[jakelazaroff]

Yeah, but all that would have been fine if he’d acted responsibly. Obviously giving him that much power is a dangerous game to play, but it doesn’t absolve him of responsibility for his behavior. Ultimately he — not the investors — is the one who built this sandcastle on partying, self-dealing and a cult of personality.

One of the things about blame is that it’s never zero sum, and in this case there’s more than enough to go around.

[mpalmer]

> Yeah, but all that would have been fine if he’d acted responsibly.

> if he’d acted responsibly

> if

The "if" is the point. SoftBank had the ability to eliminate the risk of this "if", and didn't.

[jakelazaroff]

So what you’re saying is: if someone doesn’t prevent you from doing something, they should shoulder more of the blame than you do for actually doing the thing?

[mpalmer]

It's a matter of perspective. Your general example sounds like it's from the perspective of WeWork's CEO, who is obviously responsible for his decisions.

But what about the perspective of SoftBank's shareholders? If they're unhappy about this, they ought to be unhappy with the dealmakers at SoftBank for creating a situation where SoftBank is exposed to volatility of this kind.

[tempsy]

Take an extreme example. If a VC decided to invest $1b in a lemonade stand run by a 7 year old and the whole thing falls apart, then yes I would blame the VC for not conducting proper due diligence and enabling someone who neither had the right business for $1b or was the right leader to execute on that business in the first place.

[tomjakubowski]

There's a difference between not preventing behavior and enabling it, with gobs and gobs of cash.

[icelancer]

>> Yeah, but all that would have been fine if he’d acted responsibly

This is what people say when they give the executive branch of the United States unchecked power to unilaterally do things and sidestep the legislative and judicial branches. Presidents don't always do that sort of thing, and neither do CEOs or.... normal people.