It's not really propaganda, I think it popped up mostly because typical finance leaders are seen as being on the older side. As a Patrick Boyle video on the issue had put it, they had barely been in finance long enough to be trusted with the morning coffee run.

"Kid" is meant to be derogatory, highlighting the absurdity of traditional investors trusting openly irresponsible people with such little experience in such a heavily experience and regulation dependent field like finance. They behaved like spoiled children, with all the drugs and sex going around within the company, gaming while talking to investors etc. It doesn't make SBF look better.

Madoff was in his 60s.

And people probably weren't calling him a kid.

Why is playing a video game worse than a "3 martini lunch" or flying Tom Epstein Island? Finance is bad boys top to bottom, of all ages.

Finance is about money, that's going to attract some people that are motivated purely by money. That's a bad thing and the culture in any institution should discourage this.

Yet at the same time finance is a big industry, there's plenty of honest, hardworking people that do their 9 to 5 (or more realistically 8 to 7) and go home to their kids. Finance has bad apples (just like tech) but I don't think we should write off the entire industry for that.

I'm learning his age in this thread and pretty surprised. I would have pegged him as being in his late twenties. I think stuff like his haircut, his general attitude, the league of legends thing, all contribute to making him seem younger than he his.

Late twenties and 32 are 3 year difference. I don't see a meaningful difference between those two ages.

There's not many years difference between "late 20s" and 32. 3 years, if we set our benchmark at 29. As someone in their early 30s themself, do I consider myself much more mature or experienced than I was a few years ago? Not really; my life is in a better place, but that's because of factors that are kind of orthogonal to maturity.

Wealth is well known for extending childhood, sometimes until death.

Propaganda or hired PR team influencing the discourse?

He dresses like a teenager

So do most of my peers, and I'm 40.

A few of us wear suit jackets now, but I think that's just to stand out from the crowds of jeans and t-shirts that became my generation's accidental dress code.

(Though perhaps I'm just projecting; on the rare occasions I wear a suit jacket, that's what I'm thinking).

oh it was no accident. it took a lot of determined laziness and disregard for the casual Friday corporate culture BS by smarter than most people to change to rules.. band shirts, cargo shorts and skate shoes beats button downs, khakis, and leather loafers all day err day. got a not so casual work event to attend? bust out the nice grateful dead shirt, black zip up hoodie, and the jeans without the holes, and own it hard

I’m mostly with you but

1) blazers, specifically, are awesome, they’re wearable purses that also make you look sharper. They’re a superior version of the open button-up shirt I’d wear in high school because it was trendy back then and which also had (less well-realized) utility and useful-in-a-pinch value, and

2) loafers are the best shoe for everyday not-very-active stuff, and it’s not a close call. Slip on! It’s insane that they’re considered even a little dressy. A small miracle.

Except if you're an active person. Blazers don't give you full range of arm motion unless they are laughable baggy or made of some weird stretch material that looks cheap. Loafers are sub-optimal for running up stairs, catching the train/bus that's about to leave, or moving heavy things.

Or if someone has set the HVAC for a temperature above 60F.

Action back. (Yes that’s the actual name)

Look at Indy’s suit early in Crusaders for an example.

I don't care about age, 50+, blue jeans, black tshirt, sometimes with a Mario print, hoodie when it's colder. I dropped the pink chucks though.

Blue jeans? Please give slacks a look... :P

I think your criticism is unfair. I didn't know how biological age, and I thought he was probably in his early-mid 20s. Not because he's rich and white, but because he acts, dresses, and cuts his hair like an emotionally immature boy genius right out of college.

He cultivated the "Zuck look" intentionally because he was tricking people like you who believed in it.

It’s the label ‘man’ something you give to someone that is grown up?

Friedman is many things, but ‘grown up’ is not something that I think applies.

He's a full grown adult, who was trusted with billions of dollars, and worked with other full grown adults, who aided in his crimes.

Calling him a kid implies that he wasn't fully in control of his actions and shouldn't be held accountable to the same level as an adult would, and that's ridiculous.

> He's a full grown adult, who was trusted with billions of dollars, and worked with other full grown adults, who aided in his crimes.

Yes, but I think this reflects more on the people that trusted him/them.

The whole crypto world is one gigantic ponzi scheme. Stealing the money is only worse because it can be proven.

Exactly...

> The students were also shown photographs alongside descriptions of various crimes and asked to assess the age and innocence of white, black or Latino boys ages 10 to 17. The students overestimated the age of blacks by an average of 4.5 years and found them more culpable than whites or Latinos, particularly when the boys were matched with serious crimes, the study found

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-o...