Like Bari Weiss's interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, this is a very powerful article and report by a courageous, experienced and well informed journalist.
To me, this is the kind of journalism that we used to see in the Wall Street Journal, NY Times and WaPo, but they all have so many commercial conflicts of interest that we don't see thi…
Like Bari Weiss's interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, this is a very powerful article and report by a courageous, experienced and well informed journalist.
To me, this is the kind of journalism that we used to see in the Wall Street Journal, NY Times and WaPo, but they all have so many commercial conflicts of interest that we don't see this kind of reporting much anymore.
CNBC's and the NY Time's Andrew Ross Sorkin's interview yesterday with Sam Bankman-Fried about his FTX catastrophe was just as gripping and impressive.
As a reader and viewer, I don't know enough to fact check anyone. That is why I read and watch so many versions and recaps of important stories on web sites like Common Sense, TheDispatch.com, wsj.com, Seekingalpha.com and WaPo.
After you do your homework, you can jump to some conclusions, but you do it with humility because you know that in a few minutes new information will become available that may change your view of things.
Some stories, like China's, are not new. They're just more of the same depressing reports about how power-greedy people are so willing to destroy and take other people's lives on their ways to political power.
No greed is worse than the greed for political power.
"CNBC's and the NY Time's Andrew Ross Sorkin's interview yesterday with Sam Bankman-Fried about his FTX catastrophe was just as gripping and impressive."
How about fawning and repellent? He was interviewing a latter day Madoff. Sorkin is a reptile. The crowd was worse.
As a retired business and markets journalist and publisher and as a speculator who doesn't own or trade crypto currencies, I thought Sorkin asked well informed, probing, tough and even skeptical questions. I don't think they were fawning.
As for SBF, he struck me as a very intelligent guy. He got himself into a business he couldn't control or manage, and he made a lot of strategic, tactical and critical managerial mistakes. He obviously has a wonderful memory, but smart people do a lot of dumb things. Often they get away with their mistakes and misdeeds and recover from them.
SBF isn't getting away with anything. Whether and how he'll recover won't be known for years or even decades, if ever.
Is he a con man? Is he just a lousy businessman? Is he a fool? A lot of smart, wise people seem to think he is all of the above. For me, it's too early to really know.
I don't think the interview gave SBF legitimacy. Nothing can or will. I think the interview will help speculators learn that when there is no there there, don't get sucked in.
Interviews like that serve to give legitimacy to criminals like SBF. It's publicity to say hey, he's not a bad guy like those dirty Trumpers. He just made a few mistakes with other people's money on his path to effective altruism!
Exactly right. I was thinking the same thing after reading Donald E.L. Johnson's post on SBF interview. SBF should be charged with criminal misconduct. He robbed Peter to pay Paul. He went and spent millions on his lifestyle and bought a massive mansion in the Bahamas that he put in his parents name. Even suggesting maybe he's a "lousy businessman" is absurd. He knew exactly what he was doing. As for altruism, any "billionaire" can pledge to give their wealth away. That doesn't mean squat. All they do is park it in a DAF fund and enjoy tax benefits. Bill Gates is a master at that.
Like Bari Weiss's interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, this is a very powerful article and report by a courageous, experienced and well informed journalist.
To me, this is the kind of journalism that we used to see in the Wall Street Journal, NY Times and WaPo, but they all have so many commercial conflicts of interest that we don't see this kind of reporting much anymore.
CNBC's and the NY Time's Andrew Ross Sorkin's interview yesterday with Sam Bankman-Fried about his FTX catastrophe was just as gripping and impressive.
As a reader and viewer, I don't know enough to fact check anyone. That is why I read and watch so many versions and recaps of important stories on web sites like Common Sense, TheDispatch.com, wsj.com, Seekingalpha.com and WaPo.
After you do your homework, you can jump to some conclusions, but you do it with humility because you know that in a few minutes new information will become available that may change your view of things.
Some stories, like China's, are not new. They're just more of the same depressing reports about how power-greedy people are so willing to destroy and take other people's lives on their ways to political power.
No greed is worse than the greed for political power.
Thanks for bringing some common sense to the Common Sense Comments section.
"CNBC's and the NY Time's Andrew Ross Sorkin's interview yesterday with Sam Bankman-Fried about his FTX catastrophe was just as gripping and impressive."
How about fawning and repellent? He was interviewing a latter day Madoff. Sorkin is a reptile. The crowd was worse.
As a retired business and markets journalist and publisher and as a speculator who doesn't own or trade crypto currencies, I thought Sorkin asked well informed, probing, tough and even skeptical questions. I don't think they were fawning.
As for SBF, he struck me as a very intelligent guy. He got himself into a business he couldn't control or manage, and he made a lot of strategic, tactical and critical managerial mistakes. He obviously has a wonderful memory, but smart people do a lot of dumb things. Often they get away with their mistakes and misdeeds and recover from them.
SBF isn't getting away with anything. Whether and how he'll recover won't be known for years or even decades, if ever.
Is he a con man? Is he just a lousy businessman? Is he a fool? A lot of smart, wise people seem to think he is all of the above. For me, it's too early to really know.
I don't think the interview gave SBF legitimacy. Nothing can or will. I think the interview will help speculators learn that when there is no there there, don't get sucked in.
Interviews like that serve to give legitimacy to criminals like SBF. It's publicity to say hey, he's not a bad guy like those dirty Trumpers. He just made a few mistakes with other people's money on his path to effective altruism!
Exactly right. I was thinking the same thing after reading Donald E.L. Johnson's post on SBF interview. SBF should be charged with criminal misconduct. He robbed Peter to pay Paul. He went and spent millions on his lifestyle and bought a massive mansion in the Bahamas that he put in his parents name. Even suggesting maybe he's a "lousy businessman" is absurd. He knew exactly what he was doing. As for altruism, any "billionaire" can pledge to give their wealth away. That doesn't mean squat. All they do is park it in a DAF fund and enjoy tax benefits. Bill Gates is a master at that.
Great comment. Clear, concise, honest, and humble. Too bad the MSM are none of those.