I wouldn’t so much consider this childish, as I would consider it criminal. You may feel justified in doing it, but don’t fool yourself: this would be theft.
That's one factor. Also great margins, a disciplined acquisition strategy, monopoly position, an inherently labor-efficient business model, and a shrewd prop-trading desk.
That’s the wrong question. The right one is whether the economic downturn would be worse if we had a multiple amount of deaths.
Additionally, we have saved lives (and animal lives) by shutting down parts of the economy. That should be included as a silver lining to the whole thing.
The other side of the argument is also just an opinion. What’s your point?
The way I read it is that we have no reason to think the economic drop would be less severe if we didn’t have a shutdown. This is because people dying could hurt the economy just as much, if not more.
It is assuming facts not in evidence to suggest the economy would be better off with more deaths but less of a lockdown.
There are other options of actions he could have taken that wouldn’t have involved shutting borders. Over the years, as well as not making obviously false statements, starting in late January. Those falsities created a republican resistance to the necessary actions, making it some sort of misguided windmill tilt about freedom.
Further, the entire culture he created — don’t speak truth to power, or you will be fired - is also responsible for the late actions and poor preparedness of the administration.
That is a charitable view of private equity - that it improves margins without hurting operations.
Another explanation lies in reputation mining. Think of it like doing something profitable but unsustainable.
Curious what kind of experience or data sources you base your first graph on — the Pareto principle piece makes sense. But isn’t it possible the very end of the tail is still profitable, albeit less so, than the head?
