One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
3879
   |
Posted - 2014.09.07 22:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:One Eyed King wrote:Catastrophic Commercial Failures:
Lehman Brothers
Enron
Bernie Madoff's empire
Blockbuster
Chevy
A significant portion of the late 90s dot coms.
Particularly in gaming, Kingdoms of Amalur.
Not Catastrophic:
Dust 514
A failure of that magnitude should at the very least result in bankruptcy. Whatever Dust is, it certainly isn't Catastrophic... Let's put it this way. If you held a significant amount of LEHMAN BROTHERS stock from its founding in 1850 until to its bankruptcy in 2008, you would have received tens of billions of dollars in dividend payments in exchange for a negligible initial investment. By contrast, DUST never made a profit, ever.
So you are saying because of a completely impossible scenario in which I as an individual could have theoretically made lots of money, the colapse of Lehman Brothers, which sent the entire global economy into the worst recession since the Great Depression, is LESS of a Catasrpohic Commercial Failure than Dust?
Ok...
You can always tell a Millford Minja
|
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
3894
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 00:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:One Eyed King wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:One Eyed King wrote:Catastrophic Commercial Failures:
Lehman Brothers
Enron
Bernie Madoff's empire
Blockbuster
Chevy
A significant portion of the late 90s dot coms.
Particularly in gaming, Kingdoms of Amalur.
Not Catastrophic:
Dust 514
A failure of that magnitude should at the very least result in bankruptcy. Whatever Dust is, it certainly isn't Catastrophic... Let's put it this way. If you held a significant amount of LEHMAN BROTHERS stock from its founding in 1850 until to its bankruptcy in 2008, you would have received tens of billions of dollars in dividend payments in exchange for a negligible initial investment. By contrast, DUST never made a profit, ever. So you are saying because of a completely impossible scenario in which I as an individual could have theoretically made lots of money, the colapse of Lehman Brothers, which sent the entire global economy into the worst recession since the Great Depression, is LESS of a Catasrpohic Commercial Failure than Dust? Ok... Obviously, I did not mean you as an individual. I would have thought it was rather obvious this was a hypothetical, no? For one thing, to have personally held Lehman Brothers stock in 1850 you would have to be one of the three actual Lehman brothers, and about 200 years old... The point is that Lehman Brothers was pretty good at giving its shareholders big piles of money (=commercially successful), whereas Dust was pretty good at taking money off its 'shareholder' (i.e. CCP) and turning it into ... dust. I never said, nor do I need to say, that Dust's commercial failure was worse than the the COLLAPSE of Lehman Brothers. That is just cherry picking on your part. I would have thought it was clear that I was comparing the two commercial ventures in toto. Can't help but feel we've gone off on a tangent here...
My point is that Lehman Brothers collapse was Catastrophic, as it caused not only its own bankruptcy, but that of many other banks and people.
Dust on the other hand has merely been a short term failure, which many companies have, and can sometimes be stronger for having. It certainly hasn't been decided yet. And if it was, it certainly wasn't on a level to call it Catastrophic. I just needed a measuring stick to point out what that would be.
Even Kindoms of Amalur caused the bankruptcy of the company, I think Curt Schilling as well, not to mention the net loss by the state that backed the business with state funds, could be considered a Catastrophic failure.
Dust, meh, not so much.
You can always tell a Millford Minja
|