8 ms·

>Do we all kind of wish we worked at Stratton Oakmont for a year and made tons of money….? Probably. Gross.

unsupp0rted 2y ago
> If you can look past the $200M they defrauded from 1,500 investors… they were actually a pretty successful sales team.
- jjulius 2y ago
  The operative word being "if". I'm kinda with OP here either way.
- the_af 2y ago
  That reads a lot like "if you can look past the fact Famous Serial Killer murdered people, you have to admit he was pretty skilled with knives!".
jameslk 2y ago
Please write more substantial and intellectually stimulating comments on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- WolfeReader 2y ago
  The article suggests that its author would have enjoyed an opportunity to work with the disreputable firm Stratton Oakmont, and that their motivation to do so is purely personal gain. And while this alone would cause us to doubt the character of the author, they then go on to claim that "we", the readers of the article, share this amoral viewpoint. Or perhaps implies that we _should_ share it if we don't already. I find this outlook to be reprehensible. Even thinking about it causes my stomach to tense. (There, 3 paragraphs that say exactly what the OP said in 1 word. Happy?)
  - jameslk 2y ago
    > (There, 3 paragraphs that say exactly what the OP said in 1 word. Happy?) Yes, I think that’s a better comment, sans the snark. Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 In general, I find the rest of the article more interesting, and focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script.
    - the_af 2y ago
      While I did find the rest of the article fascinating -- I find the tricks and traps of conmen fascinating -- I do not think the missing context was at all important. It was actually a cop-out. Any Stratton Oakmont business acumen was overshadowed (and possibly caused by) their willingness to commit fraud. It's not something that can be glossed over.
    - photonthug 2y ago
      > focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script. But why? Granted that discussion of ethical considerations are more likely to be divisive / inflammatory. But this is also pretty much the only direction to go if you want to make any discussion of a freaking sales-script intellectually satisfying and promote curiosity/inquiry. This is literally just a guide to the most effective ways to manipulate people. We can try to avoid labeling that sort of thing as "evil", but then again if the abstracted psychology itself is what is interesting rather than the practical aspects of how to trick people, we should probably be looking at psych-papers instead of sales-scripts from famous scams?
    - aidenn0 2y ago
      > Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 It's a stretch to call that "important context" given that: 1. There is an entire article between those two sentences. 2. The desire to work for the company is not couched by that conditional
fuzzer371 2y ago
I mean, he's not wrong. I'd have loved to have worked there for a year and have made tons of money.
- jjulius 2y ago
  Sure he is - he said "we all", but I count at least three of us in this specific chain who find it gross.
  - tombert 2y ago
    He also said "kind of" and "probably". Doesn't pretty much everyone wish that they had more money? I "kind of" want to steal a Lamborghini when I see them, but I don't do it because that would be unethical because robbing people is unethical. I don't think it's gross to at least think about it. I mean, I don't know, maybe "we all" was a bit hyperbolic but I don't think it was so bad.
    - jjulius 2y ago
      I can only speak for myself. I want to have enough money to be able to comfortably provide for myself and my family, while also allowing us to be able to go and do the things we love. And - that's where we're at. We're firmly "middle class" and I'm content with the amount of money I'm making. I don't really care if I had more (it'd be nice, sure, but I don't need it), and I don't really care about fancy, overpriced, high-end goods that are, essentially, just status symbols (eg, Lamborghinis).
      - tombert 2y ago
        I also have enough money, and I'm also firmly middle class, and I'm also able to afford to do stuff I enjoy, but if I won the lottery I'm not going to say "no" to the money [1]. I don't really want to buy a Lamborghini because I agree, it's an expensive status symbol, but similarly if someone gave one to me for free, I'd take it because I think they're cool (or I could flip it for a lot of money). Sometimes I, if only for a moment, will think about how easy it might be to steal a Lamborghini and how it would be cool if I did. (I'm just using Lamborghini as an example though, replace it with anything that you think is cool but too expensive to actually justify buying). Does it make me a gross jerk for thinking about it? Maybe, but I don't think so; considering a bad thing isn't the same as doing that bad thing. It lives very firmly in my brain, and I'm quite confident that I wouldn't actually do anything like that. [1] I don't actually play the lottery, just an example.
eschneider 2y ago
Right. You've got to live with the ethics of the things you do (and don't do.)
dang 2y ago
"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- the_af 2y ago
  Dang, in general this is a good guideline that you enforce. In this particular article, though, I think the OP's comment is relevant. "Gross" sums up pretty much how many of us feel about the quoted assertion and the overall tone of the article. Let's put it another way. Think about an hypothetical article relevant to HN (say, something about how you can "hack" a human's response to suggestions using pheromones or whatnot) analyzing how a famous rapist used these techniques, and included the statement "Was this person a rapist? Yes. But wouldn't most of us want to use these techniques on women? Sure!". Wouldn't it be appropriate to call such a statement gross, and wouldn't it also overshadow the rest of the article?
  - pvg 2y ago
    Let's put it another way. Let's not put it that way, maybe? The parallel is poor because one of these things is so much more provocative than the other you that you can't meaningfully compare the responses as analogous. The sane thing to do with an article approvingly invoking nonconsensual sexual abuse to make an unrelated point is to flag it and if it doesn't die, send the moderators an email so they can squish it. sums up pretty much how many of us feel The (however aspirational) goal is interesting conversation and a visible tally of everyone's id-level response to something has its own joys and merits (e.g. at concert venues, sports arenas, rallies) but 'interesting conversation' is not among them.
    - the_af 2y ago
      On the contrary, let's. Because it's apt. Here's an even better parallel: it's gross to dream of having the business acumen of successful drug lords or mobsters. They may excel at what they do, but still, saying "who hasn't dreamt of making lots of money like they did?" would be gross. > The (however aspirational) goal is interesting conversation and a visible tally of everyone's id-level response to something has its own joys and merits (e.g. at concert venues, sports arenas, rallies) but 'interesting conversation' is not among them. You lost me. Lots of words with little relation to anything I said.
tombert 2y ago
I mean, it's gross, but most of us work for monsters if you go far enough up the chain. For the last two years, I've been trying to break into the trading world, not because I think it's this hyper-ethical thing [1], but because it pays well and it seems interesting, and I'm not really ashamed to admit it. Does that make me a whore or a mercenary or sellout? Absolutely, there's really no getting around that, but I think if most people are being honest, we're all a little selfish. I don't think I'm an especially selfish person, and I would like to think I wouldn't defraud anyone, but I certainly have worked for companies that used very questionable labor practices in developing nations where it's hard to justify outside of "it's really cheap and it's not illegal", an of course that upsets me a little, but fundamentally Tombert is a for-profit enterprise just as much as the business that hires me. Similarly, while it's obviously bad that they defrauded people, I don't think that that author was saying that it's good, or even good to want it. They said "kind of", sort of implying that "yeah, a part of me really would have liked to have a lot of cash and it would have been cool to get it", which I don't really think is that bad. I've thought about directly stealing money from rich people before, it would be nice to have a million bucks, but I've never done it because that would be unethical. [1] I've actually changed my opinions on High Frequency Trading, which I used to say was evil and I don't think that anymore. I'm still not 100% convinced that option trading is ethical though.

> If you can look past the $200M they defrauded from 1,500 investors… they were actually a pretty successful sales team.

jjulius 2y ago
The operative word being "if". I'm kinda with OP here either way.
the_af 2y ago
That reads a lot like "if you can look past the fact Famous Serial Killer murdered people, you have to admit he was pretty skilled with knives!".

jameslk 2y ago

Please write more substantial and intellectually stimulating comments on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

WolfeReader 2y ago
The article suggests that its author would have enjoyed an opportunity to work with the disreputable firm Stratton Oakmont, and that their motivation to do so is purely personal gain. And while this alone would cause us to doubt the character of the author, they then go on to claim that "we", the readers of the article, share this amoral viewpoint. Or perhaps implies that we _should_ share it if we don't already. I find this outlook to be reprehensible. Even thinking about it causes my stomach to tense. (There, 3 paragraphs that say exactly what the OP said in 1 word. Happy?)
- jameslk 2y ago
  > (There, 3 paragraphs that say exactly what the OP said in 1 word. Happy?) Yes, I think that’s a better comment, sans the snark. Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 In general, I find the rest of the article more interesting, and focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script.
  - the_af 2y ago
    While I did find the rest of the article fascinating -- I find the tricks and traps of conmen fascinating -- I do not think the missing context was at all important. It was actually a cop-out. Any Stratton Oakmont business acumen was overshadowed (and possibly caused by) their willingness to commit fraud. It's not something that can be glossed over.
  - photonthug 2y ago
    > focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script. But why? Granted that discussion of ethical considerations are more likely to be divisive / inflammatory. But this is also pretty much the only direction to go if you want to make any discussion of a freaking sales-script intellectually satisfying and promote curiosity/inquiry. This is literally just a guide to the most effective ways to manipulate people. We can try to avoid labeling that sort of thing as "evil", but then again if the abstracted psychology itself is what is interesting rather than the practical aspects of how to trick people, we should probably be looking at psych-papers instead of sales-scripts from famous scams?
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    > Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 It's a stretch to call that "important context" given that: 1. There is an entire article between those two sentences. 2. The desire to work for the company is not couched by that conditional

fuzzer371 2y ago

I mean, he's not wrong. I'd have loved to have worked there for a year and have made tons of money.

jjulius 2y ago
Sure he is - he said "we all", but I count at least three of us in this specific chain who find it gross.
- tombert 2y ago
  He also said "kind of" and "probably". Doesn't pretty much everyone wish that they had more money? I "kind of" want to steal a Lamborghini when I see them, but I don't do it because that would be unethical because robbing people is unethical. I don't think it's gross to at least think about it. I mean, I don't know, maybe "we all" was a bit hyperbolic but I don't think it was so bad.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    I can only speak for myself. I want to have enough money to be able to comfortably provide for myself and my family, while also allowing us to be able to go and do the things we love. And - that's where we're at. We're firmly "middle class" and I'm content with the amount of money I'm making. I don't really care if I had more (it'd be nice, sure, but I don't need it), and I don't really care about fancy, overpriced, high-end goods that are, essentially, just status symbols (eg, Lamborghinis).
    - tombert 2y ago
      I also have enough money, and I'm also firmly middle class, and I'm also able to afford to do stuff I enjoy, but if I won the lottery I'm not going to say "no" to the money [1]. I don't really want to buy a Lamborghini because I agree, it's an expensive status symbol, but similarly if someone gave one to me for free, I'd take it because I think they're cool (or I could flip it for a lot of money). Sometimes I, if only for a moment, will think about how easy it might be to steal a Lamborghini and how it would be cool if I did. (I'm just using Lamborghini as an example though, replace it with anything that you think is cool but too expensive to actually justify buying). Does it make me a gross jerk for thinking about it? Maybe, but I don't think so; considering a bad thing isn't the same as doing that bad thing. It lives very firmly in my brain, and I'm quite confident that I wouldn't actually do anything like that. [1] I don't actually play the lottery, just an example.

eschneider 2y ago

Right. You've got to live with the ethics of the things you do (and don't do.)

dang 2y ago

"Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

the_af 2y ago
Dang, in general this is a good guideline that you enforce. In this particular article, though, I think the OP's comment is relevant. "Gross" sums up pretty much how many of us feel about the quoted assertion and the overall tone of the article. Let's put it another way. Think about an hypothetical article relevant to HN (say, something about how you can "hack" a human's response to suggestions using pheromones or whatnot) analyzing how a famous rapist used these techniques, and included the statement "Was this person a rapist? Yes. But wouldn't most of us want to use these techniques on women? Sure!". Wouldn't it be appropriate to call such a statement gross, and wouldn't it also overshadow the rest of the article?
- pvg 2y ago
  Let's put it another way. Let's not put it that way, maybe? The parallel is poor because one of these things is so much more provocative than the other you that you can't meaningfully compare the responses as analogous. The sane thing to do with an article approvingly invoking nonconsensual sexual abuse to make an unrelated point is to flag it and if it doesn't die, send the moderators an email so they can squish it. sums up pretty much how many of us feel The (however aspirational) goal is interesting conversation and a visible tally of everyone's id-level response to something has its own joys and merits (e.g. at concert venues, sports arenas, rallies) but 'interesting conversation' is not among them.
  - the_af 2y ago
    On the contrary, let's. Because it's apt. Here's an even better parallel: it's gross to dream of having the business acumen of successful drug lords or mobsters. They may excel at what they do, but still, saying "who hasn't dreamt of making lots of money like they did?" would be gross. > The (however aspirational) goal is interesting conversation and a visible tally of everyone's id-level response to something has its own joys and merits (e.g. at concert venues, sports arenas, rallies) but 'interesting conversation' is not among them. You lost me. Lots of words with little relation to anything I said.

tombert 2y ago

I mean, it's gross, but most of us work for monsters if you go far enough up the chain. For the last two years, I've been trying to break into the trading world, not because I think it's this hyper-ethical thing [1], but because it pays well and it seems interesting, and I'm not really ashamed to admit it. Does that make me a whore or a mercenary or sellout? Absolutely, there's really no getting around that, but I think if most people are being honest, we're all a little selfish. I don't think I'm an especially selfish person, and I would like to think I wouldn't defraud anyone, but I certainly have worked for companies that used very questionable labor practices in developing nations where it's hard to justify outside of "it's really cheap and it's not illegal", an of course that upsets me a little, but fundamentally Tombert is a for-profit enterprise just as much as the business that hires me. Similarly, while it's obviously bad that they defrauded people, I don't think that that author was saying that it's good, or even good to want it. They said "kind of", sort of implying that "yeah, a part of me really would have liked to have a lot of cash and it would have been cool to get it", which I don't really think is that bad. I've thought about directly stealing money from rich people before, it would be nice to have a million bucks, but I've never done it because that would be unethical. [1] I've actually changed my opinions on High Frequency Trading, which I used to say was evil and I don't think that anymore. I'm still not 100% convinced that option trading is ethical though.