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

361–370 of 406 posts

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#361

Post by r00fus »

monocasa wrote: post #252
ac29 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its harder to sue the government than you might think, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...

Regardless, the argument there isn't that you can't sue the government at all, but instead that the government is granted immunity for some subset of actions. Going back to the original point, personhood is clearly not a requirement for being named in a suit. For more examples you can also see in rem cases, where the government sues property itself for civil forfeiture. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Pa…

Civil forfeiture where govt sues "property" to seize it so they don't have to have a trial for the person owning said property is a shady dark pattern that shouldn't be cited as an ethical approach at all. Just my opinion.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#362

Post by mumblemumble »

smt88 wrote: post #249
mumblemumble wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, they aren't, but we're not talking about the class of crime. We're talking about a particular kind of incentive model.

The "incentive" for murder is usually that someone is angry and not thinking about consequences at all. Financial crimes are usually slow-burning and almost never crimes of passion. Prison doesn't stop murderers, but that has no bearing on whether it stops Madoffs.

Alternatively, we could look at the empirical studies, which seem to indicate that, regardless of the different ways one could hypothesize that in some contexts but not in others, the reality is that, across the board, making sentences tougher has little deterrent effect.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#363

Post by r00fus »

rjsw wrote: post #213
hackflip wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

Also "Working Towards the Führer" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kershaw#%22Working_Towards...

So - stochastic dictatorial regime? (stolen from: stochastic terrorism).

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#364

Post by Hallucinaut »

Ekaros wrote: post #348
saalweachter wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll admit, Ponzi schemes could be considered centralized by definition. It might be more accurate to describe it as a pyramid scheme -- because investors become a part of the scheme, actively seeking more investors from whom they hope to recoup their investment -- or a pump-and-dump, focusing on the market component. Re: Bitcoin as a digital payments, my complaint there would be that Bitcoin is not structured to ret…

I don't think Bitcoin is any type of scheme. It's just a typical bubble. As a new asset class. Nothing special or schemis about it.

Possibly fair to exclude Bitcoin from that definition, being the first and essentially a research project let loose... but what about 1000+ dead coins?

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#365

Post by Applejinx »

paganel wrote: post #153
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.

And if you do end up stealing, make sure to steal from the less-off. Afaik nobody has yet gone to prison for liquidating an employees' pension fund, for example.

Yet.

Sounds like an aspirational goal to me! Long past time somebody did.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#366

Post by etripe »

bumby wrote: post #316
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…

I think this may create asymmetries between risk/reward for those (real) people making the decisions. Think about it with a sports analogy. If I cheat and take performance enhancing drugs, there’s huge potential upside: I can drastically increase my salary. If the consequence was spread to the team rather than concentrated on the individual it encourages the individual to take that risk. Maybe the team would be force…

> I think this may create asymmetries between risk/reward for those (real) people making the decisions.

Those asymmetries wouldn't be new, because the corporation as a construct already shields the real people making the decisions, along with the jurisprudence of slaps on the wrist. Are companies held accountable for their "externalities" today, like mass foreclosures in real estate, exploitative labour conditions, poisoning the water supply, oil spills, climate change or destruction of habitats?

In keeping with the prison metaphor, would you work for an "ex-con" company? How about one on "probation" when you've got a family to support? Would you invest in one? As I see it, the potential for self-corrective behaviour is greater with my (admittedly, off-the-cuff) suggestions than the status quo.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#367

Post by Applejinx »

soneca wrote: post #33

Madoff made his ponzi scheme last 17 years with a limited network. Imagine how long a ponzi scheme accessible by the whole world could last. Possibly forever (or at least longer than my lifetime). I am thinking about Bitcoin here.

The challenge there (and the exploit being attempted) is the 'too big to fail' concept.

If you don't have enough people signed up, your ponzi can fail because a sufficient number of people who haven't fallen for it, can object.

If you manage to get everybody signed up, it becomes necessary to not break your scheme, since everybody loses.

I think this is like an unholy hybrid of the ponzi scheme and the Silicon Valley unicorn. It's the great exploit: if you can burn everybody, hard enough, you win forever. You blow up past the point where there is any possible remedy.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#368

Post by Applejinx »

xutopia wrote: post #35
soneca wrote: post #33

Madoff made his ponzi scheme last 17 years with a limited network. Imagine how long a ponzi scheme accessible by the whole world could last. Possibly forever (or at least longer than my lifetime). I am thinking about Bitcoin here.

Why is Bitcoin different than gold though? Is gold also a Ponzi scheme?

In an abstract enough sense, Jeff Bezos is a Ponzi scheme :D

…okay, then: Elon Musk.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#369

Post by monocasa »

r00fus wrote: post #361
monocasa wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless, the argument there isn't that you can't sue the government at all, but instead that the government is granted immunity for some subset of actions. Going back to the original point, personhood is clearly not a requirement for being named in a suit. For more examples you can also see in rem cases, where the government sues property itself for civil forfeiture. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Pa…

Civil forfeiture where govt sues "property" to seize it so they don't have to have a trial for the person owning said property is a shady dark pattern that shouldn't be cited as an ethical approach at all. Just my opinion.

It's not being cited as an ethical approach, only that the court system clearly doesn't require something to have full personhood in order to be sued.

Re: Bernie Madoff has died

#370

Post by vidarh »

skwirl wrote: post #359
vidarh wrote: post #350

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? 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?

Well, the obvious answer is that there is no choice in that either, but that in most context it serves us best to act as if we do have choice, because the effects of our actions still affect us.

If we "step into the fiction" so to speak, there is reason for passing judgement if passing judgement leads to better outcomes. A lack of agency does not shield us from those outcomes.

But it makes retribution as a justification fundamentally immoral. Of course, there's recursion here - retribution for retribution would be no better.

Post reply on HN