts of “fraud” after 12 years of grinding prosecutions and after they won several trials. Their crime was claiming to not know that AIG was going to use a profitable insurance contract Gen Re sold it to commit fraud. Gen Re never committed any fraud itself. And Buffett was the richest man in the world well before either of these incidents.

dmix 9y ago

If it's not obvious to you, then the crimes of these people must then be obvious, no? https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ Care to share a few of them which generated their wealth?

dieterrams 9y ago
Obvious criminality is not the same as obvious non-criminality. You seem to be getting pretty worked up about this. The reason I don’t think the claim is obviously untrue is because I believe the magnitude of wealth involved, and often the scale of operations/actors, increase the probability of actions ranging from morally dubious but legal to outright criminal. Per one of your other replies, we can quibble about the quote and what “behind every great fortune” means, exactly. You seem to be interpreting it to say that criminal action was a major factor responsible for the fortune, while I interpret it more loosely, the impact being irrelevant. At any rate, I doubt the quote is meant to be taken strictly literally, and is more of an aphorism.
dredmorbius 9y ago
A fair bit of the point (and much the discussion of the quote's origins, which, again, I've rather pointedly linked) is the notion that the crime is not obvious, but of an undiscovered crime. As in the (translated) version of an actual Balzac version of the concept: "The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed." The concept is metaphorical, but it is not without any merits. And there may be other elements, either on their own or in addition to, that crime, which accounts for the wealth. Blind luck (or some measure of luck-and-skill) being among the less-accounted-for in many instances. As to the list you present, I see among the several monopolists, operators in corrupt countries, gambling and gaming, coal and fossil fuels industries, advertising, and financial services, numerous fairly obvious crimes, in at least a moral sense, though yes, also, quite often literally criminal.