Actually, he kinda did. The argument was that Trump's successes prove that his brain works. Boost's reply was "he's not as successful as you think he is". That's wrong. It's also incoherent babbling unless the intent is to suggest that Trump might indeed be stupid, and his success doesn't prove otherwise.
My argument was nuanced, but boiled down it has two main points, he likely is not as financially successful as he would like us to believe (this was mostly an implied argument) and that no matter how successful he is, success is not conditional on intelligence.
To make the money he's made, you need to make a much higher rate of return. Higher returns, means higher risks. That means less margin for error. That means less mistakes. That means you almost never lose.
False. More risk, means greater margins, means greater margins for error. I get how you could get this backwards, but think about it-- more margins, means, so long as you don't go bust, your margins can absorb more error.
Further, net worth calculations can become very murky the more complex a person's finances are, which in general means the richer you are. For example Elizabeth Holmes was a billionaire and the next morning a nothingaire. This is because her net worth was contingent on a lot of things, the most important of them which proved to be non existent. In Trumps case, without his willing transparency, all we really have is a rough idea of his assets and his word that they eclipse his debt obligations to the tune of some odd billion dollars.
I don't want to pretend to read minds, but if I might hazard a guess as to why wuf seems to want redirect the conversation to his success as an entertainer, the flimsiness of his status as a billionaire would be the guess.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
What if we use more sophisticated measurements? He is one of the only people in the world to corner the market he is in. Hell, he virtually invented that market. The popularization of business in reality TV, that was him, he made that happen.
Show your work. As far as I can tell, there is no good reason to believe that he invented the market or even major aspects of the character. I'm sure he would dispute this, but the creators/producers of the Apprentice certainly don't think the credit you are giving him is justified. Then again, he hasn't disputed their claims (to my knowledge) leaving it as one of the few slights he doesn't seem to have gone after. Probably because all of the pitch meetings, exchanges with agents, scripts penned by professional writers, etc are well documented and would contradict his counter claims.
My argument was nuanced, but boiled down it has two main points, he likely is not as financially successful as he would like us to believe (this was mostly an implied argument)
Why is that "likely"? I mean, if someone out there is making 98,500/year and wants to round up their salary to $100K because it makes them feel good, fine. White lies. Could Trump be guilty of that? Sure. But do you think he's rounding off billions of dollars? If he's only worth $8 billion....what's the difference??
Spoiler:
If you're thinking of posting "about 2 Billion"....go fuck yourself
and that no matter how successful he is, success is not conditional on intelligence.
Prolonged, sustained, immense success across multiple highly competitive ventures (including a presidential election) doesn't happen by accident, luck, or variance. It doesn't happen by way of a $200 million head start. It doesn't happen by sucking everyone else's dick.
You and Poop keep trying to say that his success doesn't demonstrate intelligence. What does it show then??
False. More risk, means greater margins, means greater margins for error. I get how you could get this backwards, but think about it-- more margins, means, so long as you don't go bust, your margins can absorb more error.
Holy fucking shit dude. Do you know what "risk" means???? It definitely does not mean greater margin for error. Not even close. It means that the consequences of your mistakes are magnified. Errors cost more. That's a REDUCTION of margin for error.
Let's say we have an apple tree, and start selling apples for 25 cents each. What are our risks? Our apple tree could die. Deer could eat our crop. And the market could reject our price point.
Using your logic, we could make more money, and have greater margin for error if we use our apple tree for chainsaw-throwing target practice, take down our deer fence, and increase our price to $10 per apple.
Elizabeth Holmes was a billionaire and the next morning a nothingaire. This is because her net worth was contingent on a lot of things, the most important of them which proved to be non existent. In Trumps case, without his willing transparency, all we really have is a rough idea of his assets and his word that they eclipse his debt obligations to the tune of some odd billion dollars.
There are enormous physical structures....massive buildings.....with Trump's name on the top. Elizabeth Holmes can not say the same. Probably why Trump's been Trump for 40 fucking years and this is the first time I've ever heard of Lizzy.
I don't want to pretend to read minds, but if I might hazard a guess as to why wuf seems to want redirect the conversation to his success as an entertainer, the flimsiness of his status as a billionaire would be the guess.
You can't have it both ways. Either, he's monumentally successful, and that's a testament to his brilliance. Or he's spent nearly half a century fooling the public into believing that he's monumentally successful, which would be a testament to his brilliance.
Show your work. As far as I can tell, there is no good reason to believe that he invented the market or even major aspects of the character.
This is correct.
When 'reality TV' took off, it was because people were compelled by the hilarious and ridiculous juxtapositions. It started with MTV's 'Real World' that had cool people living in a house acting like total fucking ass holes. Then it escalated. Survivor showed us what happens when civilized people are removed from civilization. I recall a show where upscale socialite Paris Hilton and her ugly friend were forced to do the filthy farmhand work of the common people. The bachelorette let guys like me get our shadenfreude by watching suave hunks get dumped and rejected by the hot girl.
It doesn't take a genius to make a show where highly accomplished and successful people get fired.
Last edited by BananaStand; 02-20-2018 at 08:13 PM.
Show your work. As far as I can tell, there is no good reason to believe that he invented the market or even major aspects of the character. I'm sure he would dispute this, but the creators/producers of the Apprentice certainly don't think the credit you are giving him is justified. Then again, he hasn't disputed their claims (to my knowledge) leaving it as one of the few slights he doesn't seem to have gone after. Probably because all of the pitch meetings, exchanges with agents, scripts penned by professional writers, etc are well documented and would contradict his counter claims.
What are you looking for? It is most likely the case that in a plurality of viewers, he was the most important part of the Apprentice (and that niche of reality TV in general) if there was any. Also didn't he go from being nothing in pageantry to being one of the top guys?
He has one of the most recognizable brands (from name to product to hair, etc.) which he made happen.
What are you looking for? It is most likely the case that in a plurality of viewers, he was the most important part of the Apprentice (and that niche of reality TV in general) if there was any. Also didn't he go from being nothing in pageantry to being one of the top guys?
He has one of the most recognizable brands (from name to product to hair, etc.) which he made happen.
Arguably he made this hugely recognizable brand on the back of countless business failures that were given great PR spin. The importance of asking "at what cost?" shouldn't be lost on you.
Arguably he made this hugely recognizable brand on the back of countless business failures that were given great PR spin. The importance of asking "at what cost?" shouldn't be lost on you.
"countless business failures"?
The Trump organization owns over 500 business entities. Exactly 6 of them filed for bankruptcy.
The Trump organization owns over 500 business entities. Exactly 6 of them filed for bankruptcy.
You too can own a as many business entities as you want. The paperwork is pretty self explanatory, the filling fee, depending on state, can be as little as $30, and again, depending on state, there may not be any annual fee to stay in good standing.
Now that you bring it up, I invite you to do a little digging into those 500 entities. How many of them are active businesses? There are many legitimate reasons to form a legal entity or even a network of legal entities, but many of them do not support the thesis that shear quantity of entities is a useful signal for measuring success.
Banana, your understanding of what it means to acquire risk and what the upsides and what the downsides of doing so are is not uncommon, but it is not correct.
I'm not sure what you were doing with your analogy, but a better use of it may be that a farmer who owns an apple orchard can chose to use banned fertilizers/pesticides. In doing so, he can plant his crop a little late, slack on upkeep to some extent, not negotiate the best prices for his apples, etc, all because the use of the banned chemicals has given him a greater crop yield. The farmer may fly under the regulators radar for months, years, decades, or he may never catch their attention. Until he gets shut down he will seem to have a wildly successful orchard.
This is how the trade off of risk for greater margins works.
This is how the trade off of risk for greater margins works.
We're gonna go down a rabbit hole of what "risk" means, and I really don't want to. But the above only holds true in the context of "cheating", as in your analogy.
your assertion falls apart when we start talking about risks that do not involve breaking rules.
Like, if a company takes on debt to capitalize a new venture. There is now a higher demand for cash flow to satisfy those debt obligations. Maintaining that cash flow requires successful operation of the venture. If the venture is not successful, cash flow suffers, and debts can be called, forcing bankruptcy.
However, by using debt to finance capital, the firm can use it's own cash to invest in better assets and better talent, which yields a higher return.
More risk ----> Less margin for error ----> Higher return.
We're gonna go down a rabbit hole of what "risk" means, and I really don't want to. But the above only holds true in the context of "cheating", as in your analogy.
your assertion falls apart when we start talking about risks that do not involve breaking rules.
False. A car rental business can lower it's standards for who it rents to (say allowing those younger than 26 to rent without restriction) and reap the rewards.
Or to stay with the farmer-- he could expand his farm to the point at which the local aquifer can only support this capacity should rainfall stay consistent. He will have increased margins, more room for error, until a dry year hits.
Like, if a company takes on debt to capitalize a new venture. There is now a higher demand for cash flow to satisfy those debt obligations. Maintaining that cash flow requires successful operation of the venture. If the venture is not successful, cash flow suffers, and debts can be called, forcing bankruptcy.
However, by using debt to finance capital, the firm can use it's own cash to invest in better assets and better talent, which yields a higher return.
More risk ----> Less margin for error ----> Higher return.
Right, this is an example of responsibly taking on increased risk. The increased margin offers a choice: mitigate the risk, thereby reducing the increased margin (possibly to the point of a lower margin than before the risk, but netting a higher dollar profit due to scale), or you can reap the rewards of the unmitigated risk and hope it doesn't all come crashing down before you exit your risky position.
My argument is that someone can opt out of mitigating the risk and appear wildly successful. Depending on the details, variance can hide an entities true win rate for what intuitively feels like an ample amount of time to definitively decide if they are a success or not.
My position is not that Donald Trump is or isn't a success (in the more meaningful sense of true win rate given a sufficient sample size), it is that I don't believe that there is enough data available to definitively say, and what data there is tends to align with an inflated net worth.
I think you have a pretty good mind for the pieces in play, but sometimes you're failing to fully grasp how they interact with each other.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Reply With Quote
