For a venture like this the investors would have been contributing only research and development funds, correct? Just because it has failed, doesn't mean that there wasn't anything worth pursuing to begin with.
This is advocating revenge, and being pleased to see someone suffer. Imagine she had a breakdown due to stress and her life went off the rails - would you feel that was fair? How much would she have to suffer before you are satisfied?
She benefited greatly from a cult of personality on the way up and is now finding out it goes both ways. I myself don't feel bad for someone who enriched herself while peddling snake oil and knowingly giving junk test results to real patients. It is despicable.
That's kind of a strange response. Holmes made millions of dollars administering bogus blood tests to real patients. She had real employees. Due to her potentially wilful incompetence a lot of people are suffering.
I don't believe anyone here is advocating that we inflict physical punishment on her. But hoping that she loses her company and never gets to work in the medical field again not only seems like just punishment, but it seems prudent since she was studying chemical engineering when she dropped out.
It's unlikely she's even going to be poor. She'll probably still be worth more than you or I, and would never have to work for the rest of her life.
Your views show how dangerous and misguided moral relativism is, when criminals shouldn't be punished by their own guilt and stress for crimes they committed on their own volition.
Poor Elizabeth Holmes, are you suggesting we should let her off the hook because she too suffered from "affluenza"?
I feel much worse for all the people she hurt (investors, employees, patients, partners, etc). I'm sure Kenneth Lay was in pain too, but I didn't feel bad for him either.
It's not revenge. It's accountability, and there can never be enough of it. If business leaders aren't held to account for their actions, then they are incentivized to misbehave and deceive others, which has a negative impact on everyone——especially those who would put capital to better uses.
I would say the fair amount of stress is equal to the amount of joy she must have experienced when her net worth went from $0 to 4.5 billion. The stress she is experiencing now is simply part of the way to 0.
revenge is a second action that is a constructed response to a first action. You would not call a swarm of bees attacking a person who knocked down the hive, "revenge".
Of course there is a subjective line here, but the things that have happened so far seem to be organic, natural, and maybe even predictable responses to the actions that that preceded. That's not revenge, that's just desserts.
How is self-inflicted pain considered revenge? She caused her own stress by taking money she didn't deserve and is now reaping what she sowed since she knew it didn't work.
Person from privileged background drops out of Stanford and raises hundreds of millions of dollars, in part due to family connections, to produce a fundamentally unsound blood testing product. Person then proceeds to sell a broken blood testing product to consumers as a way of digging themselves out of their obligations to shareholders. Person then lies to regulators, instructs employees to lie to regulators, and witnesses one of their chief scientists commit suicide after, according to his wife, the scientist claimed "nothing was working".
I don't care about this person. I care about all the people hurt due to this person's actions. And I am greatly saddened by the high likelihood that this person will, despite the absolute carnage, profit tremendously from the situation.
Holmes has already cashed out enough to be in a perfectly fine situation. I have little sympathy for her stress level, as it Holmes that has poorly handled the situation while profiting personally.
I worry much more about the stress from regular, honest people that are now associated with Theranos. It would suck to spend many years there, assuming that other parts of the company were doing their job correctly, only to be abandoned so completely by upper management's handling of this situation.
Whatever Holmes has cashed out aside, she comes from a highly privileged background. There was never any danger to her of ending up destitute, regardless of whether Theranos worked out.
Given she was able to swindle investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars, I don't think she'll have any difficulty convincing her family not to disown her.
She probably doesn't need a job, given her family's wealth, but her father is well-connected government official. I'm sure he could get her a position at some agency or other, if she really wanted one.
> Elizabeth’s father, Christian IV, grew up in California, raised by his mother, a former Powers model, whose second husband was a prominent San Francisco businessman. The family moved in powerful circles. Mr. Holmes took a Hearst daughter to a debutante cotillion in 1967.
> Mr. Holmes had a distinguished career in public service, holding a number of senior government positions in Washington.[0]
Her stock options are tied to whatever the Theranos board decides, and she has full board control. So she can make her options tied to whatever she wants.
No, I don't know her net worth for certain, but it isn't a stretch to say that she comes from wealth. It's a lot easier to get wealthy people to give you a ton of money if you're also wealthy.
Just about the only thing a majority shareholder cannot do is vote themselves a massive pay rise, violating their fiduciary duty to the minority shareholder's equity stakes.
You feel compassion for someone who knowingly attempted to peddle a medical product just shy of snake oil, only to have it blow up in their face?
Their product was absurdly broken, and the results were essentially a coin flip (I believe the FDA said results were accurate around 50% of the time). They wanted real doctors and patients to base important medical decisions off of this...
Yes there is, she was selling bogus blood tests! Who cares about her feelings when innocent people made actual medical decision based on her junk science? And really what is there to be compassionate about? That she will be less rich?
We know that money is not a great thing to measure to ascertain happiness, so I feel her bank account is irrelevant. And compassion is not a finite resource.
On the one hand, I completely agree with you about having some degree of compassion towards everybody regardless of what they've done, but on the other hand, I'm not exactly sure what it would change, or if I could remotely justify telling people that their feelings are "wrong" despite them being deceived.
It's perfectly reasonable for people to feel anger/resentment/distrust towards somebody that has done them wrong, just as much as it is perfectly reasonable for a person to feel horrible once they start being the center of attention for having done something wrong. The key difference between these two emotional states, is that one side knew what was happening (i.e. the one committing the act of deception), and the other one didn't. That gives the person committing the deception the upper hand in predicting the outcome of the whole situation, because they must know to some extent that getting caught is one of the possible outcomes of their actions; willfully ignoring this reality isn't equivalent to never even knowing it could exist (as would be the case for victims).
Now typically, anger isn't very productive, but neither exactly is total compassion. Pure indifference is the closest thing to a neutral state in such a situation, and from such a vantage point, people getting angry at being deceived and people getting depressed at being caught is completely logical, and admissible as long as there isn't any real destruction or bodily harm going on. I mean, we could feel sad for a shady person feeling sad in addition to all that, but what will that accomplish?
It is really hard to feel happy when you are poor (first hand experience), Money can buy happiness[1][2]. Conversely we do feel much joy when we see someone we envy fail, more so if we feel (rightly or not) that their success was ill deserved[3].
I like Alain de Botton's take: money and status are essentially a proxies for love, in that people feel worthwhile if others "pay" attention/respect/cash to them. (Heavily paraphrased)
Now consider that Buddhist monks are forbidden from handling money, preparing their own food, and are willingly entirely dependent on the charity of others. It is a kind of self-imposed poverty that demonstrates how much a person can achieve without much more than the shirt on his back.
I'm having trouble following the jump from proxies for love to the practices of Buddhist monks. Monks don't own anything (except for their robes and alms bowl) and don't prepare their own food (and don't do many other things) in order to avoid attachments, which as we know is one of the fundamental causes of suffering and an obstacle to achieving enlightenment.
In bringing up the monks, I was trying (maybe unsuccessfully) to challenge the idea that "poverty" is, ipso facto, a miserable, unhappy existence. De Botton makes the point that soldiers often endure conditions that are far worse than abject poverty, but are not unhappy due to the sense of a noble status given to them by their countrymen. Likewise, I think, for the monks who have nothing to their name, but are respected and honored for their discipline, etc.
It's a bit off-topic, but in a way being a Buddhist monk is a very selfish lifestyle. You don't have to take care of yourself, society will take care of you. You don't contribute much to society apart from perhaps some religious services. In my opinion it's not a good way of life.
"Monks" are not one, monolithic community, so it's hard to argue one way or another whether they contribute anything meaningful back to a community. Here in Japan, many Buddhist orders are downright wealthy (from donations), and use their considerable resources to preserve traditions and history. I doubt that you can put a dollar value on the benefits of keeping cultural history alive. In a sense, it's not too much different from the function of the Metropolitan Museum in New York. Of course, Buddhism is a many-facted religion that manifests differently in different places.
I've always understood the relationship between societies and monks (priests, ministers, nuns, etc.) to be one of "offset". Monks are taken care of so they can pursue the esoteric studies that the common person has no time for. In exchange, the common person's spiritual/religious/etc. enrichment is guided with assistance from the monk, similar to how patronage happens in the arts.
I'm sure this could be explained in an even more conduct way, but I'm having a hard time putting down in words how I see the relationship works in my mind.
Wrt money - I'm just pointing out that assuming someone is happy because they are rich is flawed.
3 is interesting, and backed up by what's happening in this thread. My question is really: is that the world we want to live in? Throughout human history we have gradually been curtailing our violence as a species, and I hope everyone here thinks that's been a good thing, and hopes it will continue. Wishing suffering on anyone for any reason is a form of violence.
Talk is cheap. Most people won't actually do all that much to back up their big feels. I have a good sob story. I doubt you would do more for me than pat me on the head.
Mind you, I don't actually want pity. What I really want is respect for my competence and assistance in becoming successful in my own right. But I run into a lot of people who spend a lot of time on their high horse about wanting the world to be a better place. In most cases, these are the people who have treated me the worst -- who neither will give me genuine respect as a competent human being and a hand up nor so called compassion and a hand out.
I think if you really think that bad thoughts are a form of violence and you want this to be a nicer world, then arguing with people here and criticising them is a kind of violence as well, plus a form of hypocrisy. What are you doing to actually make the world a better place?
Just my 2c but I really dont think wishing suffering on somebody is a form of violence. How can it be when they arent even aware of it. Wishing is something that just occurs in your own head and I think portraying this as violence would be insulting to people who have been the victim of real violence.
Huh, under your logic, is there any amount of misconduct that Holmes could commit (which might harm others, including harm through being misled) that would make you feel more compassion for those harmed or potentially harmed?
If you want to apply Buddhist ethics to influential people misusing their power, uh, I guess I follow what you're trying to do, but it seems cray-cray to me.
Just for the sake of discussion, is it possible to have compassion for the victimizer and the victim? Is there a way to quantify compassion such that you are able to assure yourself that you have given a proper amount to the person who has been wronged?
But she is not different from any Ponzi schemer. Talk up your amazing investment expertise or chemistry genius and get people to trust you with money. The people who invested with her are VCs and wealthy accredited investors. As were Madoff clients.
