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
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.