[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.