So we have an outcome on yet another of our 2024 predictions compo items: SB-F's sentence & fine. The jail term is clear enough, the fine less so: he must "forfeit $11bn in assets". Is that a fine? Anyhow, it's financial - and a much bigger number than almost any of us guessed. In fairness, we've still the appeal to be heard so let's wait up.
There seems also to be belated news on the UK's recessionary status in 4Q23, which might impact on the results of last year's compo. Must look into that.
Some of you have been kind enough to note that my early intelligence on Putin's share of the vote turned out to be spot-on. Yup, when the fix went in there were some communicative folks in the know who just couldn't contain themselves. Russia is like that.
ND
UPDATE / PS:
SB-F features in this very illuminating article on soi-dissant 'Effective Altruism' -
9 comments:
"let's wait up" What, the result of the appeal will be known before a late bedtime? I don't believe it.
Yes, lets see what the appeals court says first. The 25 years is an opening gambit in the process designed to let him off lightly. I'm sure his appeals judges will be some suitably Democrat connected ones that will reduce the 25 to 10-15.
The true prediction should be when SBF gets out of prison, not how many years he gets officially sentenced to - there's undoubtedly going to be some 'medical needs' reasons claimed in the future.
The process goes like this: gets 25 years at trial. Everyone reads that, thinks serves him right. Appeals court reduces that by a decade or more. Not so many read that. He does some time, then gets released early for good behavior/medical needs at some point between 5 and 10 years. Hardly anyone reads about that, so no outcry. Then walks back into the Democrat Blob who welcome him with open arms and a lots of well paid jobs. He'll be back out and living it up by the age of 40.
"He'll be back out and living it up by the age of 40."
Aye, he can assist his Mom with her legal ethics class at Stanford.
I was genuinely surprised at the prison time - given the max was 110 years, he was blatantly unapologetic, had committed perjury and witness tempering, and had been fairly obnoxious in court, I really expected a lot more.
Autism gets him only so far - I have a few autistic people in my extended family, so a measure of understanding of how he is.
The 11bn to pay back will hurt though, and maybe his parents might want to reflect on how they've brought up such a little shit who thinks he can do no wrong and it's everybody who has failed him.
Not that they will of course.
@CH: a woman called Judith Harris wrote rather a lot summarising evidence for her proposition that how you bring up your children doesn't much matter: by age forty they'll turn out to be whatever their genetics imply. She made one exception: she thought that their peers, rather than their parents, could influence them for better or worse (presumably largely in teenage years).
Maybe she also had a proviso along the lines of "except the most extreme sort of upbringing". Would having two lawyer parents who were Democrat operatives count as extreme?
Amazing intelligence here, Nick. I always enjoy the insights.
It's always useful to read about where a philosophy meets reality.
We seem to have an endless ability to convince ourselves of the "next new thing / alchemy", only to see it crash and burn in contact with the day to day of life.
Is Sunak a misunderstood philosopher like SB-F or just a cynic polishing his CV?
@ It's always useful to read about where a philosophy meets reality
That, Diogenes, is why the Enron story is so riveting. Putting to one side the ultimate crash-and-burn (2001), the story between Enron's formation (1985) and its apogee (2000) is one of astonishing implementation of a truly radical philosophy + vision into tangible reality, writ large. On very rarely meets an individual / organisation that can make that transition on a really large scale. And the only acid test that matters - success in the real world - certainly proved the validity of the philosophy / vision
Of course, one can also point to Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, the google boys. The difference is, when they got started nobody was trying to stop them (even if hostility came much later)
With Enron, every man's hand was turned against them in the traditional energy sector, as soon as they got started - and not via competition: it was outright pressure on politicians and regulators to put a stop to what they were doing, and commercial efforts to starve them at source. This was the case in the USA when they kicked off, and later in Europe
the implementation strategy they needed was not just execution on the substance of the radical vision, it was achieving all that in the context of committed, hostile opposition. That's a real test of both vision and execution
Another EA disciple (... Easter init) to add to the list and an interesting one in the UK. But will GBNews go the same way as Enron or Google?
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/65415/the-marshall-plan-paul-marshall-gb-news
Post a Comment