Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by bilbo0s | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

bilbo0s

I don't know.

80% returns?

Really?

She was able to get 80% returns?

GUARANTEED?

This lady kind of sounds like a potential Madoff who got caught early.

Yes, she may be totally innocent. That is one of many possibilities. Having mentioned that... man...

80%?

guaranteed?

Trading Futures?

Maybe the punishment is a bit harsh, but it really does seem she was not totally on the up and up.

And secondly, what kind of a person gives their money to someone promising 80% returns risk-free? Who did she raise this money from?

I mean let's say you're listening to a financial services guy give a pitch over Evian and roasted sweet potatoes with cumin. Right. He says, "I'll get you 80% yearly on your money! Guaranteed! Risk-free!"

Well at that point you and I probably look at each other, and just leave. Who would believe that?

View on HN

"A bit harsh" is a lot of an understatement. They're talking about killing her.

How is execution different than 150 years in prison, aside from the chance to be exonerated later? Madoff's life is just about as thoroughly destroyed as Wu's. They will both die in prison.

I dislike capital punishment for several reasons, in particular the greater potential to be applied falsely, but I do not feel that Madoff's sentence is substantially less harsh.

I think the convicted can answer this question better than I. They almost always prefer to keep living.

It'd be interesting to see numbers on how many people serving a life sentence would choose to commit suicide if materials for a painless suicide were readily available. Prisons actively attempt to keep people from doing so, and it's apparently frequent enough to be a major problem at some prisons.

Depression can be a factor here.

I think depression comes with the punishment of life imprisonment, so the ? about the availability of suicide is still valid.

> How is execution different than 150 years in prison

In China, it's much cheaper.

+1, Cmon how can you kill someone for raising money, regardless of its whereabouts or accompanied false promises...

"A bit harsh", my god, get a grip

Maidoff was rising money as well. Here he spent life in prision; in China they kill. I wish they penalties in US would be harsher. Death is too extreme, but this is China, overpopulated, I never lived there havent been raised so have no idea how their brains work. But the truth is, if penalties in US would be harsher, you wouldnt have 30yrs old pot smoker going to jail for 5 years for 2 joints, while Vacovia washing $700mil of worth cocaine on plane to US and got "penalized" $300mil and nobody goes to jail. Same with real estate bubble. People committed suicides after loosing houses, while Goldman was giving $100mil in bonuses. Wild Wild West in 2011!

There are ways to generate such returns if you fund illegal activities (being separated from them by an intermediary) – not necessarily drugs/firearms – stealing government funds (kickbacks, abusing authority, etc.) works even better.

The 80% return thing reminds me of: http://sheldoncomics.com/archive/040203.html

However I have to say that claiming 80% returns does not make her a potential Bernie Madoff. Since he promised more reasonable rates of return and kept it going for far longer. Therefore on the surface his ponzi scheme seemed much more legitimate than the 80% return of hers.

Now the other thing that got me in the article was using animal placenta as a beauty treatment. I know people are injecting themselves with toxins, so I guess it shouldn't come as that much of a surprise.

Mr/Ms bilboOs... seems your tax return has some discrepancies... possibly serious discrepancies. On another somewhat related topic... Did you say that Ms Wu assured you of... what was that? an 80% return on your investment? That might account for the discrepancy in your return. We can take care of that for you...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com