Oddly Enough, The Answer Proves to Be "Yes!"

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, I guess.


ymarsakar said...

There seems to be a weird side story to the whole Atlantic Casino issue. It seems some kind of back room deal was made and Trum's control/shares were sold off. I can't verify it exactly, nor is Trum going to defend himself by telling people what went on in his private or business life.

He's like me in that sense. People can attack him all day, but even if he could defend himself, he won't. He considers, perhaps, a waste of his time or speaking to his lessers.

ymarsakar said...

Generally speaking, it should be impossible to be drained that much in the casino business, especially with older venues instead of new competing ones.

The reason is because casinos are cash cows, they make money off of the clueless masses due to the House Odds. The House Always Wins, in the end at least.

Unless you are money laundering or some other shenanigan is going on, the casino's output should be enough to preserve any cost incurred. So how did a casino "bankrupt" itself? Over a billion in losses? That's not just some random number of card counters coming in and cleaning out your place.

Tom said...

Well, if the alternative is a woman who ran highly classified information through a private, unsecured server, for years, and then basically offered the defense that she was too stupid to know what she was doing, so we shouldn't send her to prison forever like we would a competent adult, then, yes.

Christopher B said...

As the Clintons like to say, it's old news.Trump told exactly the same story on the first episode of The Apprentice, detailing how he was billions in debt but managed a turn-around by 2004 by building the Trump brand, licensing it, and eventually becoming a reality TV star.

E Hines said...

Some people learn from their--and others'--mistakes.

On the other hand, those who are more successful than others at taking advantage of tax loopholes that are deliberately put into the law need to have their success capped because those others can't, or choose not to, keep up.

The choice between one who celebrates learning and getting ahead vs one who wants to continue a collaboration that a predecessor promised once he'd been freed of pesky voters would be a no-brainer...to those willing to learn, willing to succeed.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

I have to admit that I'm impressed by how well the economy is doing. I always believed that deregulation coupled with tax cuts -- less Federal government, in both cases -- could do wonders. I am nevertheless stunned to see unemployment at 1969 levels, wages rising, productivity increasing, and so on and so forth. In a way it's what I always believed would happen; but I didn't realize just how much it could happen.

E Hines said...

It's that rarity in economics, too--an empirically done comparison, here extensive and extended regulation with a stunted, slow recovery compared with a reduced degree of regulation and a rapidly growing economy.

But taxes aren't high enough, some say, and some aren't getting as much benefit as others, the same some say, so we need more free stuff and more caps on performance.

Some people's children are not finding high school economics a safe space.

Eric Hines