Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

[wufwugy]

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.

[boost]

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.

[BananaStand]

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.

[boost]

"countless business failures"?

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.

[boost]

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.

[BananaStand]

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.

[boost]

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.