Michael is still in denial about Sam. “The sin in my eyes is that he borrowed the money without permission”…uhhh you mean he stole the money, right Michael?
Reimbursement of funds doesn’t matter. Freezing assets costs people money. So even if assets are 100% reimbursed losses still occur. SBF and all parties involved regardless of legal consequences will always be looking over their shoulders waiting for that pound of flesh to be taken for their involvement
Afterall this time Michael STILL doesn't get it, there is no ftx without alameda! Most of the traders are on ftx because they can trade against the worst market maker around - alameda Closing alameda would have crushed ftx's marketshare and much of ftx's value is attached to FTT, fake money held up by them and would immediately collapse if ftx dumped their share on the market.
Michael Lewis, this apologising for Sam is super strange. For example, the Suff that Sam not remembered was “not a big deal”, meaning the prosecution had made something innocent sinister? Wow
Lewis is trying to humanize Bankman Fried and make him look like a misunderstood genius. This view of defendant doesn’t hold water in view of all the evidence presented in court. He actually says Bankman Fried didn’t steal from FTX customers in this interview. Lewis is being willfully blind. And so what if Judge Kaplan saw Clinton who appointed him on the courtroom monitor? What is Lewis trying to insinuate about the judge? I didn’t like that at all. I guess he will do anything to defend his book. I heard Zeke Faux’s book sheds real light on this case.
I guess Michael Lewis is ok with someone taking his money, buy a house and live in it for several years, and then give it back to him when cops come knocking on the door. Hey, it might even have appreciated in value!
Sam is an interesting character. The use of Utilitarian philosophy to demonstrate that rules do not count was interesting. I have read "On Freedom" by John Stuart Mill, I don't remember it figuring much but, interesting. His lack of emotional affect, his intellectual vanity, the absolute +ev mindset, the grandiosity. All interesting. Not in a good way in this situation. [edit or "On Liberty"? can't remember]
I refuse to believe michael lewis can not understand this whole issue. If anyone understands it is him. His whole approach to this thing is odd. I know because I read almost all of his books. How can he ask something such as “ when did sam found out about this missing funds”? HOW KNEW IT FROM THE BEGINNING FFS! And if he thinks he does not know it is not better either! Let’s say Even if michael really thinks sam did not perform a robbery,, everything that he says Sam did is also a crime! What he does not understand is it is still terrible and people can not understand the soft approach he has towards him. How can you say there were still assets to liqiudate? Does he count FTT as one of those assets? And I am not even saying that “THOSE ASSETS WERE PURCHASED WITH CUSTOMER FUNDS THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO BEGIN WITH! Michael called people that are surprised to his reaction as “mob”. I am one of the members of that mob. And the reason I am a part of that mob is I love reading him. Our reaction only stems from the dissapointment we have towards him. Michael Lewis I know and read is not a person to give a crook like SBF a pass. Anyway, go read Zeke Faux’ book. It is everything that you hoped Michael’s book would be.
Lewis is a storyteller interested in telling captivating stories, facts are secondary to him and he often bends it to fit his narrative, almost like Sam. Follow up on many of his stories and you'll notice that either the people in the field disagree with him, or his characters actually does much more poorly than he frames it.
Given his recent embarrassing statements on Michael Oher as the story behind The Blind Side collapses, it seems more like Lewis isn't what people thought he was to begin with.
Michael! You are about an interview away from morphing into Walter Isaacson moments before he begins penning his latest propaganda piece as he yearningly remembers the first time Elon let him give him a 'handy' is his Tesla death trap! Sam didn’t ‘Borrow’ the money, Michael. They had a contract; he acted outside the four walls of that contract and risked it on either himself and his guilty friends and family, or he permitted it to be spent on bad trades made by people who knew they weren’t qualified to make. He NEVER asked for permission to use investors’ money in that fashion! What's more, he NEVER received any type of 'carte blanche' permission from said investors that would even come close to remotely excusing the criminal acts Sam, and his guilty friends/lovers, purposely and willfully committed. Therefore, he didn’t ‘Borrow’ anything, and as a fan, I am worried you are getting a bit too close to your latest book’s central antagonist. I wonder if you would still consider it ‘Borrowing’ if it had been your life-savings at play. I bet not, Michael, and you are too smart to not have thought of this exact scenario prior to me writing it here. This is worrying and hopefully short-lived
@@clarkent61 Bitcoin is a very specific coin, not what FTX created. There is no evidence of a pay off to the author. Lewis hasn't defended Fried or even portrayed him favourably. In this program he says the most likely outcome is a prison sentence. Lewis says that if he testified or portions of the book were included as evidence it would hurt Fried. This is complete nonsense in every possible way.
@@seanwebb605 : I listened to the junk Lewis presented and I disagree with his take on this podcast and his take globally on the FTX saga. I have no evidence that he was bribed but I am somewhat uneasy with the cosy relationship he has with SBF’s parents. We all know that SBF’s parents are not exactly saints. I disagree with Michael Lewis and I disagree with you. I hope you do not take this personal👍
She asked doesn't casino always win and he answered so fast he answered about the mess of the company. Made it seem like he missed the question and talk too fast , he has mind made
Michael is still in denial about Sam. “The sin in my eyes is that he borrowed the money without permission”…uhhh you mean he stole the money, right Michael?
You're still beating that drum?
Its a distinction without difference
@@tobyCornish There is a huge difference.
He really is. He’s changed his tune a bit but still can’t get over the wonder boy being a crook
Totally agree
All I can say after listening to these two is that I am really glad they are not on the jury.
1000% agreed.
I am disappointed with Michael Lewis’s slant on this issue. I expected better from him.
My god man! He may have invested it with the wisdom of Solomon. Doesn't matter. Point is : It's not your money. You. Just. Can't. Do. It.
What’s up with Michael Lewis? I am so puzzled. He stole money. It’s a major no no.
@theresachung703 I am not knocking him entirely , SBF is interesting, he should stay in contact and write another book. Just a bit more clear eyed!
Reimbursement of funds doesn’t matter. Freezing assets costs people money. So even if assets are 100% reimbursed losses still occur. SBF and all parties involved regardless of legal consequences will always be looking over their shoulders waiting for that pound of flesh to be taken for their involvement
This man is high on his own supply.
So if a burglar steals your money and invests it wisely it's okay and not a crime?
Afterall this time Michael STILL doesn't get it, there is no ftx without alameda!
Most of the traders are on ftx because they can trade against the worst market maker around - alameda
Closing alameda would have crushed ftx's marketshare and much of ftx's value is attached to FTT, fake money held up by them and would immediately collapse if ftx dumped their share on the market.
Michael Lewis, this apologising for Sam is super strange. For example, the Suff that Sam not remembered was “not a big deal”, meaning the prosecution had made something innocent sinister? Wow
Oh I get it! He loves gamblers. He always did
Lewis is trying to humanize Bankman Fried and make him look like a misunderstood genius. This view of defendant doesn’t hold water in view of all the evidence presented in court. He actually says Bankman Fried didn’t steal from FTX customers in this interview. Lewis is being willfully blind. And so what if Judge Kaplan saw Clinton who appointed him on the courtroom monitor? What is Lewis trying to insinuate about the judge? I didn’t like that at all. I guess he will do anything to defend his book. I heard Zeke Faux’s book sheds real light on this case.
Not sure why Michesl lewis us bring weird about this case.
I guess Michael Lewis is ok with someone taking his money, buy a house and live in it for several years, and then give it back to him when cops come knocking on the door. Hey, it might even have appreciated in value!
He hasn't suggest any such thing.
can anyone explain why SBF was not charged with embezzlement instead of fraud
Where is Sam Trabucco and how is he left out of the story???
Sam is an interesting character. The use of Utilitarian philosophy to demonstrate that rules do not count was interesting. I have read "On Freedom" by John Stuart Mill, I don't remember it figuring much but, interesting. His lack of emotional affect, his intellectual vanity, the absolute +ev mindset, the grandiosity. All interesting.
Not in a good way in this situation. [edit or "On Liberty"? can't remember]
I refuse to believe michael lewis can not understand this whole issue. If anyone understands it is him. His whole approach to this thing is odd. I know because I read almost all of his books.
How can he ask something such as “ when did sam found out about this missing funds”? HOW KNEW IT FROM THE BEGINNING FFS! And if he thinks he does not know it is not better either!
Let’s say Even if michael really thinks sam did not perform a robbery,, everything that he says Sam did is also a crime! What he does not understand is it is still terrible and people can not understand the soft approach he has towards him. How can you say there were still assets to liqiudate? Does he count FTT as one of those assets? And I am not even saying that “THOSE ASSETS WERE PURCHASED WITH CUSTOMER FUNDS THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED TO BEGIN WITH!
Michael called people that are surprised to his reaction as “mob”. I am one of the members of that mob. And the reason I am a part of that mob is I love reading him. Our reaction only stems from the dissapointment we have towards him. Michael Lewis I know and read is not a person to give a crook like SBF a pass.
Anyway, go read Zeke Faux’ book. It is everything that you hoped Michael’s book would be.
Lewis is a storyteller interested in telling captivating stories, facts are secondary to him and he often bends it to fit his narrative, almost like Sam.
Follow up on many of his stories and you'll notice that either the people in the field disagree with him, or his characters actually does much more poorly than he frames it.
Given his recent embarrassing statements on Michael Oher as the story behind The Blind Side collapses, it seems more like Lewis isn't what people thought he was to begin with.
Michael! You are about an interview away from morphing into Walter Isaacson moments before he begins penning his latest propaganda piece as he yearningly remembers the first time Elon let him give him a 'handy' is his Tesla death trap! Sam didn’t ‘Borrow’ the money, Michael. They had a contract; he acted outside the four walls of that contract and risked it on either himself and his guilty friends and family, or he permitted it to be spent on bad trades made by people who knew they weren’t qualified to make. He NEVER asked for permission to use investors’ money in that fashion! What's more, he NEVER received any type of 'carte blanche' permission from said investors that would even come close to remotely excusing the criminal acts Sam, and his guilty friends/lovers, purposely and willfully committed. Therefore, he didn’t ‘Borrow’ anything, and as a fan, I am worried you are getting a bit too close to your latest book’s central antagonist. I wonder if you would still consider it ‘Borrowing’ if it had been your life-savings at play. I bet not, Michael, and you are too smart to not have thought of this exact scenario prior to me writing it here. This is worrying and hopefully short-lived
I can see why Michael is so defensive of Sam.... his way of justifying what is a "bribe" and what is "borrowing" is as shifty as Sam's.
Michael Lewis said there isn't much chance that this doesn't end in a conviction. What crazy defense of Fried do you think Lewis is offering?
I wonder how much bitcoin that Lewis received from Scam Sam to defend him!😂
There is so much wrong with this comment.
@@seanwebb605: Like what? Could you please explain?
@@clarkent61 Bitcoin is a very specific coin, not what FTX created. There is no evidence of a pay off to the author. Lewis hasn't defended Fried or even portrayed him favourably. In this program he says the most likely outcome is a prison sentence. Lewis says that if he testified or portions of the book were included as evidence it would hurt Fried. This is complete nonsense in every possible way.
@@seanwebb605 : I listened to the junk Lewis presented and I disagree with his take on this podcast and his take globally on the FTX saga.
I have no evidence that he was bribed but I am somewhat uneasy with the cosy relationship he has with SBF’s parents.
We all know that SBF’s parents are not exactly saints. I disagree with Michael Lewis and I disagree with you.
I hope you do not take this personal👍
She asked doesn't casino always win and he answered so fast he answered about the mess of the company. Made it seem like he missed the question and talk too fast , he has mind made
Michael Lewis still defending SBF 😂😂
Mmmmm fresh cope
#FBI who is this little girl Michael has on his show?