Hacker News Reader

Comment by jordigh | Hacker News Reader

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth.

I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has succeeded in partially hijacking some of my brain.

Mayb some of you will think I'm some kind of easily-manipulated idiot and that you would never fall prey to similar thought processes. That we're all too smart to really believe Facebook and that "critical thinking" is all we need. That the things Soros is talking about in this article could never happen to us. I in turn think that this kind of intellectual arrogance is a bit dangerous and precisely leads to the kind of manipulation that social media can have on us.

View on HN

If you want to know more about him or his philanthropic work, I suggest checking out what his charitable foundation: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about

He's also written a number of books, some a better read than others, but I find all of his ideas interesting, even if his communication of them is at times a little dense. (It's clear he is or wants to be a philosopher at heart)

It is striking the way he's demonized. When you press people (like in person, not on the internet) why they think he's the devil incarnate, you usually get some really wild ad hominem not rooted in reality or a realization that they don't really know why they hate him so much other than he's a benefactor of their political opposition and they were told to. It does have an effect, even subconsciously, after a while

> When you press people (like in person, not on the internet) why they think he's the devil incarnate, you usually get some really wild ad hominem not rooted in reality or a realization that they don't really know why they hate him so much other than he's a benefactor of their political opposition and they were told to.

Sure, but we could probably say the same of the Koch brothers. They both occupy similar positions of power and influence on opposite sides of the fence, and suffer similar attacks.

I've never seen people claim the Koch's literally aided and abetted the Nazis (this is something that's actually claimed about Soros in spite of fleeing Europe with his parents as an adolescent). There's a hatred and fear of Soros that surpasses his political activities. He's pretty active with bonafide "do gooder" stuff and it's equated with Pizzagate-style conspiracies and worse that you don't see on the opposite side of the fence. What I'm saying is, it isn't strictly political and it's certainly not equivocal.

It's anti-Semitism. The one thing you can say for the ignorant throughout history is that they are both consistent and enthusiastic about their awful beliefs.

"stuff and it's equated with Pizzagate-style conspiracies and worse that you don't see on the opposite side of the fence."

"Koch brothers".

There is nothing one side's fever swamp does that the other can't match, which is why wise people attempting to discern truths ignore both, but most especially, ignore the one on the "other side".

Except the left/liberal side (as defined in US terms) mostly rejects the extremes.

The right/conservatives have turned a blind eye toward (and in some cases wholly embraced) their "fever swamp".

The truth is not in the middle.

The whole "Koch brothers are teh devil!" seems to be quite an extreme position, if one bothers to read what Koch brothers actually promote.

That's not true. I see moderate right wingers like Jordan Peterson criticising highly fevered left wingers who are clearly extremists. The right that I see is reasonable and the left they talk about is extreme. I suspect it's the same for you but in reverse. You can't judge the whole side by what their enemies mock them for.

I'm a right winger but I still believe in evolution and I don't have a portrait of Hitler on my wall.

This is where that aiding the Nazis claim originated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Id0-Lsyr0

The Kochs did literally aid and abet the Nazis:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/us/politics/father-of-koc...

Along with a significant portion of other U.S. industry, including IBM, AT&T, Coca Cola, Ford, GM, and more.

This isn't the quality of reference I'd generally provide, but it's a quick find and seems generally accurate in the basics:

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_nastybiz.html

And:

https://listverse.com/2013/10/24/10-big-business-nazi-profit...

(Several of the listed companies are in fact German, which isn't surprising. There are several American firms as well, including Kodak and Standard Oil.)

Washington Post on Ford and GM:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/n...

The IBM case is exceedingly well documented:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/black-ibm.html

Getting back to the Kochs and various Nazi, anti-semitic, and Holocaust-denial elements:

Reason Magazine, almost wholly backed by the Koch Brothers, ran a Holocaust-denial special issue, and doubled down on it when called out:

https://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-r...

Regnery Press, strongly associated with Chicago School economists (it published Milton Friedman, George Stigler, F.A. Hayek, and others), and long a standard of the conservative Right and Libertarian movements, is strongly associated with the alt-right:

Regnery has become major figure in the white nationalist movement, having founded the National Policy Institute, a white supremacist “think tank,” and the Charles Martel Society, which publishes The Occidental Quarterly, a racist, anti-Semitic and pseudo-scholarly “journal.”

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

The Kochs are widely misunderstood. They are typically seen as effectively a free-money-pit for generic Republican views that promote Capitalist exploitation, laying waste to the environment, and destroying any real grassroots movement to bring democratic power to the people.

From my understanding, the reality is more like: The Kochs are typical dogmatic Libertarians who aren't anti-environment but have this simplistic economic model in their heads that insists that regulations are nearly always counterproductive. They don't support just any conservative view. They have good intentions and aren't about pursuing their own selfish power. They want to empower others. It's just that they are misled by their simplistic dogma (which certainly has a lot of actually fine ideas, but it's the holding them as a dogmatic set in the stereotypical Libertarian way that they go wrong). So, their opposition to mass incarceration and to regressive Nationalism… those things all fit their particular dogma that is simply not a plain polar opposite of progressive ideas but is more orthogonal in many ways.

Sure. And similar, if in opposition, arguments could be made (and likely are), with regard to Soros. Some on the right probably view Soros as a socialist/capitalist that wants to control through party power or the manipulation of causes to his own end. The reality is likely much more similar to how you outlined the Koch motivations above.

Good intentions? Any time I read something like this: https://www.thenation.com/article/big-brothers-thought-contr... my doubts about them increase.

I think they're true believers, which does not justify the evil they do, but I expect they would view this as a situation where the ends justify the means - or a situation where they are educating the uneducated.

But did anyone ever point at any actual evil that they do? They seem to be rather liberal/progressive on social issues, and quite moderately conservative on economic ones, which doesn't seem too bad.

Using their power to acquire more power in a system that is not designed to deal with this level of corruption is evil in itself. Why do they think they're god's mouthpiece? Why do their economic ideas seem to benefit them so greatly at the expense of others?

They've also paid over $733 mil in fines for environmental violations, and they're putting money into lobbying for stripping regulations. Whether you want to call this evil, I don't really care, but it's terrible for humanity and the world, and they should be stopped.

The whole complaint in that article seems to be that Koch Industries endorsed a candidate in a letter to their employees.

Reading the article, there were a few points where I felt like I was reading a propoganda piece, which made the complaints about the Koch's newsletter being right-wing propoganda feel superficial and politically motivated, if not outright hypocritical.

Frankly, it's a great example of the sort of thing kbenson and spinchange were talking about above [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16341358

Half of the science-heave PBS shows that are such a favorite of the SV crowd wouldn't be possible without Koch donations.

So even if the Kochs really do end up killing all of the polar bears, it'll be well documented on TV.

Up vote for "science-heave", did you say that on purpose?

"What happens when one scientist goes head to head with EXTREME SHARK ATTACKS!!!11???" heave

Am I the only one who thinks pop-science shows have gone down hill a bit since reality tv came in to fashion? When I was younger Nova seemed like a dignified scholarly affair, but these days it seems like something always has to be exploding or attacking. Maybe it's just nostalgia...

The Kochs also exert editorial control over PBS content when they don't like what's reported.

[citation needed]

I highly recommend the two part Freakonomics episode "Why Hate the Koch Brothers?" which includes lengthy interviews with Charles Koch. He seemed to me a well meaning but somewhat naive libertarian.

> I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros

> He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth.

Those characterizations may have their origins in an element of truth, dating from the early 90s. Paul Krugman described his Soros's actions thusly:

> [N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is 'Soroi'.[65] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#1992_pound_short)

The principals of finance are the same for everyone. Just because the UK (like Mexico, Argentina, and most of SE Asia) decided to ignore the rules, doesn't make him a bad person. It makes him an intelligent investor.

When you're screwing with monetary policy and most college kids (in finance and economics) know what you're doing will blow up in your face. To assume investors won't take advantage is not only naive but ignorant.

Play stupid games with your policy, win stupid prizes. This would be like turning over the Fed's duties to the US Congress. If this ever happens, diversify in other currencies, tangible assets, and precious metals. Because it's going to be a hell of a ride.

I'm sure the medical companies that sold HIV infected blood products to countries that didn't check for the HIV virus were also "intelligent investors" in your mind. Or the Chiquita fruit company

It might not be illegal but ethics come back to you

There is nothing unethical in taking money away from a first world government in fair market deals, within the rules set out by those same governments. They employ tens of thousands of well paid experts who's job is exactly to maximize national interest and who would not blink an eye to crush investors like Soros, would the places be reversed.

Comparing that to poor individuals who were abused by large corporations is disingenuous.

> There is nothing unethical in taking money away from a first world government in fair market deals

If it leads to a greater long term net suffering in the world then I would argue yes it is.

If anything about those deals was unethical it was what the Bank of England was doing. They did a disservice to every citizen of the country. That blowup was going to happen regardless of whether or no Soros was on the other side.

This thread have given me the uneasy feeling that I watched a completely different show.

I only remember the outlines of the issue but I recall the Conservatives wanting to not "look weak" on policy reflecting ongoing negotiations in Berlin when they had already been repeatedly warned about the consequences and decided to play chicken with the market?

No one say bad, they just say these people invoke turmoil and crisis for their own profit. Is it good or bad or neutral, it’s your own judgement.

He hardly invoked turmoil.

Joining the ERM invoked turmoil. It was a silly idea and the valuation being wrong wasn't exactly a minority view.

We should be criticising and remembering the idiocy of Norman Lamont rather than of George Soros for profiting from that idiocy.

Now I don't know enough about the rest of Soros' career to have a view of whether he's good or bad. The infamous ERM short is not a smoking gun here.

Exactly. I was living in the UK at the time and it remains the only time I've ever made any money playing forex.

It was obvious to increasingly.. everyone .. that the Bank was playing chicken with the markets.

Soros was on the winning side.

What are "these people" though? Successful investors? The "East Coast establishment"? Jewish investors?

I believe the point your parent post was making is that these distinctions are bogus. The entire investment business (and not only that) is amoral. This is unfortunately inherent to Capitalism.

> The entire investment business (and not only that) is amoral.

Guns are amoral too, but we still expect people to use them morally.

There are in fact laws for that. Soros' investments were perfectly legal from what I know. We could change this if we wanted to, Capitalism is a man-made system after all. Demonizing successful players is just pointless.

You're making the mistake of equating the law with morality. Greatly simplified, the a law is just an attempt to roughly codify some moral principles and give them some teeth.

We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws to force them to do so.

> You're making the mistake of equating the law with morality. Greatly simplified, the a law is just an attempt to roughly codify some moral principles and give them some teeth.

I didn't mean to equate them and I don't think I did. I was implicitly making the same connection that you just made explicitly.

> We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws force them to do so.

Who really expects investors to act morally rather than doing whatever's legal? Heck, who expects Facebook to prioritize morals over profits? Don't people who have these expectations deeply misunderstand how today's economic system works?

> Who really expects investors to act morally rather than doing whatever's legal? Heck, who expects Facebook to prioritize morals over profits? Don't people who have these expectations deeply misunderstand how today's economic system works?

I expect (as in bound in duty or obligated) them to. However, I expect (as in predict) they will not.

Are you suggesting we stop 'hoping' (I don't hope investors act morally, I expect the regulatory apparatus to force them to, or penalize accordingly) altogether?

Sure, I hope HSBC won't launder money for Mexican Cartels. And when they do, I hope that some world government decides to toss the executives in jail and fine the company out of existence. And yes, when the settlement is just a slap-on-the-wrist-fine, a low VP getting canned, and the execs sitting pretty I hope for a return in the guillotine. And they all hope that I get fed up with hoping and become hopeless.

Is that what you hope as well?

>We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws force them to do so.

Naive people do. However, part of the problem is what people believe is moral differs, it's not an absolute. Lots of people project their moralities onto society and the law and are just dumbfounded when they don't match. Is that a problem with society or the individual?

That's an academic argument. The basic building block of any society is the expectation-requirement that the other members will act according to the moral principles of that society. At a minimum, the people who fail to abide by those principles can be judged and criticized for their violations.

And to pull this back on track, this all came up in the context of the idea the market is amoral so we shouldn't expect the actors in that market to be anything but selfish and amoral. I think that's wrong and pernicious idea.

Free-flowing capital would be regulated by who? The World Government?

Turmoil and crisis is usually the result of above described idiocy and people who “take advantage” of turmoil and crisis are intelligent.

Sure, but people can still have feelings about it even if what the person did was legal.

> It makes him an intelligent investor.

It makes him an amoral investor.

We need more rich people with morals, not those who use the letter of the law to destroy things and then claim they're not to blame because they played by the rules.

Because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it.

Here's the reality. The people that CREATED the situation were the immoral and unethical ones. If he doesn't cash in, someone else does. Or even worse, it grows exponentially until it collapses in on itself.

Maybe look at the idiots running those governments and their finance people when you want to pass judgment. Easy money is easy money. He had to have the capital to take advantage anyway.

> If he doesn't cash in, someone else does.

That doesn't make it right. It just makes him amoral.

"I had to murder this guy, because if I didn't, someone else will!"

Just as a nitpick, it should be spelled "Soroj" instead of "Soroi" since George Soros's surname is in Esperanto, and that's the proper way to form a plural noun.

Soros funded a great chunk of Russian science throug the rough nineties, and got nothing in return but the gratitude from the scientists and students. The government kicked him out afterwards. He will forever remain a philanthropist in my mind.

There is absolutely nothing wrong (and, really, lots good) with Soros' currency market trades of the 90s and elsewhen.

The problem with Soros (if you're not on the Left) is that he's become the principal funding source for a number of hard-left movements. If you are on the Left, then this is good, while if you're not then this is bad. I won't tell you how you should feel about Soros though -- you figure that out for yourself.

I personally view small groups of people having such large amounts of power to be undemocratic, whether they be the Koch brothers, or Soros. I may support the same causes he funds and supports, but I'd like it if people like him funding government choices was not possible

Why? Via freedom of association we all can (and do!) pool our money very well, and we have more money altogether than the Soroses and Koches of the world.

In a (simplified and ideal) democracy, 1 person, 1 vote. Allowing someone to contribute more than one "vote" (dollar) each is allowing them to out "speak" other contributors. Why do Soros or the Koch brothers deserve to be able to speak louder than me, just because they can?

The ""1%"" have more than half the world wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-ri...

This is becoming an increasingly serious problem, that contributions from the general public don't outspend rich people who are keen to push an idea.

http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2017/11/19/the-theory-of-th...

(and http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2018/01/26/pro-market-pro-b... )

"It's okay if my vote counts for 100 and everyone else counts for 1, since 300 people are voting".

They're not directly funding government programs or departments are they? They're surely just giving money to politicians who spend it on advertising because - this is the real problem - Americans insist on only ever voting for candidates who spend enormous amounts of money advertising themselves. That's ultimately your fault if you refuse to vote for anyone who doesn't receive funding.

Small correction: Soros primarily supports pretty mainstream centrist liberal organizations. Stuff like the ALCU, pro-choice organizations, immigrant rights groups, mainstream minority advocate groups, public health and environmental advocacy groups. It is quite a stretch to call it "hard-left" unless your personal Overton window is so far extreme right that you think Jeb Bush is a revolutionary communist.

He definitely funds causes right wingers and Republicans oppose, but let's get the taxonomy correct here.

He is solidly liberal, not left. Think NAACP, not black lives matter. Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders. The Democratic National Committee, not the Democratic Socialists of America.

Interesting that you implicitly concede that BLM is hard-left, or something. I didn't even say a think about any particular group.

Yes, BLM is pretty obviously a left organization and not a liberal one. Though hard-left of course has no meaning and is nothing but a smear phrase designed to suggest "extremist" when the positions we are discussing are not particularly extreme at all. They endorse a variety of pretty boilerplate left positions: universal healthcare, state funded college, union rights, anti-imperialism, divesting from fossil fuels and taking other concrete climate action, complete overhaul of the police system. This is why BLM hijacked a Hillary Clinton campaign rally to humiliate her on national television. It was not because they are on her side.

Well, my problem with Soros is my wife attended the Women's March a whole freaking year ago and she still hasn't gotten her check!

Just stop into your local pizza place and ask about uranium.

I attended an anti-corruption protest in the capital of my country last year (I live in Eastern-Europe) and I’m also waiting for Soros’s promised pay.

On a more serious note, the local branch of his Open Society Foundation financially supported the translation and publishing of a lot of books about democracy and economics in the 1990s, so that we, as a people who had just got rid of Communism, could learn how the capitalist world was being run. I remember reading Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” in the mid-‘90s as a high-school student thanks to one of those Soros-sponsored translations.

It only works because at some moment your brain thinks it's part of the same in-group and thus starts adopting what is said automatically and integrating them into your personality. It's really strange how it happens, but also very understandable. The tribal and sectarian effect in me (and I assume also in rest of human beings) is really, really strong, and really subtle.

It's also been experimentally proven that people have issues discerning fake news online. Our news literacy is falling rapidly.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503129818...

Why do you think it is falling? As far as I can see, the article does not mention repeating this experiment over time.

I was under the assumption that our news literacy was never high enough to begin with. So to say "fall rapidly" seems misleading.

If anything, the last couple of years have been very enlightening.

People have a problem discerning fake news in general. We just live in a society where so much noise is generated it's literally impossible for any individual human being to sort it out on a day to day basis. And that's only if you're consciously aware of the problem and flaws and weaknesses of human beings. If you're ignorant about either subject, or both, or don't accept that it applies to you somehow, forget it. You're relying on those flaws to guide your way and then it's just Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Soros regularly uses his wealth to pursue political aims throughout the world. He often does this through "philanthropic" groups. For example, UK news stories have been popping up about him spending £700,000 on anti-Brexit movements. The Koch brothers might be a similar comparison?

I think that they become bogeymen because their wealth provides substantial power and they're involved with controversial things. On the other hand, people like the Gates focus more on "dry" issues. (Edit: or maybe they have better PR!)

I believe he was also heavily involved in the current Ukrainian civil war regarding funding of certain political groups.

This is something advertisers have known for centuries: if you repeat something enough, it will work it’s way into your brain. It doesn’t even have to be true or even make sense. A lot of things we believe, if we investigate and are honest with ourselves, we only believe because of how often it gets repeated.

The anti-semitic conspiracy theory memes have spread to the Telegraph: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/02/nick-...

Brexit advocacy has caused the British press to abandon the last vestiges of impartiality or connection to facts. It's going to be all "crush the saboteurs / financiers / international cosmopolitans" from here on out.

Soros and his ilk; he likes strife and hides behind his philanthropy to misdirect his exploitation of markets and people's fears; are simply upset they don't control social media as they used too. If they had not lost their recent political bets we would hear nothing of this issue and instead have heaps of praise about how these now vilified outlets actually saved democracy.

never believe anyone on the political stage let alone those who manipulated it from behind the curtains. these people know how to tailor the image and views they want you to have and prey of petty jealously to simple irrational dislikes.

I think a good habit to pick up would be realizing you're curious about something and reading the Wikipedia page. The one on George Soros is pretty extensive.

Having been very deep down that rabbit hole of misinformation, it is a miracle that I was able to resurface again with pretty much the same left leaning political stance that I had when I entered.

One important takeaway though: "Critical thinking" is important. I'm not sure if people want it though. It is sad that political news and social media are treated as entertainment rather than as a tool. People are very quick to band together around a cause if it will make them feel like a part of something without investigating if that cause is based on any sort of factual information. And "fact checking" is definitely not the solution to this because that is also subject to the same bias.

Education is the treatment we have right now. Keep having students read and discuss Lord of the Flies, 1984, and Brave New World. Having skeptical 15-30 year olds will lead to more intuitive solutions down the road.

You might enjoy reading some of the articles by Soros from the NY Review. He has written a bunch over the years, generally about an integrated Europe - http://www.nybooks.com/contributors/george-soros/

I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has succeeded in partially hijacking some of my brain.

You noticed propaganda because you have built mental roadblocks for the alt-right.

You would probably have just operated on the assumption, if it wasn't for the fact your brain also noticed the links to something you distrust and kicked the thought upward for further inspection.

I don't think you're an easily manipulated idiot. It happens to all of us. Propoganda works; that's why people use it.

BUT, now that you have seen exactly how it works, you owe it to yourself to leverage that discovery into making your brain reject more propaganda (especially the kind you're predisposed to agree with).

He’s basically a typical big money guy whose business behavior seems amoral. The difference is that he’s politically involved and has a different viewpoint than many.

What are 2 or 3 of the "4channish/the_donaldish" media outlets you are referring to, other than 4chan and The_Donald?

Breitbart, Fox, National Enquirer...?

he helped destroy sterling in "black wednesday" by adopting a very short position against it from which he profited massively and families lost their homes due to spike in interest rates implemented by the government to try to reign in the crash.

I think you mean Norman Lamont's idiotic policies did that, backed up by the Bank of England who really should have known better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com