> If Adam provides an opportunity for his investors to make their “ten billion,” why would anyone object to his self-dealing?
Why do we, for that matter?
There’s one aspect of some sort of ethical wrongness because I suspect there’s an eventual chump who will lose out not having full perspective when this thing falls apart.
But, for me, I have a tendency to feel uncomfortable when things are “obviously” wrong. I find it curious about me, and I’ve met others, who just don’t like it when things are off. The simple act of making the world more correct is pleasing. I’ve found it pretty helpful in debugging and system design. I find it really annoying in domains where there isn’t really an objective right and wrong, or it’s not clear to me what’s right, or where they aren’t fixable. And it’s pretty common in politics or religion where people point out wrongs.
So I don’t think money or technology is neutral. I think they both as information have certain innate needs to grow in the most efficient way possible. Money is like a river trying to flow to the ocean and actions like We took and is taking are the equivalent of trying to build a harbor in shallow water or some other illogical act.
Ah, well, I think it's certainly valid to take a CEO's behaviour as a signal you use to make predictions about their future behaviour.
And I think it's valid to use that to make predictions about the company's viability and/or make predictions about the likely outcome of any private or public stock market investment.
Choosing whether to do business with someone who fully discloses their past choices and is truthful about their future plans is a whole different thing from judging whether their past choices are criminal and/or dishonest.
Unless it is revealed that they are withholding other relevant transactions, I'd say the man is honest. But "honest" is not synonymous with, "someone I want to do business with."
I like the way you put that. Honesty is not the sole quality that determines whether I want to do business with someone. It’s a good quality, but sometimes not the most important. I don’t even think it’s in the “necessary but not sufficient” category as there are some good zero trust relationships.
There’s one aspect of some sort of ethical wrongness because I suspect there’s an eventual chump who will lose out not having full perspective when this thing falls apart.
But, for me, I have a tendency to feel uncomfortable when things are “obviously” wrong. I find it curious about me, and I’ve met others, who just don’t like it when things are off. The simple act of making the world more correct is pleasing. I’ve found it pretty helpful in debugging and system design. I find it really annoying in domains where there isn’t really an objective right and wrong, or it’s not clear to me what’s right, or where they aren’t fixable. And it’s pretty common in politics or religion where people point out wrongs.
So I don’t think money or technology is neutral. I think they both as information have certain innate needs to grow in the most efficient way possible. Money is like a river trying to flow to the ocean and actions like We took and is taking are the equivalent of trying to build a harbor in shallow water or some other illogical act.