2 ms·
She systematically and intentionally defrauded investors. His startup turned out to not be as good as valued. Caveat emptor applies.
by istinetz 4y ago
She systematically and intentionally defrauded investors. His startup turned out to not be as good as valued. Caveat emptor applies.
- edrxty 4y agoIt's also a bit of a reminder that what society considers criminal and immoral-as-hell are often strangely misaligned. It's entirely possible he was being fraudulent as well, but he didn't A. mess with icky medical things or B. cross the line as obviously. If we were a strictly rational utilitarian society he'd be in prison for 220 years but because literally everyone is basically just shooting from the hip roughly all the time...here we are. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, just I feel something we all forget very frequently.
- istinetz 4y ago>If we were a strictly rational utilitarian society he'd be in prison for 220 years I don't think you understand how risk works. You cannot judge him only on the downside, without considering the upside that could have been. If you jail every startup founder who fails for 220 years, nobody would try to create risky startups, and your utopia would miss out on innovation.
- smcl 4y agoI think they do. My read was that they're trying to illustrate that there is more that goes into determining what a crime is and what the punishment for a crime should be than the impact it has on a company's market value. And I don't think there's a suggestion that every startup founder whose company fails should be jailed - only that if there's some kind of serious wrongdoing, like fraud, involved. Unfortunately with the popularity of "fake it 'til you make it" it's easy for people cross the line, knowingly or unknowingly.
- christkv 4y agoWell he did lend himself money from the company to buy properties he then rented back to weworks so there is that.
- manholio 4y agoShe *was caught