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

Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

david.newgas.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 457 posts

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#311

Post by booleandilemma »

worldthruword wrote: post #279
patkai wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Behind many, but I sincerely hope not "every". A trivial counterexample is Warren Buffet: he simply saved and invested. Or consider inventors with patents.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-generated-doub... https://x.com/theallinpod/status/2022746722191938017 Chamath explains Warren Buffett’s secret to success: “Markets thrive when there's information asymmetry” “Now I'm gonna get a lot of people really upset with me.” “This is an example of Warren Buffet's returns pre- and post-Reg FD. Now what do you see?” “His returns were double the market returns when…

[dead]

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#312

Post by cwoolfe »

I've come to realize this: we are all raising money more than we admit. Whether it's from venture capital or donations to fund non-profits, money is more political than I realized because it's all about the idea of value, which is subjectively determined by humans.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#313

Post by Nevermark »

Xirdus wrote: post #294
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People want more government control, but when governments take more control the press tells the people that it's bad and the people acquiesce. In local forums, so often you see (paraphrasing a pattern) "why are the government interfering with landlords, they should stop so many barbers opening instead". That is, why are the gov interfering in property markets, instead they should interfere in property markets AND pla…

I know a lot of left win Europeans who promote planned economy without realising it. So there's that. I think a better way to look at it is people demanding the government to intervene whenever intervention is beneficial to them personally, while demanding the government leave things alone whenever intervention is detrimental to them personally. Which is just a long winded way to describe the basics of democracy - pe…

> people voting in their own interest.

There are some people who care about policy, care about a generally healthy environment. Which has a strong self-interest aspect, as it should, but not narrow.

Few people manage to vote for their own narrow interests in a reliable coherent way. Even the rich and powerful reliably foot gun themselves.

I believe the vast majority, the vast majority of the time, reliably and enthusiastically vote for their group's shibboleths. Regardless of what they might say or believe their own motivations are. Even seemingly sophisticated and principled thinkers. It shows via the reliable, trivial to resolve, but reflection impervious group-coded "misunderstandings" that even "serious" people defend and nurture. The group reinforced, often meme-reflex deflected, unthinkables. Across the political spectrum.

People vote for brands.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#314

Post by b40d-48b2-979e »

bit-anarchist wrote: post #170
b40d-48b2-979e wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did report, he chose to report to the choice he thought would have no motion. He knew it was wrong, he consulted with what to do, then he chose the action that let him skate by while observing prison-levels of public fraud. His entire monologue is self-serving while trying to maintain a facade of responsibility/ethic.

What facade of reponsability? Their responsibility was not being complicit in the crime and they accomplished just that. It's not their responsibility to prosecute their employer, specially if it comes with significant risks to their life.

He was complicit when he knowingly made the choice that would have no accountability.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#315

Post by vitorfblima »

GJim wrote: post #243
IshKebab wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actual genius. You should write this up in detail!

It's hardly complicated! OP is simply describing what is common throughout government in the UK. This is known as the Revolving Door . Private Eye magazine wrote a special report on it some years back as, frankly, it is scandalous https://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/special_reports/revol... [PDF]

Prompted and delivered!

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#317

Post by gwbas1c »

yowo wrote: post #219

I have a serious question for everyone who reading through comments: If you get a great paying position in a business that is clearly managed by too ambitious people and will never succeed, given that you are legally not a part of the potential fraud ring that you can't prove, just an engineer closing issues and merging patches, would you reject it?

> is clearly managed by too ambitious people and will never succeed

I was with a startup for almost a decade. During that time it had four different owners. At one point it was "clearly managed by too ambitious people and will never succeed", but the parent owner and remaining founder saw this and found a legit buyer.

When this happened, we were wholly owned by a major conservative company but operated independently; the fact that "adults" controlled the purse strings was what made the situation work out well in the end. (For me, that is. Other people who drank the kool-aide were given nice severance packages.)

---

Thus, you really have to know the whole story: Who's the investor? Who has power? Who's controlling the purse strings? If the business has potential, the investors will fire "poker player" leadership in situations like this.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#318

Post by cogman10 »

fidotron wrote: post #281
RandyRanderson wrote: post #272

In Canada this is a huge scam. The government advertizes that it's funding incubators. Great, right? The money doesn't go to the start ups - it all goes to large tech companies like IBM, etc, because, obviously, IBM knows about innovation. The cover is that the government doesn't know tech so it will give money to trusted partners and they will choose who to give the money to because they've been doing such a great j…

> The money doesn't go to the start ups - it all goes to large tech companies like IBM, etc, because, obviously, IBM knows about innovation. And the big accounting firms. It's incredible how efficiently they divert all activity and attention from the core task, and then wonder why things don't take off.

This is the crux of why neoliberal policies don't work.

Public-private partnerships are a breeding ground for corruption. The government either needs to own what it owns or completely give up and leave it to a well regulated private market.

That's not to say one off contacts need to be eliminated. But when it comes to things like building and maintain roads, these private contacts end up being huge sinkholes for public funds.

Re: Did my old job only exist because of fraud?

#320

Post by carlosjobim »

rayiner wrote: post #100
talon8635 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay… do you not feel culpable at some point? Do you feel no obligation to expose these various individuals fleecing the tax payers? Your boss, the academics, and everyone else who participated or knows and remains silent. Obviously, you are now in the later group. Yes I know it’s not all that rare, BECAUSE people can’t be bothered to blow the whistle.

If you don’t have a duty to report, you don’t have a duty to report. You can’t predict what government prosecutors will do. If they start investigating and it turns out for whatever reason they can’t pin it on the boss, they could have pinned if on OP. Think about it logically. If you’re the prosecutor, the guy whose time is fraudulent is presumptively the criminal. It could very well be that he was actually the one…

Yours is unfortunately the attitude which breeds corruption, and also the attitude of the majority of people. "Not my problem", "not my duty", "covering my own ass", "not getting into trouble" and so on. The reptilian minded people like OPs boss love having you guys around, because they can't do their unethical schemes just by themselves, and you won't make a fuss.

As for the prosecutor; he is first and foremost interested in where the money went. If fraudulent hours didn't give OP an extra paycheck boost, then that money went somewhere else.

Post reply on HN