Steelmanning when I said it was convincing “enough” is very hyperbolic as a debate criticism. Your bias leads you to assume he’s putting himself on a pedestal when he has shown in the past an ability to criticize his own misses. Seems we just see this post in two very different lights.

I actually took it to mean that it convinced him at the time or it was convincing “enough” at the time. He does a lot of after the fact analysis that allows us to retrospectively appreciate whether risky political movies paid off or not. It’s useful analysis and nice history lessons to remind us of

His Twitter post reflects good analysis of a very real thing that happened, without placing judgement on its morality or ethics — just the reality on it being a tactic they deployed. Strange you find it personally disqualifying in some way.

Because currently the FDIC system does not guarantee the riskier types of "banks" they want to be able to use. With more control over the FDIC they can get insurance on their risky bets and over leverage themselves more.

Be sure to watch the OG inspiration: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNTA...

When Pembleton has a stroke. Scarred for life watching that scene.

This is how a lot of non profit/government based research organizations operate. Discoveries are licensed back to the employees who spin off a company and share profits with the original organization.