4 ms·

One of the questions I have about any fraudster is where they fall on the goof/sociopath spectrum. It's surprisingly easy to start a Ponzi scheme by accident, a

One of the questions I have about any fraudster is where they fall on the goof/sociopath spectrum. It's surprisingly easy to start a Ponzi scheme by accident, after all. You just offer investors good returns (legal), be too optimistic about how it will go (legal), and then give them the promised returns anyhow by using other investor money (very illegal). I suspect a number of companies even get away with it, as they get in the black fast enough to be able to cover things up. But a lot of the people who get caught look to be eager-to-please fuckups, not calculating criminals. But if I ever had any question about Holmes, it was richly answered for me by her having not one but two children while under indictment for crimes that yielded an 11-year sentence. I cannot imagine the kind of person who has kids knowing there were good odds they'd have to abandon them for much of their childhood.

RajT88 4y ago
The kind of person who would start having children in hopes it would buy leniency in sentencing.
- wpietri 4y ago
  That is a disturbingly plausible explanation.
robocat 4y ago
> then give them the promised returns anyhow by using other investor money (very illegal) Actually, that is normal accepted business in many cases, and not illegal except in specific circumstances. Classic example is commercial real estate bonds, where they roll over (the new bonds pay the old bond holders). Or an IPO looks like a Ponzi, but usually isn't.
- wpietri 4y ago
  An IPO doesn't involve the company paying stockholders. It involves investors paying the company. Then previous stockholders sell their shares to future ones. And bondholders understand up front that they are getting cash back on a particular date; that's the whole deal with a bond. Stockholders, though, expect profits to come from a functioning enterprise that generates value, not newer stockholders.
HelloMcFly 4y ago
I don't like Holmes and am pleased she's getting some comeuppance, but I can play Devil's Advocate in this one space: maybe she always wanted kids, focused on her career (lol), then this all happened, XYZ. Holmes is 39 years old. If she really, truly wanted biological children then now was the time to make sure it happened. She's a villain, but she's also a complex human being that probably has multiple priorities, goals, ambitions, etc. Devil's advocating myself: she could freeze eggs too, yes. Can't speculate on the pros and cons of different decisions.
- pas 4y ago
  she, as most sociopaths, was overly ambitious, that got her into trouble after all. probably has the same mindset now regarding "having kids" or "family"
  - HelloMcFly 4y ago
    Sure, maybe. I guess I'm just saying there is more than one plausible explanation for the decisions she made regarding motherhood. I may detest what she did, she doesn't need any defending. It's easy to be overly reductive about people, but most people have complex, unrelated, and sometimes contradictive motivations.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Again, so what? People who do bad things often have complex motivations. That doesn't make what they did not bad. Whatever Holmes's internal state, she chose to have children that she knew she was very likely to have to abandon. I'm sure there are things in her character and history that might explain this, some more sympathetic than others. But are you claiming there's something that could justify that level of disregard for the wellbeing of children?
      - HelloMcFly 4y ago
        > So what? Because my original response that this conversation in a part of was to the comment: > I cannot imagine the kind of person who has kids knowing there were good odds they'd have to abandon them for much of their childhood. I think that's highly unimaginative and can reduces someone to caricature. > But are you claiming there's something that could justify that level of disregard for the wellbeing of children? First: Justify to whom? Who sets the criteria for what is a good enough justification? Your language on this rankles a bit. Especially because... Second: Holmes children have a father of means, they have much higher odds of being well cared and achieving good life outcomes than most American children. And they'll have an opportunity for at least some relationship with their mother. You act like having a mother in jail is some sort of damnable curse that has been placed on this children.

RajT88 4y ago

The kind of person who would start having children in hopes it would buy leniency in sentencing.

wpietri 4y ago
That is a disturbingly plausible explanation.

robocat 4y ago

> then give them the promised returns anyhow by using other investor money (very illegal) Actually, that is normal accepted business in many cases, and not illegal except in specific circumstances. Classic example is commercial real estate bonds, where they roll over (the new bonds pay the old bond holders). Or an IPO looks like a Ponzi, but usually isn't.

wpietri 4y ago
An IPO doesn't involve the company paying stockholders. It involves investors paying the company. Then previous stockholders sell their shares to future ones. And bondholders understand up front that they are getting cash back on a particular date; that's the whole deal with a bond. Stockholders, though, expect profits to come from a functioning enterprise that generates value, not newer stockholders.

HelloMcFly 4y ago

I don't like Holmes and am pleased she's getting some comeuppance, but I can play Devil's Advocate in this one space: maybe she always wanted kids, focused on her career (lol), then this all happened, XYZ. Holmes is 39 years old. If she really, truly wanted biological children then now was the time to make sure it happened. She's a villain, but she's also a complex human being that probably has multiple priorities, goals, ambitions, etc. Devil's advocating myself: she could freeze eggs too, yes. Can't speculate on the pros and cons of different decisions.

pas 4y ago
she, as most sociopaths, was overly ambitious, that got her into trouble after all. probably has the same mindset now regarding "having kids" or "family"
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  Sure, maybe. I guess I'm just saying there is more than one plausible explanation for the decisions she made regarding motherhood. I may detest what she did, she doesn't need any defending. It's easy to be overly reductive about people, but most people have complex, unrelated, and sometimes contradictive motivations.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Again, so what? People who do bad things often have complex motivations. That doesn't make what they did not bad. Whatever Holmes's internal state, she chose to have children that she knew she was very likely to have to abandon. I'm sure there are things in her character and history that might explain this, some more sympathetic than others. But are you claiming there's something that could justify that level of disregard for the wellbeing of children?
    - HelloMcFly 4y ago
      > So what? Because my original response that this conversation in a part of was to the comment: > I cannot imagine the kind of person who has kids knowing there were good odds they'd have to abandon them for much of their childhood. I think that's highly unimaginative and can reduces someone to caricature. > But are you claiming there's something that could justify that level of disregard for the wellbeing of children? First: Justify to whom? Who sets the criteria for what is a good enough justification? Your language on this rankles a bit. Especially because... Second: Holmes children have a father of means, they have much higher odds of being well cared and achieving good life outcomes than most American children. And they'll have an opportunity for at least some relationship with their mother. You act like having a mother in jail is some sort of damnable curse that has been placed on this children.