6 ms·

Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten if we look close enough?

by idreyn 7y ago

hndamien 7y ago
Satoshi?
- fjsolwmv 7y ago
  Satoshi is for all practical purposes not a billionaire. The assets have not and perhaps will not ever be liquidated.
  - max76 7y ago
    This is speculation. He could theoretically have borrowed money with his bitcoin wallet as collateral in a private transaction.
    - natmaka 7y ago
      How do we know that he didn't sell the private keys?
      - max76 7y ago
        I think purchasing private keys is an unlikely transaction because it would be impossible for the purchaser to know how many copies of the keys existed before the transaction occurred. It could theoretically happen.
        781 7y ago
        You could buy an obligation of him to transfer you the bitcoin on request, like other regular contracts. Kind of like a swap agreement. Of course, some level of trust is required.
tanseydavid 7y ago
> Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten if we look close enough? This arbitrary and dangerous thinking. But if you really feel like it by all means start looking closely at as many billionaires as you can identify and prove that each of their gains were ill-gotten. Just please avoid the generalization.
- pissgarfield 7y ago
  whats so dangerous about systemic critique
- max76 7y ago
  I think the question "Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten" is a good question to ask. There are over 2000 billionaires in the world, and rich people often pay extra for privacy. Learning about all of them isn't a small feat. It's good and proper to have public discussion about such questions before entering research.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    I would contribute towards crowdfunding for investigative journalism to dive into the finances of billionaires, with the caveat that I'd expect any whistleblower or other awards for finding wrongdoing would be invested back into the enterprise.
- badrequest 7y ago
  its arbitrary and dangerous to evaluate economic stagnation and profligacy at the hands of a criminal class of sociopaths?
  - benj111 7y ago
    every billionaire is a criminal sociopath?
    - badrequest 7y ago
temp1831 7y ago
I see that you hate the rich, and that you think everyone else should hate the rich too. Most evil acts in this world happen through apathy and shortsightedness, not through malice. Try to be a little more humble in your opinions.
- BrechtRecht 7y ago
  Bertolt Brecht's poem The Interrogation of the Good: Step forward: we hear That you are a good man. You cannot be bought, but the lightning Which strikes the house, also Cannot be bought. You hold to what you said. But what did you say? You are honest, you say your opinion. Which opinion? You are brave. Against whom? You are wise. For whom? You do not consider personal advantages. Whose advantages do you consider then? You are a good friend Are you also a good friend of the good people? Hear us then: we know You are our enemy. This is why we shall Now put you in front of a wall. But in consideration of your merits and good qualities We shall put you in front of a good wall and shoot you With a good bullet from from a good gun and bury you With a good shovel in the good earth.
throw_away2 7y ago
"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." — Balzac
benj111 7y ago
I am far (very, very far) from being a millionaire, much less a billionaire. Nevertheless I have a pension and other investments in stocks and shares trackers. I'm certain one of my holdings via those trackers has committed an offense, or done something 'immoral'. So I suppose my gains are ill gotten, as are probably everyone else's.
mieseratte 7y ago
> Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten if we look close enough? Have any children inherited that level of wealth?
- max76 7y ago
  Plenty. There are, for example, three Waltons with personal valuations above 40 billion dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family
stronglikedan 7y ago
Probably not, but there's also probably not any non-billionaire investors out there whose gains are squeaky-clean.
rconti 7y ago
The more billions you have, the more likely that one or more of those dollars were acquired in a method that some folks might find distasteful, I imagine.
woofie11 7y ago
No. A billionaire will fundamentally employ thousands of people. At least one of those thousands will be a crook. It is statistically impossible to find a large enough organization without some crime occurring. Perfect controls and checks-and-balances are impossible (and not necessarily even desirable). Even if, hypothetically, no crime were to occur, with enough customers and employees, at least a few will be disgruntled, and willing to lie, exaggerate, delude themselves, or misunderstand what's happening. The result is that expose hit pieces are easy enough to craft against anyone powerful enough. The key question is always about how common improper behavior is, who knows about it, under what cultural standards it is considered improper, etc. I'm not trying to undermine the underlying point: Most people who got very rich engaged in at least some corruption to do it. But a key word there is 'most.' Virtually all are possible to publicly discredit, and it's important to read such pieces carefully.
- kazinator 7y ago
  While that's true, the criminals in the billionaire's organization are working to help themselves more than the billionaire. If their activities benefit the billionaire, that's just a side effect. In contrast, some crooks rob their employers outright.
  - woofie11 7y ago
    Both happen quite a bit, in large organizations. In most cases, the person at the top sets KPIs (e.g. a salesperson should sell at least $10 million of goods), and incentives around those KPIs. Helping oneself means achieving those KPIs by any means -- bribes, kickbacks, fudging numbers, hiring prostitutes, etc. Some of those are illegal, and some merely unethical. In some cases, that aligns with corporate interests (more sales!). In some cases, it undermines corporate interests (bad reputation). In some cases, the person on the top quietly supports bad behavior, and in some cases, they have just a hard time stopping it. It's often quite hard to tell all of those apart. But we haven't really found a way to avoid at least some of those happening in any organization above, say, a few hundred people. Even at a hundred people, it's tough. One of the underemphasized advantages startups can have over big companies is pretty good alignment and protection against this sort of stuff. Everyone knows each other, and works as a genuine team.

Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten if we look close enough?

by idreyn 7y ago

Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten if we look close enough?

hndamien 7y ago

Satoshi?

fjsolwmv 7y ago
Satoshi is for all practical purposes not a billionaire. The assets have not and perhaps will not ever be liquidated.
- max76 7y ago
  This is speculation. He could theoretically have borrowed money with his bitcoin wallet as collateral in a private transaction.
  - natmaka 7y ago
    How do we know that he didn't sell the private keys?
    - max76 7y ago
      I think purchasing private keys is an unlikely transaction because it would be impossible for the purchaser to know how many copies of the keys existed before the transaction occurred. It could theoretically happen.
      - 781 7y ago
        You could buy an obligation of him to transfer you the bitcoin on request, like other regular contracts. Kind of like a swap agreement. Of course, some level of trust is required.

tanseydavid 7y ago

> Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten if we look close enough? This arbitrary and dangerous thinking. But if you really feel like it by all means start looking closely at as many billionaires as you can identify and prove that each of their gains were ill-gotten. Just please avoid the generalization.

pissgarfield 7y ago
whats so dangerous about systemic critique
max76 7y ago
I think the question "Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten" is a good question to ask. There are over 2000 billionaires in the world, and rich people often pay extra for privacy. Learning about all of them isn't a small feat. It's good and proper to have public discussion about such questions before entering research.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  I would contribute towards crowdfunding for investigative journalism to dive into the finances of billionaires, with the caveat that I'd expect any whistleblower or other awards for finding wrongdoing would be invested back into the enterprise.
badrequest 7y ago
its arbitrary and dangerous to evaluate economic stagnation and profligacy at the hands of a criminal class of sociopaths?
- benj111 7y ago
  every billionaire is a criminal sociopath?
  - badrequest 7y ago

temp1831 7y ago

I see that you hate the rich, and that you think everyone else should hate the rich too. Most evil acts in this world happen through apathy and shortsightedness, not through malice. Try to be a little more humble in your opinions.

BrechtRecht 7y ago
Bertolt Brecht's poem The Interrogation of the Good: Step forward: we hear That you are a good man. You cannot be bought, but the lightning Which strikes the house, also Cannot be bought. You hold to what you said. But what did you say? You are honest, you say your opinion. Which opinion? You are brave. Against whom? You are wise. For whom? You do not consider personal advantages. Whose advantages do you consider then? You are a good friend Are you also a good friend of the good people? Hear us then: we know You are our enemy. This is why we shall Now put you in front of a wall. But in consideration of your merits and good qualities We shall put you in front of a good wall and shoot you With a good bullet from from a good gun and bury you With a good shovel in the good earth.

throw_away2 7y ago

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." — Balzac

benj111 7y ago

I am far (very, very far) from being a millionaire, much less a billionaire. Nevertheless I have a pension and other investments in stocks and shares trackers. I'm certain one of my holdings via those trackers has committed an offense, or done something 'immoral'. So I suppose my gains are ill gotten, as are probably everyone else's.

mieseratte 7y ago

> Is there any billionaire out there whose gains prove not to be ill-gotten if we look close enough? Have any children inherited that level of wealth?

max76 7y ago
Plenty. There are, for example, three Waltons with personal valuations above 40 billion dollars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family

stronglikedan 7y ago

Probably not, but there's also probably not any non-billionaire investors out there whose gains are squeaky-clean.

rconti 7y ago

The more billions you have, the more likely that one or more of those dollars were acquired in a method that some folks might find distasteful, I imagine.

woofie11 7y ago

No. A billionaire will fundamentally employ thousands of people. At least one of those thousands will be a crook. It is statistically impossible to find a large enough organization without some crime occurring. Perfect controls and checks-and-balances are impossible (and not necessarily even desirable). Even if, hypothetically, no crime were to occur, with enough customers and employees, at least a few will be disgruntled, and willing to lie, exaggerate, delude themselves, or misunderstand what's happening. The result is that expose hit pieces are easy enough to craft against anyone powerful enough. The key question is always about how common improper behavior is, who knows about it, under what cultural standards it is considered improper, etc. I'm not trying to undermine the underlying point: Most people who got very rich engaged in at least some corruption to do it. But a key word there is 'most.' Virtually all are possible to publicly discredit, and it's important to read such pieces carefully.

kazinator 7y ago
While that's true, the criminals in the billionaire's organization are working to help themselves more than the billionaire. If their activities benefit the billionaire, that's just a side effect. In contrast, some crooks rob their employers outright.
- woofie11 7y ago
  Both happen quite a bit, in large organizations. In most cases, the person at the top sets KPIs (e.g. a salesperson should sell at least $10 million of goods), and incentives around those KPIs. Helping oneself means achieving those KPIs by any means -- bribes, kickbacks, fudging numbers, hiring prostitutes, etc. Some of those are illegal, and some merely unethical. In some cases, that aligns with corporate interests (more sales!). In some cases, it undermines corporate interests (bad reputation). In some cases, the person on the top quietly supports bad behavior, and in some cases, they have just a hard time stopping it. It's often quite hard to tell all of those apart. But we haven't really found a way to avoid at least some of those happening in any organization above, say, a few hundred people. Even at a hundred people, it's tough. One of the underemphasized advantages startups can have over big companies is pretty good alignment and protection against this sort of stuff. Everyone knows each other, and works as a genuine team.