Sam Bankman-Fried’s fall cuts off big source of funds for US Democrats | Hacker News Reader

Sam Bankman-Fried’s fall cuts off big source of funds for US Democrats

ft.com

18 pointsandrenth11 comments

I have no idea why, in EA circles, donating to politicians is high on the list of priorities.

The couple of billion or so dollars (directly) spent by each side of the US election strikes me as the least effective, most wasteful use of money man kind has ever dreamed up.

Things like poverty and homelessness are a policy choices. If you can identify politicians that are going to make different policy choices, make systemic and structural changes to improve peoples' lives, getting them into power is a way to solve these problems.

(not sure SBF was actually doing that though, considering the list of people he was donating to...)

> Things like poverty and homelessness are a policy choices.

Since the 1880's the presidency has swung between Republicans and Democrats with a frequency of roughly 8 years (sure not overall control house+senate but I can not be bothered to look this up properly).

Poverty and homelessness dont change on that frequency - getting them into power is a way to solve these problems.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/pove... https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/10/19/homelessn...

The issue is that most of the Democrats aren't really interested in ending poverty and implementing the systemic policy choices that would do that.

That outcomes don't really change regardless of whether Democrat or Republican are elected is evidence that:

1. The legislators elected are not distinct enough in policy terms regardless of their party vehicle.

2. The political system doesn't allow for enough policy change even when the legislators change.

So for billions every few years they change the (R) to a (D) next to the persons name and for a couple of billion more a few years later they change the (D) to a (R).

I would happily swap them over for 1 mil a year, the other 999 mil is a total waste

There's definitely big differences within this tick tock between team D and R, but the only differentiating policy changes possible are within the set of possible policies.

When we have these big seemingly intractable problems that never seem to get solved regardless of R or D, like structural homelessness, it's a sign that the policy actions required are outside of the set of the possible that these two parties operate within.

tbh in the long term probably a good thing for the Democrats.

Yes less money seems bad, but the money was probably going to pump the tires of weak candidates that couldn't get by on their own.

I recall reading that one of the candidates that SBF was funding lost in the primaries to a more leftie democrat, and that candidate went on to win. So what's the point of the money here if the party is able to select good winning candidates without.

FTX actually had a TRUMPLOSE item on its balance sheet. From today's Matt Levine's Money Stuff today...

>In all, the spreadsheet says FTX Trading’s assets were $900mn of “liquid” assets, $5.5bn of “less liquid” assets consisting of crypto tokens, and $3.2bn of illiquid private equity investments. There is also an obscure $7mn holding called “TRUMPLOSE”. There are no bitcoin assets listed, despite bitcoin liabilities of $1.4bn.

This is why it must be a requirement for politicians to be self-funded. If you can't succeed in the financial world why should I trust you to manage a country? I miss Trump.

By extension that should apply to startups too, no? And then children?

The skillset for running a business and the skillset for running a government are very different. Very few business people have turned out to be good leaders when they get into office.

add to that, it is questionable whether you could really call Trump a good businessman.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com