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

FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 226 posts

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#161

Post by ncallaway »

dgfitz wrote: post #150
ncallaway wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn’t this prevalent here either until recently. The Supreme Court has decided that Congress isn’t allowed to regulate this kind of behavior. The Court has also chipped away at bribery statutes, narrowing them significantly. Unfortunately, without a constitutional amendment, new justices on the Supreme Court, or a revolution, there’s not a lot that can be done. I support an amendment, but with the current court i…

Or the “honest and honerable” politicians stop accepting donations they know are evil. Ah never mind, we all know they can’t help it.

There are honest and honorable politicians that don’t take such money.

They often lose to the politicians that do take the donations. Because they don’t have the money necessary to compete in the election.

So, there’s a survivorship bias. Elected politicians are much more likely to be taking those donations. That’s why the system is so problematic. It drives out honest and honorable politicians, and rewards corrupt ones, which further reinforces the idea that all politicians are corrupt. They’re not, but under this system most elected politicians are.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#162

Post by watwut »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #96
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but you also seem to know more about the story than the average person. When SBF lies or gaslights, you can see right through it. Different story for the average listener, who will be listening to most interactions with an open mind and susceptible to whichever person tends to be more charming or persuasive.

This is true of basically every public figure. I guess you're suggesting the NYT shouldn't let him speak, to protect us from ourselves? That's a startling position.

They are not letting me speak. They are not letting average fraudster waiting for court day to speak. Given that, yes, they should be able to not let speak whoever.

They are selecting very few people to speak and rejecting huge amounts of other people.

But the other real thing is how you introduce the speaker. What do you say about the speaker in your materials, whether you promote him as trustworthy or not.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#163

Post by greesil »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #139
greesil wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unavoidable now because of the Citizens United court decision. Of course it's bad, but what are you gonna do?

Band together with other citizens and demand an end of this! Also since we're at it corporations aren't persons. The founders of the US were very vocal about giving power to the people, the laws were never intended to grant personhood to legal entities for the purpose of enabling unlimited political lobbying by their wealthy owners.

Banding how exactly in a way that would have sufficient impact to change this? It's not trivial to start a massive political movement. I gotta pay my mortgage, etc.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#164

Post by greesil »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #159
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Band together with other citizens and demand an end of this! Also since we're at it corporations aren't persons. The founders of the US were very vocal about giving power to the people, the laws were never intended to grant personhood to legal entities for the purpose of enabling unlimited political lobbying by their wealthy owners.

What kind of organization should citizens be allowed to create to promote a political position, if not a corporation?

If by citizens you mean citizens with a fuckload of money.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#165

Post by yccs27 »

nradov wrote: post #137
skrebbel wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know, it’s not this prevalent everywhere so it is possible.

Yes, it is possible to amend the US Constitution to carve out an explicit exception in the 1st Amendment for political donations. So far Congress hasn't made a serious effort to do so.

I'm not really familiar with the US constitution, but doesn't the 1st Amendment only protect speech, petition and assembly? Is there some part I'm missing or did a court classify campaign donations as speech?

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#166

Post by KptMarchewa »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #33
KptMarchewa wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that stealing from financial systems should be less harshly punished than stealing directly from people, small businesses etc. Whole point of financial system is risk management, while corner shop owners should not deal with theft risk at all.

I bet more than one corner shop worker had money in FTX.

Sure. If you put your money slightly outside regulated banks, you implicitly accept the risk of losing it.

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#167

Post by krustyburger »

yccs27 wrote: post #165
nradov wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is possible to amend the US Constitution to carve out an explicit exception in the 1st Amendment for political donations. So far Congress hasn't made a serious effort to do so.

I'm not really familiar with the US constitution, but doesn't the 1st Amendment only protect speech, petition and assembly? Is there some part I'm missing or did a court classify campaign donations as speech?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#168

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #159
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Band together with other citizens and demand an end of this! Also since we're at it corporations aren't persons. The founders of the US were very vocal about giving power to the people, the laws were never intended to grant personhood to legal entities for the purpose of enabling unlimited political lobbying by their wealthy owners.

What kind of organization should citizens be allowed to create to promote a political position, if not a corporation?

One with limited spending power appears to be the gist, to everyone but the Supreme Court

Re: FTX’s ownership of a U.S. bank raises questions

#170

Post by TacticalCoder »

rkachowski wrote: post #134
abzolv wrote: post #86

From the article: “The chairman of FBH is Jean Chalopin, who, along with being a co-creator of cartoon cop Inspector Gadget in the 1980s, is the chairman of Deltec Bank, which, like FTX, is based in the Bahamas. Deltec’s best-known client is Tether, a crypto company with $65 billion in assets offering a stablecoin that is pegged to the dollar.” That tells you everything you need to know.

That absolutely does not tell me everything I need to know. How the hell does the creator of inspector gadget end up mixed in this insanity?

He's deep into the tether/Bitfinex scam since the start, way before Alameda/FTX existed. Now how he ended up there is quite a mistery but it's been known since years and years.
Post reply on HN