> Then they killed the whole industry while trying to set up a cacao OPEC, forgetting that it would be a lot easier for rich countries to just go without chocolate than to live without oil.
The rich countries didn't go without chocolate: other cacao producers were more than happy to pick up the slack and collect the extra profits.
OPEC is remarkable mostly as a rare example of a successful international cartel, and even then
its history is riven with constant squabbles, sales off the books etc, and these days it's a shadow of its former self because Russia and now the US (thanks fracking) don't play ball.
SBF has just been convicted of committing intentional fraud, not just "lack of internal controls". Was it an oversight to use rand() to generate your deposit insurance figures, or add that switch to allow Alameda unlimited rights to dip into the customer fund kitty?
As far as I can tell, yes, that is exactly his stance: each suffering person is a net negative, regardless of others who are not. So five people suffering is always worse than one person suffering.
And please don't mistake people explaining his theories with supporting them.
His argument is basically that industrial society increases net suffering from violence and disease, because large populations are unsustainable and rely on the exploitation of the third world's poor. So instead of having one person die from a curable infection because nobody has antibiotics, you have five dying of infections because the population has exploded and antibiotics exist but they can't afford them.