The () conundrum might be solvable by throwing these propositions into the mix:

1. He's “earning to give”
1. He's an utilitarian
1. He thinks that “the end justifies the means”
1. He's explicitly risk-neutral

He simply computed the probability of getting away with financial engineering and deception times the potential increase in well-being (by tossing billions at causes), and that seemed to him higher than the odds of being caught times {investors and customers' funds lost plus the huge reputational damage that would inflict to the cause}.

So he pressed the red button and bet the world. And he lost.

It's not trivial to find the flaw in his reasoning, though.

Follow

@victoriano

I see. Seems that guy and I reached exactly the same conclusions about the fiasco! 👍

Sign in to participate in the conversation
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.