3 ms·
Did I say that? Since they failed, they were obviously bad business. But they were a rational thing to attempt to do - taking on a massive loan to speculate on
by skew-aberration 18d ago
Did I say that? Since they failed, they were obviously bad business. But they were a rational thing to attempt to do - taking on a massive loan to speculate on land and using a (potentially) high cashflow, quick to setup, easy to market business to offset the high initial interest rates. i.e. the same thing being discussed in this thread
- edmundsauto 18d agoA rational thing for a competent person to attempt. Given the theoretical structural advantages of the idea, the 6 failures are even more embarrassing than failing at something that was actually a bad idea.
- cwillu 18d agoFWIW “Gambit” without elaboration strongly invokes the “the bankrupcies were on purpose” to me, so, did you say it? Strictly no, but it was very suggestive.
- skew-aberration 18d agoEh. I wanted to be provocative because I've heard a lot of educated but economically naive people assume 'highly leveraged hotel-casino project' is dumb a priori, even though it's (an example of a) a sensible and common business strategy available to the wealthy. I didn't mean to imply bankruptcy was intentional though. As to whether Trump did this better or worse than others, I have no idea as I haven't studied it but would assume the latter given the outcome. A certainty though - plenty of undeserving people you would consider contemptible have successfully played this hand many a time. Yet more reasons to tax land
- rbanffy 17d agoAFAIK, Trump used investor money and rented his brand - he would have upside if the business succeeded, but had no downside for him - he was paid anyway. As for the suckˆHˆHˆHˆHinvestors, they had a bad day.