568. Why Are People So Mad at Michael Lewis? | Freakonomics Radio

Why when commenting on sites do I feel like Steve Martin in “The Jerk “ when the new telephone book arrives?🎭

This guy demonstrated that you can, in fact, con a conman. I listened to his podcast about the trial and every opportunity he could he tried to lighten the judgment on SBF, ultimately discussing how unfair the criminal justice system is. While I can’t completely disagree with that, because it certainly can be, it’s hard to argue that it was anything but just here. Michael Lewis sitting with SBF’s parents in the courtroom also gave a bad look. I was a huge Lewis fan before, with the Big Short and Flash Boys both being recommendations I would have made to anyone. Now I just don’t see myself wanting to read anything else he writes.

It's rare to see a combination of both autism and psychopathy, but I believe SBF may be an example.

"His parents didn't know that they owned the mansion in the bahamas. They didn't know what was going on about anything." - Michael Lewis STILL being a credulous fool.

If Michael Lewis had written the book reflecting what he said in this podcast and not what he actually wrote, it would have been a much better book.

I've read most of ML's books but have no interest in this one. I've always viewed crypto as gambling since it has ZERO intrinsic value and is based on speculating. I'm sure that SBF is a lot more interesting than the people speculate and call it investing. Being mad at ML is blaming the messenger.

To paraphrase George Castanza…It’s not a con…if you believe it.

bro tried to justify Bankman-Fraud

No, what Michael Lewis did was defend this guy and try to build him up as some great guy.

It’s not a story for people who can’t see nuances, but here the critics can’t even see contradictions. For example, ML points out the contradiction that the bankruptcy solution of Ray/SullCrom will lose more money than the bankruptcy itself. Whoa, that should slow down any criticism. The courtroom antics of the prosecution are right out of Dickens. I mean, twisting the arms of scared innocent young people so they testify for you! And ML points out that the so called loss might be a win in the end. What!? The real injustice here is that the very concept of “crime” doesn’t apply. He’s somehow deficient in understanding basic concepts, as ML clearly shows, so the whole legal proceeding should have been shut down at the beginning. The court did not establish a motive if SBF did not understand that his “mistakes” were against the law. Lack of intent is a solution granted to violent offenders all the time. It’s really ironic that the one concept that SBF understands, altruism, is never mentioned by critics, but Judge Kaplan sentenced him for not showing empathy by showing him no empathy. What!? I thank ML for his nuanced book.

Obsessed with the people he writes about except when they're not a rich narcissists. He interviewed everyone but Michael Oher for The Blind Side. And was more interested in his exploitive guardians and took them at face value.

Dang the comments really are riled up about this guy huh

"If he played chess against a GM but the rules of the game changed during the game he might beat them".. This is absolute nonsense. Lewis spouting complete stupidity. He clearly has no idea what chess GMs are capable of and how often they also play variations on chess. Similarly he believes EA conmen aren't conmen because "they're academics". He is genuinely so willing to fawn over rich people that he is outrageously willing to believe things that fall apart under even a few moments of scrutiny or critical thought.

The bad reviews on Amazon are monumentally bad in a way I've never read before. SBF is a bad guy and any author that writes a book about SBF and sidesteps this is absurd.

Sbf is a classic narcissist but one who has decided he wants a reputation for good deeds at any cost. No wisdom at all.

This is the last freakenomics podcast for me. Critical thinking just getting worse and worse on this show.