Since both are talking, I assume their deal isn't that great. My understanding is that you only get those out-of-jail-free cards if there's no other way to convict and I don't see that being the case here in any way.

On the other hand, great lawyers and connections might still make something out of it.

> On the other hand, great lawyers and connections might still make something out of it.

That's my concern. Caroline's father is an MIT professor who was previously Gary Gensler's (head of SEC) boss.

It would be extremely disheartening if Caroline gets an extremely generous plea deal due to her father's connections.

What is up with the conspiracy theories that professors are somehow politically powerful entities? Is everyone putting forth these theories still in college? Do they not know how little power college professors wield outside academia.

Personal connections to the head of the SEC on the other hand are valuable.

Honestly, I would imagine SBF's parents being partners at a major firm would be a better indicator than law school professors.

> Do they not know how little power college professors wield outside academia

Are you joking?

That's absolutely not the case for Economics (the context we're talking about here).

Why don't you look up the backgrounds of the people on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors?

Or, look up who drafts major legislation? If you watch MIT's Econ 101 course on YouTube, the professor who teaches it was actually the guy behind Obamacare (John Gruber).

Modern Monetary Policy has become a huge part of a base of the Democratic Party, again... drafted by an Economics Professor.

> Is everyone putting forth these theories still in college? Do they not know how little power college professors wield outside academia.

No. I'm not still in college.

You just seem to be completely unaware on how influential Economists (almost all of whom are college professors) are.

> Personal connections to the head of the SEC on the other hand are valuable

Oh yeah, head of the SEC is also an MIT Econ Professor.

But... clearly they have no power outside academia!!

Saying otherwise is a conspiracy theory!!

I looked up the backgrounds of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. And? A few were professors for a few years and maybe one made it a major job.

The former head of the SEC was also a partner at Goldman Sachs, where he co-chaired their Finance committee overseeing their internal controls, spent 4 years in an undersecretary position in the treasury department, joined the Senate staff and helped write Sarbanes-Oxley, is former chair of the US CTFC where he overhauled regulations for 6 years.

By my count, that's 12 years of high-level federal government experience, 18 years at Goldman Sachs, and maybe 6 years as a professor. And the professorship was after at least 24 years doing other things at a very high level

You seem to confuse cause and effect

He also forgets that a large part of the federal reserve is, essentially, a research institution. That does research, publishes and critiques papers, and then takes those papers into account when drafting policy.

The question was around whether Economics professors are influential outside of academia.

The answer is unequivocally yes.

You seem to have changed the discussion to something else.

The question is around Economics Professors and their effects on society and how well-connected they tend to be. Many Econ professors at business schools are former bankers. Many bankers are former Econ profs (banks have a ton of staff in research roles).

You’ve changed the argument to… i don’t even know?

The question is whether Economics Professors are influential outside of academia and if they’re well connected. The answer is obviously yes. The top professors (i.e. MIT Profs, Harvard Profs, Yale, etc.) are extremely influential far beyond academia.

It’s anazing how ignorant HN is outside of the narrow circle of programming.

Some business school professors are accomplished former businessmen. Some are just lifelong academics. The ones with power are because of their non-professor credentials and connections.

Schools, business schools especially, like to hire influential people as professors. So there are many powerful professors. But that's not why they are powerful.

Since that's not why they are powerful, there's no reason to bring it up.

Again, wrong.

Reread the thread to see why.

Tangent but, why are we referring to them by their first names? I see this in lots of threads. I understand each people call Elon Musk just Elon - there's no other Elon we're talking about, and he's been a public figure for a long time. I understand that SBF has been SBF for a long time, even if I hadn't paid attention to him until recently. But surely there's a lot of Garys in crypto.

Well, this is the comment section of a HN topic that's specifically about Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang (their names are included in the title).

If this were some random other thread, then yeah sure it would be confusing to just say Gary or Caroline.

I guess my question is, why the familiarity? Why not Ellison and Wang? The confusion stuff I shouldn't have included, it was extraneous. I'm just puzzled why we're speaking of them as if they were friends or treasured celebrities.

I don't mean that as a criticism either, I just feel like I missed a beat culturally.

Normally we would know their middle names as well

My guess is that it's subconsciously patronizing behavior. Ellison and Wang are both young (around 28/29 I think) and they are no longer respectable after their spectacular failure. People feel entitled to call them whatever they want and their first names are much easier to remember than their last names.