On 11/16/22 22:17, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-11-16 19:23, a425couple wrote:
>> On 11/16/22 14:13, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2022 11:31 PM, peterwezeman@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> With the collapse of crypto exchange FTX, some
>>>> investors, seeking a better balance between risk
>>>> and security, are pulling their money out of crypto
>>>> currencies and switching to Dutch tulip bulbs.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Wezeman
>>>> anti-social Darwinist
>>>
>>> "FBI is planning to EXTRADITE Sam Bankman-Fried from Bahamas - as
>>> crypto contagion from FTX collapse spreads to $20BN BlockFi that is
>>> preparing for bankruptcy"
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11433541/FBI-planning-extradite-SBF-crypto-contagion-FTX-collapse-spreads-20BN-BlockFi.html
>>>
>>> Looks like the whole crypto thing is going down.  Looks like a Ponzi
>>> scheme to me.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>
>> Well, yeah, another Ponzi scheme.
>> Again, planned by elite liberal technocrats to fleece
>> common people, and achieve two goals, both to get
>> rich, and donate plenty ($38M) to liberal politicians.
>> So, it might be, the Feds will go easy on him.
>>
>>
>> "FTX founder and CEO Sam Bankman-Fried donated the maximum amount an
>> individual can give to a candidate to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's,
>> D-Calif., likely successor.
>>
>> Bankman-Fried made a contribution worth $5,800 to Rep. Hakeem
>> Jeffries, D-N.Y., in July 2021, according to Federal Election
>> Commission (FEC) data. While the amount was relatively tiny compared
>> to the roughly $38 million the crypto entrepreneur funneled to
>> candidates and political action committees (PAC) ahead of the midterm
>> elections, it represented the maximum contribution an individual is
>> allowed to donate to a single candidate under federal campaign finance
>> laws.
>>
>> According to the FEC, individual contributors are only permitted to
>> give $2,900 per candidate per election. Individuals may combine two
>> maximum contributions into a single donation of $5,800 since primaries
>> and general elections count as two separate elections."
>>
>>
>
> I like you, Lee.
>
> But you're an ignoramus.

Do you deny Bankman-Fried was giving millions to liberals ?
That he was publicly appreciated by the "Democratic elite ?
Do you deny that Bankman-Fried was the Democrats' second biggest donor?
Do you claim that $38 million buys no political grease ?

from
https://www.newsweek.com/ftxs-downfall-ho…

https://www.newsweek.com/ftxs-downfall-how-moral-preening-obscured-fraud-opinion-1760135

FTX's Downfall: How Moral Preening Obscured Fraud | Opinion
ANGIE SPEAKS , COHOST OF THE LOW SOCIETY PODCAST
ON 11/16/22 AT 2:14 PM EST
Pause
Unmute
Current Time 1:02
/ Duration 1:20
Quality
Fullscreen

Cryptocurrencies Lose $2 Trillion In Value Since 2021 Peak: What To Know

CRYPTOCURRENCY

The disgrace and downfall of cryptocurrency giant Sam Bankman-Fried has
been astonishing to watch, especially considering that not too long ago,
the 30-year-old multimillionaire graced the cover of the Forbes and was
celebrated as a symbol of progressive market values. Bankman-Fried, or
SBF as he is commonly known, founded the now infamous cryptocurrency
exchange FTX, valued at $32 billion in January, which filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy last week. Bankman-Fried is now reportedly under
investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and
Exchange Commission for alleged fraud and for gambling with investors' cash.

Since SBF's turmoil was publicized, headlines have abounded comparing
the FTX scandal to Bernie Madoff's infamous Ponzi scheme. But SBF's scam
was different in an important way: Bankman-Fried's public image in the
media as a genius and philanthropist was bolstered and given credibility
by his proximity to the powerful Democratic elite, to whom he donated
millions and millions of dollars. Bankman-Fried was one of the
Democrats' biggest donors, second only to George Soros.

SBF's scam was powered by a pseudo-philosophy called "effective
altruism" of which he was the popular face. The idea is for "innovators"
to generate as much money and influence as possible to do the maximum
possible "good."

SBF's downfall reveals just how hollow that idea really was, more an
engine for his own narcissism than anything else. Effective altruism
turned out to be nothing more than the new face of neoliberalism: the
fantasy that you can hide individualist capitalist accumulation behind
the facade of moral leadership and call it saving the world.

But it goes further than that. Altruism, cultural sensitivity and the
need to project a progressive air in the media can make or break the
reputation of a politician, celebrity or corporation these days,
especially in the newly emerging landscape of social media cancellations
and corporate ESG ratings that act as ways for businesses to advertise
their "social responsibility" to investors.

Sam Bankman-Fried
Sam Bankman-Fried has issued an apology after his cryptocurrency
exchange, FTX, cannot fulfill the payments of the withdrawals made by
users since the weekend
GETTY IMAGES
And that's where the danger comes in. Because it's not just hypocritical
to act like capitalist accumulation is altruism. It's also a great way
for people like Bankman-Field to avoid being investigated for what turn
out to be Ponzi schemes.

It's no accident that our hellish cultural landscape that grants favors
in return for moral posturing and patronage has unleashed the insidious
ambitions of opportunistic figures like SBF, or Elizabeth Holmes,
another Silicon Valley darling revealed as a fraudster.

Who can forget the infamous scandal surrounding Holmes and her defunct
medical technology company Theranos, an endeavor that promised blood
testing technology that would revolutionize health care infrastructure
but failed to produce the technology. President Joe Biden famously
visited the Theranos headquarters in 2015 while he was Vice President
and called Holmes "inspiring." Holmes was enthusiastically embraced by
the Obama administration as a shining example of their goals for
American health care, and Biden told Holmes at their 2015 meeting that
he and then-President Barack Obama "share your vision of a health care
paradigm focused on prevention."

Holmes and Bankman-Fried were able to sell an illusion of altruism to a
hungry-for-virtue liberal elite with the same logic that elite
constantly weaponizes against its political rivals. From the constant
rhetoric about "threats to democracy" and "disinformation spreaders" and
"election deniers" and "white supremacist terrorists," the liberal
establishment sends the same message as Holmes and SBF: Supporting me
makes you look like a good person. In so doing, they manufacture the
same undeserved consent that Holmes and Bankman-Fried used to allegedly
swindle investment and credibility from their establishment milieu.

The ability of Sam Bankman-Fried and the liberal elite to style
themselves as dazzling influencers and moral leaders employs the same
brutal logic behind why corporations have seemingly embraced wokeness
and its socially, financially and politically lucrative dogma: Anything
we do is justified because we are the good guys and contribute to the
good of all.

Crypto President Pushes for Government Regulation Amid Massive Losses
Tom Brady's FTX partner admits $16Bn crypto blunder on Twitter: "I'm sorry"
In a way, both the Holmes and Bankman-Fried FTX scandals represent the
liberal establishment getting a taste of its own medicine. The
celebrities, media conglomerates and political entities who endorsed
these tech wolves in sheep clothing for the benefit of being attached to
progressive hype have now been exposed for their lack of diligence and
moral authority.

But there's a larger lesson here, too: Moral preening often obscures not
just self-interested capitalist accumulation but fraud.

Angie Speaks is the cohost of the Low Society Podcast.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

Comments

NewsView
21 hours ago

It is worth noting that Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) is reportedly the second
largest Democrat donor behind George Soros. In 2020 Democrats took in a
record amount of "dark money", after which a TIME magazine article
bragged on the secret plan to "save" the 2020 election through a series
of efforts that included "Zucker bucks" (Mark Zuckerberg), which reigned
down on elections offices where, coincidentally, Democrats could not
afford to lose. Similarly, the 2022 midterm elections were the most
costly midterm elections in history — again owing to dark money.

Whatever happened to the days when Democrats were against dark money and
the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that continues to pose the
ACTUAL threat to Democracy? Because corporations are "people" but,
unlike voters asked to show an ID, have 1,001 ways to legally hide their
identities — to the point where even foreign contributors that set up
U.S. shell companies can participate in our elections via SuperPACs —
they have gained gargantuan influence in our political system!

The classical definition of fascism is a merger between State (public)
and Corporate (private) interests, which arguably is the biggest source
of election meddling bar none. However, because it is perfectly legal it
is ignored. "One voter, one ballot" simply can't compete with billions
of dollars in "the best Democracy money can buy". It is time Americans
came together across party lines and said "This is our country — and
we're taking it back".