I remember a lot of people strongly believed that SBF would never get in trouble because he was a Democratic donor, and that this was all part of some vast corruption scandal.
It turns out not everything is a conspiracy.
It turns out not everything is a conspiracy.
It doesn't make any sense, but the conspiracy people are experts at mental gymnastics.
It’s a conspiracy to think influence doesn’t peddle.
https://fortune.com/crypto/2022/11/29/sam-bankman-fried-poli...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/senate-re...
"Prosecutors" also begins with the letter "P, but...
Nope. The investigation was opened months before FTX collapsed. It’s not like they’re going to announce it in advance!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-21/us-prosec...
Even with all the corruption, sometimes the optics are a bridge too far, even for the connected.
I also don’t see why complete transparency would be the goal of the justice department. Sam might think of moving to Dubai if he knows all their moves.
The evidence of widespread corruption in the US government is everywhere if you open your eyes: legislators become vastly more wealthy after getting elected via insider trading, regulators invest in the very companies they oversee, prosecutors selectively prosecute crimes, sweetheart book deals and speaking gigs, positions on boards of think tanks and companies after their “public service” has ended, I could go on.
It’s not about transparency, it’s about integrity. All the things I mentioned above are open secrets. The US is a third world country with cell phones.
> The US is a third world country with cell phones.
This makes no sense.
No, it's not, and this sentiment is what frustrates a lot of us. I'm in no way saying "the world is fair" or that money and power can't be influential, but, at least in the US, and at least for the time being, there are a lot of career law enforcement people who really just want to do a good job.
Yes, these folks that do just want to do a good job have been under a heavy attack in the past 10-20 years as "the deep state", but most of them are just normal Joes and Janes that are good at their job and believe in following the law, and there are just not enough avenues at the time being to bypass that, particularly in high profile cases like this.
In the US our corruption is out in the open, we enshrine our corruption into laws. Corporations have lobby groups that literally write the legislation Congress passes. If you think our system has integrity you’re just naive I’m sorry.
Yes, corruption exists. Yes, there are bad actors. But this idea that "everything is corrupt, all the laws are corrupt, the whole system is corrupt" is just lazy bullshit.
And yet, OP’s point of view is a very common one among people. So why is that? I think dismissing this as “nihilism” it’s not a clever continuation of this conversation.
Is it because the system is very inefficient at healing itself (or so seems to be) from bad actors, that the public thinks it will never be healed? Is it because politics is a zero sum game, therefore since many are corrupt and cheating, all the others seem compelled to do the same in order to hang onto power? (Very similar dynamics happens with pro cyclist).
Is it because it attracts a certain profile of people that are more likely to be corrupted?
Given the power nature of politics and the relatively few players involved, is it because we are holding everybody at a high standard therefore even one episode of corruption is enough to taint the whole category, even when corruption is limited in scope?
Lots of places to go before slapping the “nihilist” label on the car.
And if indeed the system doesn’t get better, what’s a good way to address the “nihilist” point of view across the population?
Is the problem too big and too complex to be solved because we can’t change human nature? Then maybe it is nihilism after all.
Yes. Basically, all humans can be corrupted at an individual level with the right incentives, and all people are somewhat corrupt, let's say except Jesus. So the system we compose inherits the characteristics of its constituent parts and there is no way to design around that.
This seemingly cynical view is so common IMHO because it's true. As far as I can tell, those that don't see it are just young and haven't figured it out yet or haven't seen enough to realize it. We start out being taught Mr. Smith Goes to Washington for a couple decades of our lives and it takes some time to peel that back.