[yoha]

I have to agree with this. All the article have shown is that even billionaires are people. The fact that they make intolerant jokes or that they speak of the crisis lightly is not that shocking considering the fact that they are in a private context. From what I understood, they are here to relax, and that is actually quite similar to what you could witness in any conventional meeting in a more modest population.

It would have been way more shocking if it had been done in public speech. Not because it would have been known, but because it does not convey the same meaning. In a private context, you can expect people to know you are joking, or that this is a personal opinion you are able not to impose to others. In a public context, you are expected to express yourself clearly and to take position.

In regards to the conclusion of the sting, I can also understand that they would not like that kind of material to be published. Imagine someone threatening to publish recordings of you in shameful situations during a party? From what I read, they were reasonable they seem to have let him go without much trouble (I think they could have called the police and have his phone confiscated without too much hassle).

[ItendToDisagree]

Agreed they are just people. The difference in this case being that they are being insensitive (even celebrating) about something they did which had negative nation wide (world wide) implications. Which is slightly different than the average person's drunken antics at a party.

For a different (arguably larger) example, if someone is making light of (or celebrating) genocide/slavery/some atrocity (that they or their compatriots caused) and it comes out, that is very different than pictures of Obama/Zuckerberg/Guy down the street being blackout drunk or even doing drugs at a party.

[rayiner]

Most of them don't think "they did [something] which had negative nation wide (world wide) implications." Most of them perceive the financial collapse as a structural event caused by nobody in particular, that they couldn't have personally averted, that they didn't intend to happen, that they are getting blamed for. A very good analogy would be Google-ers and Facebook-ers getting together and drunkenly joking about driving up the rents in San Francisco and pushing out poor people. Possibly in bad taste, but not quite as bad as you're making it out to be.

[dpcheng2003]

I'm a fan of imperfect analogies to prove a point so I can sympathize. However, your analogy really lets off the bad agents in the financial crisis.

Enough people directly committed acts some would deem fraudulent (sell baskets of bad loans to unsuspecting municipalities, approve bogus mortgage loan docs, etc.) that they can't fall on the crutch of systemic breakdown.

It'd be like if these Googlers and Facebook-ers wrote software that inflated real estate prices, driving out the poor and increasing the value of their equity in their homes, before an inevitable collapse in which some government bailout had to occur to prevent urban blight in San Francisco, thereby creating a safety-net for the rich homeowners.

[dhoulb]

To extend and correct your analogy: it'd be like if Googlers and Facebookers, and 20 other companies had to create and continuously improve software that unintentionally drove up real estate prices, in order to engage in a highly competitive market.

Their actions, writing the software, aren't necessarily malicious or risky. To their mind they're just doing what everyone else is doing and trying to create the best system.

Then they have an awards ceremony to celebrate the best software. Maybe in poor taste, but they're not even really considering the real estate market. Their game is software, and the financiers game is profit.

Like we don't generally think about the lives of people who make our clothes or computers, because our game is fashion or programming.

It's groupthink that caused the financial crisis (and most other problems), not necessarily malice.

[Aloha]

You've clearly not spent enough alcohol fueled time debauching yourself.

Ribald, insensitive, bad humor happens when you put booze and a bunch of middle aged men in a room.

[ItendToDisagree]

As pointed out... The difference being that, in the largest majority of cases, said middle aged (any aged) people were not involved in the atrocious act they are lampooning.

As George Carlin said "anything can be funny" (even rape). But its going to be incredibly hard for a convicted rapist to come up with a joke, about the rape he committed, that is funny, doesn't offend basically everyone, or make him come off as a total insensitive twat.

Do you see the difference?

[twoodfin]

Who in this article, specifically, committed which "atrocious act"?

[sarreph]

Seriously?

[twoodfin]

Yes. That's a pretty serious claim, especially paired with a rape analogy. There are plenty of forums on the web where everyone will nod along as "Wall Street 1%'ers" are described as having obviously committed (typically unnamed) atrocities. I don't think HN should be one of them.

[czottmann]

That party was not about middle-aged men meeting in private and getting hammered, then telling jokes.

It was obviously not an ad-hoc evening get-together but an event people had prepared for for a while, including likely sober people working on dance routines and skits in bad taste.

[plorg]

This includes new inductees (neophytes) who were ostensibly preparing and performing said skits to prove their worthiness to be inducted into such a fraternal group.

[dpcheng2003]

At a certain point, your fame/wealth/power grants you some responsibilities if you care to honor them. One of them is to be constantly mindful of what you say or do because it has leveraged, far-reaching implications on your community and for a select few, globally.

Take a silly example: If Justin Bieber decides it's okay to drink sizzurp and drag race, millions of impressionable pre-teens may see this as acceptable behavior. Take a relevant example: If John Doerr says that the best startup talent tends to be white, male, nerds who've dropped out of Harvard or Stanford, this can have a negative influence on men and women of color who have startup aspirations (or dropped out of MIT).

Now consider who we're talking about here in this context. Every person here benefited from the lead-up to the financial crash and then benefited from tax-paying dollars in the financial bailout. While it's debatable whether or not Wall Street was let down easy (for some, they will point to no criminal charges, watered-down finance reform, etc.), I think both sides can agree that there exists a loud, populist movement that believes Wall Street is irresponsibly reckless, benefiting from moral hazard. Knowing this, wouldn't you take some precaution to not be shown to be callous and indifferent to today's economic state?

To those who say this was an entirely private affair, I'd argue the opposite. This was a dinner with place-cards and catering at the St. Regis. If they were to have this conversation truly in private (and as a former investment banker, I've participated in these private discussions), then we wouldn't be discussing this on HN.

I believe an organization like this has outsized responsibilities because of the influence they wield. Do you know how hard it is to get men and women of this caliber in a single room? Imagine if they harnessed their passion towards something their community would deem constructive?

I believe in individual rights so certainly, everyone is entitled to their free speech. But no one should be surprised when a backlash occurs.

Edit: To the person who asked how the Justin Bieber example is relevant, I say it has to do with the fame/wealth/power and influence argument. It is not a perfect analogy and I did not intend it to be. I used a silly example to initially diffuse what I think was going to be a serious indictment of bad behavior.

[auctiontheory]

How is getting drunk and high and drag racing on a public street remotely private or equivalent to the story?

[fatjokes]

Without agreeing or disagreeing, I believe OP is simply making the point that with fame and wealth comes a bit of responsibility.

[dpcheng2003]

Yes.

To the post below, it is entirely possible to be extremely wealthy and have no responsibility.

Empirically, however, most people have generated wealth through direct and indirect actions that have benefited and hurt others.

Society has agreed implicitly that those better off should hold some responsibility for those worst off. This is demonstrated via progressive taxation and through societal pressures to give to charity.

You can completely disagree with that statement, which is your prerogative. But in modern society, specifically in the US, this is the status quo.

Furthermore, those in the financial industry have had an outsized impact on the global financial crisis, from which many believe there should be more culpability. Again, you can think differently but I'm just stating facts.

[jack-r-abbit]

I just question why we feel the need to make them a role model when they do not want to be viewed as a role model and then have the balls to criticize them for not living up to the standards we have placed on role models.

[jack-r-abbit]

I don't understand why someone with a billion dollars must accept the "responsibility" of being a role model. I aspire to be wealthy. I do not aspire to be a role model. What other people think of me (or my actions) is none of my business.