Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bernie Madoff has died

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 406 posts

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#351

Post by smolder »

albatross wrote: post #219
bedhead wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one reason why CEO pay has skyrocketed: hazard pay. Something goes wrong, even if the CEO had no idea about it, and who gets vilified and maybe even prosecuted? The CEO. Just saying...there are trade offs for everything.

Is that really a reason for skyrocketing pay though? Struggling to come up with any instances where this actually happened and such "hazard pay" was "justified."

It's an excuse but not a good reason. The reason is more that people on top of the income/wealth divide have the power to give themselves more power and keep growing the divide, and they're unafraid of the risks that come with the reward. Populist uprisings are a thing of the past in the info age. The little people are sufficiently surveiled and controlled by the network, by partisan propaganda that keeps them infighting, etc.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#352

Post by ericd »

bboylen wrote: post #345
ericd wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps one of the many professionals working in distressed debt or special situations? If you're not familiar, there are desks at Goldman, etc called "Special Situations" that focus on relatively niche investment opportunities. Investors just need the price to be right. Would likely be bad for the shareholders, but again, that's part of the punishment.

There could be a price that worked but I don't think there are many businesses that can go offline for several months and come back fine. I'm most familiar with the industry I work in, (O&G), where a day not operating is an incredible loss. Is shutting down the oil refineries and petrochemical complexes what is best for the country? I just struggle to see how this wouldn't just punish normal workers and furthermore j…

There would be economic damage, no doubt. And maybe to the level where it's politically impossible to enact this kind of thing. And maybe it's a stupid idea :-)

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#353

Post by shawnz »

graeme wrote: post #338
shawnz wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s not true. Most speculative investment promise revenues if they succeed. That wouldn't be speculative then (at least not completely) > For your last sentence, why would that be true? Because it's not a Ponzi scheme unless you are lying about the origin of the returns which you are giving to investors.

> That wouldn't be speculative then (at least not completely) Can you give an example of non crypto speculative investments which are not expected to produce revenues? That’s how 100% of business promise to eventually provide returns. Even real estate is rents. Collectibles such as sports cards and art are the one exception category I can think of. > Because it's not a Ponzi scheme unless you are lying about the orig…

> Can you give an example of non crypto speculative investments which are not expected to produce revenues?

How about any commodity or foreign currency? Gold, oil, etc.

> That’s how 100% of business promise to eventually provide returns.

Exactly. Since Bitcoin obviously isn't a business, it couldn't be a Ponzi scheme (because investors in Bitcoin aren't being mislead into believing that the returns are coming from a business activity).

> To make the limit argument: if bitcoin was run by a single person selling coins and claiming their value would go up because of network value, but this claim was not true, this would be a ponzi correct? Assuming the proferred proof was reported coin value appreciation to date. (I.e. the returns)

No, that couldn't be a Ponzi scheme because the person isn't lying about the origin of the returns. They really do come from other investors. That might be considered a pyramid scheme, though.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#354

Post by throwazero »

LB232323 wrote: post #341
cletus wrote: post #30

Here's the one lesson I really want us to all learn from this: the only thing the rich fear is prison because prison robs them of time. Fines are just the cost of doing business. There are many other scandals: the whole subprime disaster, pollution from plants and the like where no one went to prison and people really should've.

The only reason this guy got charged is because he was a plain scam artist running everything out of his personal bank account. Unfortunately, the highest levels of financial crime are tied to lawmakers and corruption of the highest authorities of white collar law enforcement. It's usually outsiders and smaller operations that get caught. Corporations are in charge of a corporate oligarchy, which is the United States…

> These entities are "too big to fail". They are so essential to the economy that the best you can hope for from the government is maybe a scapegoat going to a comfortable prison or a hefty fine.

Norway faced a banking crisis in the 90s; to solve it, the government simply invalidated the shares and took control of the bank.[1] The government later reprivatized it - i.e. sold new shares - once it was no longer failing.

That seems a pretty okay approach for entities that are too big to fail: let the shareholders, not the public, pay the price of failure.

(You need a sufficiently strong government to do it, obviously.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiania_Bank

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#355

Post by bumby »

simplerman wrote: post #324
mminer237 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it would mean you usually would not recover anything since a corporation usually has deep pockets and your average employee is not even worth suing even if you could win.

True, but that may be a good thing. This may prevent people from suing for small infractions. On other hand, let's say, if your average software developer knows that they can be sued into bankruptcy, then they will not release unfinished code and voice strong opposition to it. Thus shifting responsibility to middle managers. Now if middle managers know that they can be sued into bankruptcy, they will not override dev…

I think my issue with your hypothetical is that is assumed a company is already viable and in business. One of the primary advantages of a corporation or LLC is it’s limited liability. I.e., you can take a risk and if things don’t work out you can still personally recover. I suspect if we took the approach of your post, many, many fewer people would try their hand at starting a business because there are no limits to liability and much less capital to fund businesses if shareholders downside wasn’t capped.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#356

Post by P_I_Staker »

ryandrake wrote: post #141
cletus wrote: post #30

Here's the one lesson I really want us to all learn from this: the only thing the rich fear is prison because prison robs them of time. Fines are just the cost of doing business. There are many other scandals: the whole subprime disaster, pollution from plants and the like where no one went to prison and people really should've.

Corporations (which are usually the payer of fines for bad behavior) don't fear prison because they can't be physically imprisoned. You can't put Exxon in jail. And, lawmakers deliberately make it so damn hard to pierce the corporate liability veil and hold shareholders or directors personally liable for the corporation's actions. So, we need to both move more towards prison and start digging in to which actual peopl…

Yeah, personal responsibility is great and all; a vital piece of the puzzle. Someone will always be willing to be the fall guy for money, though. It doesn't seem to make logical sense, because what's the point of having millions and being locked up? but people aren't logical.

I do fear shifting too much responsibility to individuals will just absolve the people really pushing for this stuff, in favor of just finding employees to blame, and constantly making individuals fear for their jobs (and being blacklisted), or prison... but the ones responsible will have nothing to fear.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#357

Post by diarrhea »

quchen wrote: post #162
saalweachter wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here, let me google that for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=ponzi+scheme+definition Pon·zi scheme /ˈpänzē ˌskēm/ noun a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.

Ponzi is also derogatory. You should not dismiss the fact that Bitcoin kicked off blockchain as a technology, got a lot of people into a sort of financial playground, had questionable value and utility initially, and all that. All that considered, you might still call it a Ponzi scheme if you really wanted to, but it certainly isn’t only a Ponzi scheme.

> Bitcoin kicked off blockchain as a technology

"Started at the bottom, now we a little bit above the bottom"

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#358

Post by sudosysgen »

qwertox wrote: post #317
etripe wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't put Exxon in jail. If a corporation is a legal person with inalienable rights (as the SCOTUS seems to have decided on), but is intangible and immortal at the same time, what can you do? Any of the below: * freezing assets (=~ reclamation) * seizing accounts (=~ civil forfeiture) * suspend a business license (=~ locking them up) * introduce a revenue cap (=~ prison labour) * remove lobbyists (=~ losing vot…

Doesn't it have a different effect, though? Let's assume you have a company like Volkswagen and the corporate executives have decided they play the game of not getting informed about some really shady business practices which are helping the company to earn good money. Would it make sense for Germany to punish Volkswagen by any of the means you mention, thus weakening the company in relation to foreign car makers, vs…

Punish the shareholders, but let the company continue working. In the minimal case this is a tax on profits, in the maximal case this is a nationalization with no compensation.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#359

Post by skwirl »

vidarh wrote: post #350
bobthechef wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, so Breivik can go kill a bunch of children and hang out in "prison" with his XBox and hope to leave on parole? And that's normal for you? I mean, if you think that isn't an insult to the victims, their families, etc.; if you don't think that's absolutely crazy, and I don't know what to tell you, man. Heck, if killing someone, let alone that many people, isn't so bad, why do we care about any other crime as muc…

> I see, so Breivik can go kill a bunch of children and hang out in "prison" with his XBox and hope to leave on parole? And that's normal for you? Breivik is unlikely to get out because he is likely to continue to be deemed a threat on every re-evaluation. But if he demonstrates that he is reforming and is no longer likely to be a threat, then yes, that is not just normal to me but desirable. It is a system that work…

If free will is a fiction, how can you pass judgement on "us" for punishing people? If free will is a fiction then what good is saying things like "if we do X we are no better than people who do Y" when nobody has any choice in what they do?

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#360

Post by etripe »

seneca wrote: post #190
etripe wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't put Exxon in jail. If a corporation is a legal person with inalienable rights (as the SCOTUS seems to have decided on), but is intangible and immortal at the same time, what can you do? Any of the below: * freezing assets (=~ reclamation) * seizing accounts (=~ civil forfeiture) * suspend a business license (=~ locking them up) * introduce a revenue cap (=~ prison labour) * remove lobbyists (=~ losing vot…

> If a corporation is a legal person with inalienable rights (as the SCOTUS seems to have decided on) Please stop repeating this nonsense. Corporate Personhood is a legal idea, and does not mean a "corporation is a legal person". Without corporate personhood, you wouldn't be able to sue a company for wrongdoing if the guilty employee quit, or even enforce basic contracts. There are serious problems with corporations…

I'm open to having misinterpreted the situation. How is corporate personhood not the same as a corporation being a legal person? I mean functionally, not semantically. If you would, help me understand why this is not a difference without distinction.

Please note I didn't pass any judgement on whether a corporate person is a useful construct or whether it should be abolished. I agree it serves a purpose and should continue to exist.

What I would argue is "limited liability" as it applies to and shields company owners shouldn't mean "free from consequences" for the corporation as an aggregate. If I'm reading your post correctly, we don't disagree there.

Post reply on HN