distic
9d ago
There is a paradox if you do not assume any theory about economics. You are entirely correct, but this is not how a paradox works. It's like the Monty Hall paradox. If you think about it, it's perfectly logical, but there is a way to look at it which makes it weird. You need water more than you need diamond, and there are plenty of cases where diamonds would be less expensive than water. For example, you are in the desert and you have a diamond but no water.
distic
9d ago
Fans should have already gotten flight tickets, but would flight operators cancel flights due to raising fuel costs?
Aren't futures made exactly for this purpose? Don't companies buy futures so they can price the tickets and not be bankrupt by the price of oil?
The Venezuela op was a masterclass.
Was it? It was very risky, as proved by the Iran op. Even in a game with a negative expectation, you can sometimes win once or twice. It does not mean it was a good idea in the first place.
I don't think he is seen as a martyr. The problem with the bombing is more that bombing schoolgirls is not the best way to be liked by the locals. I think the Trump administration expected Iran to go the same way as Venezuela: after a few days of bombing, the regime dies because there is a revolt, a coup or something. It's quite obvious they had no plan beyond bombing them for three days. And I think Venezuela could have gone badly in the exact same way as Iran.
Imagine the kidnapping does not go well, and kidnappers are taken or killed. Then the US military tries to get them back and is out of luck; a lot of americans get killed. It seems to me Venezuela/Iran are the same kind of bad ops, because it's high risk - low reward. The power the US can get over Venezuela through a simple kidnapping will only last until some coup or next elections. Was it worth risking a long and painful war with Venezuela?
Edit: and also, thx for your the information about hedging.
More options
Context Copy link