Ex-Harvard President Larry Summers calls Winklevoss twins "Assholes" (w/video) | Hacker News Reader

Ex-Harvard President Larry Summers calls Winklevoss twins "Assholes" (w/video)

money.cnn.com

53 pointsstaunch30 comments

While I appreciate Mr Summers's role in repealing Glass-Steagall and making sure that securities derivatives weren't regulated, I wouldn't have nearly so much admiration for him if he hadn't also lent his support to massive taxpayer bailouts for the banking sector. I'll admit I was a little nervous that he might show some introspection when the idiots of the world challenged his world view, but he convinced me of his bravery and righteousness when he openly mocked Raghuram Rajan's paper that warned of a potential financial crisis.

I was hoping to see some of the ol' Larry Summers come out of hiberation, and I'm glad he showed some of that wit and vim when he was asked about the Winklevoss twins. What a fun and funny guy!

Why is this surprising? Summers is just part of the revolving door posse, having passed through Goldman after his Harvard tenure.

I actually like Summers' style from what I've seen of him, and I've always been pleasantly surprised to get emails back from him when he was at Harvard and I would email him about issues that concerned me (as an old-time ('76) alumnus). I liked what he did while president, actually standing up to some of the rampant political correctness among the faculty.

But we shouldn't expect him to rise above his obvious role as one of the banksters.

Well, the best you can say about Larry Summers' tactlessness is that it's equal opportunity. And, is that the Winklesvosses in that photo? This is the bigot in me coming out, but that picture alone is enough to make me root for the Zuck, a difficult task indeed.

Even rich assholes deserve their day in court, though. If they were defrauded or had their IP stolen, then you've got to follow the rule of law, regardless of where it might lead you or who it might offend.

Also: there's no actual evidence of asshole-ness besides their costume and cultural affects (rowing?). While even in the best plausible telling of the Facebook story, Mark clearly pays the part of massive asshole.

We usually hate the visibly "asshole" type because they got to where they are through privilege, connections, and looks. All of which the Winklevosses have in spades. But they have apparently started multiple businesses and produced things of actual value; they're putting their privilege to good use instead of jumping into consultancy or investment banking. So it's a bit of a presumption to call them "rich assholes." They are definitely rich, and may be assholes, but we've got no evidence of the latter. It's not like Facebook made a bunch of money and then they jumped on it for a shakedown; from the moment it started, they've been upset for a perceived breach of legality (questionable) and a definite breach of ethics.

I don't know, the fact that they felt their representation in "The Social Network" was accurate tells me something

Yeah, those consultants and investment bankers, they just rake it in without working....

If you're going to monetize already being rich, going into IB is not a great play. PE or wealth management, maybe...

Work is different from producing value.

Of course, it's easy to say that "well the fact that they get paid well is indicative of value-produced!" This is only true, however, within a particular cultural paradigm that we've constructed and is by no means universal or timeless.

And, no, simply working long hours does not mean that investment banking or consulting are somehow not lucky. The fact that as a revealed preference privileged people often choose to work in those fields over others points to it being a pretty good play for them.

Having spent years working in one those fields, I can tell you that the workforce was relatively middle-class in terms of family backgrounds compared to say, the buy-side or wealth management. Having parents with money doesn't help you much when you're trying to do an accretion-dilution spreadsheet at 3 in the morning, but it does help a lot when you're trying to raise money for a PE fund or find asset-management clients (neither of which IBs do). A lot of folks were the children of first-generation immigrants, as well, working their asses 100+hrs a week off to make good.

Engineers complain when their profession is painted with the broad brush of stereotypes - introverts, nerds, anti-social, impersonal. Making a blanket statement that investment bankers are just the kids of rich people, or don't produce value, is equally ignorant and unfair. I'm not a banker any more, and I'm happy not to be, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of hard working people in that field that deserve respect for frankly working a lot harder than you or I probably do and in fact producing a lot of value financing business in this country.

it takes money to make money. It would be incredibly hard for someone with their resources, education, and connections not to turn a profit

Your also incorrectly making a moral statement that consultancy or investment banking is not of good use.

Didn't already have their day in court and settled? Are they entitled to revisit the whole saga every time Facebook's valuation is raised?

Haven't followed it closely, but stock shenanigans on Facebook's part is apparently what they're upset at. My very vague impression is that it's like if someone gave you an envelope full of hundred dollar bills in exchange for something, but in actuality they were all twenties.

Dunno if there's anything genuinely to that, but that's the argument.

Grellas, of course, summarized the situation excellently. His point 4 addresses your concern specifically: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1362379

My knowledge of the situation is entirely based on watching "The Social Network", but that sounds more like Eduardo Saverin's lawsuit, whereas the Winklevosses' was about Zuckerberg stealing their idea. Did I misinterpret/misremember the movie or was the movie wrong about the lawsuits or what?

So they are a-holes for dressing up to meet with the president of Harvard? If they were to show up in shorts and sandals would he have taken them seriously? Or should they wear jeans and button-up shirts? Little did they know it was a fashion show.

I'm not rooting for the Winklevoss twins or anything but seems to be that I'd probably dress up a bit to meet with the president of Harvard. While in college I wore a suit (albeit a cheap one) from time to time for special occasions and I was a pretty poor college student.

He wasn't saying they were a-holes for wearing suits. He was just pointing out the correlation.

I was also amazingly surprised that he referred to them as the "Winklevii" at one point in the original interview. Seems very offputting that the former president of one of the most prominent US universities would refer to former students in such a crass (?) way.

Yeah, it should totally have been Winklevoi. Doesn't he know the difference between Latin and Greek?

Or, you know, they're trying to be respectful. Curious logic for a guy who spends all his time working with bankers...

I was also very surprised by Mr. Summmers' response. I went to NYU where John Sexton (president of the University) would often be seen in jeans and a sweatshirt. That being said, it was not uncommon for students to be in suits and ties for various functions. I mean, when you're paying >$30k a year, I feel like the idea of wearing a suit to a meeting with someone isn't outlandish.

I don't know, I'd have the same first reaction. How many undergraduates even own a suit? I don't think I or any of my friends owned a suit until long after graduation.

Almost very undergraduate I know owns at least one suit... Granted, they're not all Armani suits, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a second-year or higher student these days who doesn't have at least one suit.

I think it would be extremely easy to find. The only reason anyone ever buys a suit in the first place is to go on an interview for a ('real') job or attend a wedding.

Or a funeral, which is why I bought my first suit in college. College is prime-time for grandparents passing away.

Maybe. But I also feel like if you go to Harvard and have the ability to get an appointment set up by a friend of the family, you would maybe "understand" where they're coming from a bit more. (I use understand in the idea of recognizing that they're trying to emulate businessmen and treat such a thing as a business transaction.)

Although, I should remind you that this is Harvard, where the average family income is much higher than in general. That said, I'm assuming that the comment was not just based on the suits, but probably the attitude and manner that went with them.

I got to thinking the other day, after seeing some guy walking around in 35C heat, with a suit: remember that report about how much money the US spent on air conditioning in Afghanistan and Iraq? What's the figure like for keeping people in suits air conditioned during the summer?

We think of suits as heavy because most people only keep a cheap cotton/polyester suit for the few days a year they need it. But a good lightweight, loose-woven wool suit is cooler than anything cotton. And you'd probably take the jacket off in high heat.

I don't think wearing suit pants and a shirt in the summer as any worse than jeans an a polo. I mean suit pants can let a fair amount of air circulate through.

Thank you for alerting us to this very important news.

Larry Summers is an "advisor" for Andreessen Horowitz (and presumably gets paid $$$). Marc Andreessen is on the board of directors for Facebook and probably has a bit of stock. His comments are thus easily explained by financial incentive. Larry Summers is doing exactly what he gets paid to do... "advise".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com