4 ms·

I base that estimation on his offense being entirely reliant on a corporation (whose assets are now frozen), his own personal reputation (which is now destroyed

by at-w 4y ago

I base that estimation on his offense being entirely reliant on a corporation (whose assets are now frozen), his own personal reputation (which is now destroyed), and his crime not alleged to involve violence in any form. Morally, I think people like Madoff are worse than many gang members or low-level violent criminals. That doesn't change the fact that they are far less of an immediate threat to the people around them, particularly now that they have been exposed. A confidence scam fraudster who has been exposed is a bit like a paraplegic murderer. They may be morally reprehensible, but they're effectively unlikely to reoffend in a few months awaiting trial. If you honestly would rather live next to the average person arrested for assault or robbery than Bankman-Fried while both await trial, be my guest, but you can probably understand why others might feel differently. Like many things, cash bail is effectively "discriminatory" in that it tends to hurt poor criminals more than white collar ones. That still doesn't mean discrimination is the primary reason it exists, or that that somehow negates any of its benefits.

quacked 4y ago
> Morally, I think people like Madoff are worse than many gang members or low-level violent criminals Out of curiosity, why do you think this? Grand theft of wealth based on fraud doesn't strike me as morally worse than gangbanging, armed robbery, human trafficking, etc. (To detail my own calibration, I would say someone like Henry Kissinger is morally worse than low-level criminals. Typically I think it goes theft < violence < warmongering, etc.)
- at-w 4y ago
  Off the top of my head I'd look at who their crime affected and to what degree, why the perpetrator did it, whether it was premeditated or done in the spur of the moment, what other options the perpetrator had, etc. Someone who is intellectually mediocre, grows up around violent scumbags, and ends up robbing others instead of working a job is reprehensible, but I would say less so than a Bernie Madoff who was already wealthy, highly capable, and decided to defraud people of their life savings over decades. Madoff is not someone like Martin Shkreli bullshitting wealthy investors out of some portion of their wealth, he's someone who ruined people's lives. People often discount "economic" crimes that they can't directly see the harms of, like insurance fraud, welfare fraud, tax cheating, corruption etc. That's easy to do in places like the US, but becomes more obviously problematic in places like Southern Italy or Argentina whose economies have gradually been destroyed by a widespread acceptance of corruption, cheating and "economic" crimes.
- seedie 4y ago
  Not GP but I might throw in my opinion. While you focused on the crime itself GP focused on the person committing the crime. That way I can agree to both of you. While the crime of fraud is less morally wrong than armed robbery to me, the person committing the robbery very likely has a very different background and less choices. It might seem to be the only way to feed their family or a very natural way as they were grown up with it. While for fraud its about having more and more money, mostly for living a luxury life.
int_19h 4y ago
Rationally, this all ought to make sense. But, somehow, people still flock back to the confident fraudsters, even when they know they're fraudsters. There was a guy in Russia who became famous as the organizer of the largest financial pyramid in the country's history; it all fell apart very publicly, with many people losing their savings, and the guy was on the run for years until finally caught and convicted in yet another highly publicized court. That's it, right? But literally as soon as he was out of prison, he starts a new company. Same exact name as before. And he openly advertised it as a financial pyramid this time! One year later, he walked away with millions more. And they couldn't even sue him for it because he was completely honest about the finances! Then he went on to do the same shit but with crypto in other countries: India, China, Nigeria, Peru, Ghana, Thailand... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_(Ponzi_scheme_company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_(Ponzi_scheme_company)

by at-w 4y ago

quacked 4y ago

> Morally, I think people like Madoff are worse than many gang members or low-level violent criminals Out of curiosity, why do you think this? Grand theft of wealth based on fraud doesn't strike me as morally worse than gangbanging, armed robbery, human trafficking, etc. (To detail my own calibration, I would say someone like Henry Kissinger is morally worse than low-level criminals. Typically I think it goes theft < violence < warmongering, etc.)

at-w 4y ago
Off the top of my head I'd look at who their crime affected and to what degree, why the perpetrator did it, whether it was premeditated or done in the spur of the moment, what other options the perpetrator had, etc. Someone who is intellectually mediocre, grows up around violent scumbags, and ends up robbing others instead of working a job is reprehensible, but I would say less so than a Bernie Madoff who was already wealthy, highly capable, and decided to defraud people of their life savings over decades. Madoff is not someone like Martin Shkreli bullshitting wealthy investors out of some portion of their wealth, he's someone who ruined people's lives. People often discount "economic" crimes that they can't directly see the harms of, like insurance fraud, welfare fraud, tax cheating, corruption etc. That's easy to do in places like the US, but becomes more obviously problematic in places like Southern Italy or Argentina whose economies have gradually been destroyed by a widespread acceptance of corruption, cheating and "economic" crimes.
seedie 4y ago
Not GP but I might throw in my opinion. While you focused on the crime itself GP focused on the person committing the crime. That way I can agree to both of you. While the crime of fraud is less morally wrong than armed robbery to me, the person committing the robbery very likely has a very different background and less choices. It might seem to be the only way to feed their family or a very natural way as they were grown up with it. While for fraud its about having more and more money, mostly for living a luxury life.

int_19h 4y ago

Rationally, this all ought to make sense. But, somehow, people still flock back to the confident fraudsters, even when they know they're fraudsters. There was a guy in Russia who became famous as the organizer of the largest financial pyramid in the country's history; it all fell apart very publicly, with many people losing their savings, and the guy was on the run for years until finally caught and convicted in yet another highly publicized court. That's it, right? But literally as soon as he was out of prison, he starts a new company. Same exact name as before. And he openly advertised it as a financial pyramid this time! One year later, he walked away with millions more. And they couldn't even sue him for it because he was completely honest about the finances! Then he went on to do the same shit but with crypto in other countries: India, China, Nigeria, Peru, Ghana, Thailand... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_(Ponzi_scheme_company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_(Ponzi_scheme_company)