4 ms·
Of course the Newhouse brothers could do that, but they could do it precisely for the reason they'd be unlikely to: if it's a bad investment, they shouldn't kee
by ryanwaggoner 16y ago
Of course the Newhouse brothers could do that, but they could do it precisely for the reason they'd be unlikely to: if it's a bad investment, they shouldn't keep throwing money at it. Not saying that it is a bad investment, just that ignoring the problem because it's owned by a rich person who could easily bail it out ignores the way rich people think.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago>Not saying that it is a bad investment, just that ignoring the problem because it's owned by a rich person who could easily bail it out ignores the way rich people think. I don't want to argue that at all. I'd argue that bailing them out as if they're a charity is wrong given that supporting it would be pocket change for the owners - less than they'd pay for a painting that they probably don't even bother to look at (I know that these paintings are not to look at, humour me).