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

The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 653 posts

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#341

Post by zozbot234 »

adolph wrote: post #335
whatever1 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely correct, hence why limited terms are a prerequisite for functioning democracies. An ill intentioned participant in power will not have unlimited time to do that much damage. A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted. The downside is that a good intentioned ruler, may not have enough time to accomplish their good vision. But my thesis is that is a reasonable price…

>> power attracts the corrupt > hence why limited terms are a prerequisite for functioning democracies. The practical effect of limited terms is a set of hapless electeds who depend on the kindness of lobbyists or other stakeholders to perform core duties, such as write effective legislation. In terms of the Gervais Principle [0], the sociopaths move from elected to lobby (which is a natural career progression alread…

> a set of hapless electeds who depend on the kindness of lobbyists or other stakeholders to perform core duties

You have this already without term limits. An elected officeholder is given more than enough resources to be enabled to perform her duties, if she wants to. It's a matter of willingness, term limits aren't making things worse than they might otherwise be.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#342

Post by zozbot234 »

program_whiz wrote: post #340
zozbot234 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most super-wealthy folks are not going to spend anywhere on the order of $200B or even $20B (in the broad timeframe of Elon's payout) on their own consumption. Even if Elon spent $100B on a mission to Mars or whatever it is that he cares about, would you really have reason to object to that, any more than if the money was spent by NASA? (The whole Apollo program and surrounding stuff probably cost on the order of tha…

Nope no complaints, but most wealth isn't being spent. If the majority of the wealth was being spent, then there wouldn't be wealth imbalance (as all that money would flow elsewhere into the economy). The only way a wealth imbalance can occur is that someone sits on wealth and that it continues to compound. The top 1% have wealth greater than the bottom 95% of the population combined. I don't see why its more moral f…

Wealth that isn't being spent is effectively inert and frozen. It may have some precautionary value for the person who's holding it, but this is immaterial once you get to the million-dollar range, let alone the billions. The only interesting thing to ask about is what happens once the wealth is in fact being spent. (Of course, this wealth is generally invested in productive ventures and not literally 'frozen'; but this is a happy side effect, not something that's expressly chosen by whoever holds it. They're simply allocating it so that it 'compounds' effectively.)

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#343

Post by dathinab »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

> adding: “perhaps you will know Jeffrey and his background and situation." This is the most-interesting bit. The introducer put this up front. Maybe it's Nigerian-prince scame logic? Or maybe there really is that much sympathy for pedophiles in Silicon Valley [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/business/epstein-investme...

IMHO it's more like a disclaimer, if you hide it people will sooner or later still find out either if they do research (it was public), or randomly later. That then creates a situation of a "breach of trust" that "they where tricked to work with a evil person" etc.

So given that it anyway comes out sooner or later it's better to be upfront about it as that can create a feeling of trust. It can create misconceptions like "if he where unserious he would have hidden that he works for Epstein" etc.

At the same time it acts as filter, people with a upstanding moral compass will directly say no and you don't wast time on trying to recruit them.

Lastly for people which some but not robust morals iff you can convince them to work with you and they start having doubts you now have the argument that "you told them upfront about the issue and they where okay with it, and bailing not would make them look like a very unreliable business partner affecting their carrier beyond this situation". To be clear I'm not saying that this is "true", but that this argument presented carefully in the right way at the right time can be effective to manipulate people _even if not true_.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#344

Post by Jensson »

zozbot234 wrote: post #313
palata wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them That is a different debate. I think what the parent means is that taxing the rich is a way to prevent them from becoming too powerful. I do agree that it should be illegal to be too powerful. One should not be more powerful than an entire country, it makes no sense.

There's no way that even the richest people in the world are "powerful" enough in that sense unless you're talking about literal royalty in resource-rich countries. Even Epstein's power was largely about his cronyism, not about directly expending his wealth.

Yeah, Epstein was removed since he didn't have much power compared to country leaders and so on. Even the richest people of the world has very little power compared to an authoritarian country leader.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#345

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

mapt wrote: post #339
alphazard wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they did not. It's easier for a small number of people to coordinate, than a large number. The wealthy have about as much power as the entire middle class, but can wield it better because they are more nimble. That doesn't change the state of the negotiation, which is that cutting taxes for the middle class will also require cutting them for the wealthy. If you optimize for your own personal notion of fairness, or…

I don't really want to cut taxes for the working/middle class though. I want to tax the everliving fuck out of the hyper-wealthy, to the point that they cease to exist. The money should go into providing goods and services for the working/middle class, but collecting that money and lighting it on fire (or parking assets in a sovereign wealth fund) is a superior option to doing nothing. Neither our democracy nor our p…

This is just silly. Not many animals will stand completely still while you attack them.

It sure sounds tough though! Literal war with people for being successful, how much time have you spent on this line of thought?

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#346

Post by triceratops »

alphazard wrote: post #258
whatever1 wrote: post #150

Power corrupts, end of story. Democracy (limited terms), taxation and anti-monopoly regulation are examples that show a path to cure the disease. Nobody should be trusted with too much power for too long.

Taxation is the mechanism that moves power from the people to the government, and increasingly politicians and their specific interests. Do you actually believe that if your taxes went up, power would be less concentrated, or that you or your countrymen would have more power? Every government goon doing authoritarian dirty work collects a paycheck and wouldn't do their job without it.

Only if the government is allowed to spend the tax money. What if they were forced to give it away?

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#347

Post by mapt »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #345
mapt wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really want to cut taxes for the working/middle class though. I want to tax the everliving fuck out of the hyper-wealthy, to the point that they cease to exist. The money should go into providing goods and services for the working/middle class, but collecting that money and lighting it on fire (or parking assets in a sovereign wealth fund) is a superior option to doing nothing. Neither our democracy nor our p…

This is just silly. Not many animals will stand completely still while you attack them. It sure sounds tough though! Literal war with people for being successful, how much time have you spent on this line of thought?

They're not standing still now. They're eating our entrails. Right now.

We haven't passed a budget in almost 30 years, we've been routinely filibustering nearly all legislation for 15 (breaking the gameplay loop for electoral democracy), we're unilaterally withdrawing from trade and military alliances week by week. We have fascist armies on the streets pulling people from their cars and houses. Our leaders openly brag about their corruption and a good fraction of our people praise them for it simply because it pisses other people off.

We are allegedly about to "Federalize Elections" and also enter a war with Iran that a supermajority of voters do not want.

In terms of state capacity, in terms of our agency in the world, in terms of what we historically regarded as our legacy and our culture and our material security and our institutions, we are in freefall. And it is mostly down to having far too much wealth concentrated in far too few people.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#348

Post by breuleux »

Jensson wrote: post #336
nicoburns wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you actually believe that if your taxes went up, power would be less concentrated, or that you or your countrymen would have more power? Absolutely. The source of most of the corruption I see in the world today is wealth, and specifically wealthy people paying people off to get their own way. If there was less wealth inequality there'd be much less scope for this. Note: I believe this would be the case even if t…

> The source of most of the corruption I see in the world today is wealth, and specifically wealthy people paying people off to get their own way This is so wrong, its not expensive to bribe politicians so higher taxes wouldn't stop this at all. The problem is that its possible to bribe politicians, meaning government has too much power, taxes would make that worse not better. And even more important most bribes does…

If the government doesn't have enough power, the wealthy won't need to bribe politicians to do their bidding. They will do their own bidding directly, and there will be nobody to stop them.

It's like, if you want to sell your cyanide penis pills under big government, you need to bribe someone. If you want to sell them under small government, you just... you just sell them, that's what.

There may be ways to design a government where power is better distributed, e.g. using sortition, but ultimately it needs to be richer and more powerful than its wealthiest citizens, otherwise these wealthy citizens will assess, correctly, that when push comes to shove, the laws won't apply to them, and they do not need the government's permission to do what they want.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#349

Post by triceratops »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #184
actionfromafar wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't it unsettle King dogmatics just as much?

Not really, because aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; rather, they're simply born into it. Those modes of government don't actively select for the power-hungry. (Granted, in e.g. the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China, it was frequently the case that there were dozens of princelings who were, de facto, pitted against each other in contests for the throne. That definitely selected for ambition,…

> aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; rather, they're simply born into it.

That's not what the Crusader Kings series tells me. Or Brett Devereaux's description of pre-industrial states as a "Red Queen's race" where the strong had to devour the weak to stay ahead of the competition.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#350

Post by sobkas »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #84
sobkas wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They've admitted the US education work was a mistake. They are hardly alone in making that mistake, improving education in the US is hard. It's only hard if you don't want to help anyone and your only goal is to push charter schools(by any other name) by any means necessary. >Their work to clean water and cure diseases has saved millions of lives. They know what they are good at and they've decided to double down on…

> It's only hard if you don't want to help anyone and your only goal is to push charter schools(by any other name) by any means necessary. Why are charter schools bad? What is the ostensible easy way to improve US education that you know for sure will work?

Easy way is not doing charter schools. Why are they bad? Charter school can choose what children they will teach when public schools don't have that choice, then people point at charter schools as having higher outcomes. In essence charter schools are a tool to discriminate students from poor families.
Post reply on HN