[vba616]

>How many lives were destroyed (or at least harmed) by hustling junk bonds?

I'm not familiar with the context of what Michael Milken did (although he's famous enough I know the name), but your (rhetorical?) question sounds very strange to me.

An omniscient and omnipotent being that knew the right amount of junk bonds to issue could probably answer how many lives were destroyed or harmed by creating the wrong amount.

But when a question like that is asked, you're asking human beings, not God, and it sounds rhetorical, which means that the answer is supposed to be obvious, I think.

If you were asking about milk with melamine in it, then I would understand what you meant. But junk bonds aren't inherently useless or defective.

[dvt]

> and it sounds rhetorical

It's rhetorical: the answer is, given how much money he made, a lot.

> But junk bonds aren't inherently useless or defective

This seems a bit disingenuous, as they have, by definition, a very high risk of defaulting. He also manipulated stocks[1], which, again, is technically a victimless crime (but is it really?).

[1] https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-09/s70809-4614.pdf

[vba616]

>This seems a bit disingenuous, as they have, by definition, a very high risk of defaulting

I'm aware junk bonds have a relatively high expected risk of default and I'm not being disingenuous.

Please assume that I'm sincere, as it's required by the HN guidelines, and also, I am.

I didn't say anything is a victimless crime or say victimless crimes are ok (or acts that have victims are always wrong). So let's not go on that tangent for now. Or talk about details about Milken, which are beyond the scope of my previous comment.

So: I infer you think high risk loans are bad, like poisoned milk. I don't have a problem with that concept, really. But there must be a threshold, right? And I have never heard of anyone seriously putting that threshold precisely at the word "junk". As far as I know, "junk" is a term of art, that is opposed to "investment grade".

[dvt]

Okay, maybe we're just speaking past each other. My point is pretty simple, and you're right that I should not have brought up victimless crimes, etc.

I'm just trying to say: here's some rich guy that did bad stuff, went to jail, and received the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, essentially rebranded his image, and is now back at the adults' table as a philanthropist, even though his wealth is funded by his past illegal/unethical endeavors. And to make things more bizarre, everyone is totally playing along. Isn't that kind of funny?

[thedailymail]

I came here to say pretty much the same thing. Thanks for putting it so well. Not all strategic use of ill-gotten wealth is "philanthropic" (= motivated by the love of humanity).

[RobRivera]

manipulation of stock is far from a victimless crime