Rationalizing vs reasoning
Like in investing, complicated frameworks are for former purpose. We use them to derive preferred outcomes, not reliable ones.
Any elaborate framework is meant to rationalize a predetermined decision, not to reason towards a sensible one. Anyone from my line of work, who has gone through a DCF charade, knows exactly what I mean.
Today's tragic real-world example of this timeless philosophy:
"If a district's TPR is sub-5% and oxygen-bed occupancy is sub-25%, then Barbers on both sides of the road can open beyond 9am-4pm, Monday-Friday, at 50% occupancy, without A/C, no walk-ins, only appointments"
Having come up with the most elaborate framework in human history, my city bailed on transitioning to level-2 unlock despite both conditions being met (weekly TPR was sub-5%, latest MIS shows 22% Oxygen bed occupancy). Framework has been labeled 'indicative' because it's inconvenient.
That brings me to my second philosophical point. Seeing through euphemisms, this boils down to a privileged few (lauded by other privileged) telling impoverished millions "Hey, you've starved for 10 weeks, what difference will another two make".
Prohibiting people from earning a living and feeding their family has been callously normalized. This is the most dangerous legacy of past year. A measure of last resort, meant for limited time under extraordinary circumstances, gets extended, ad hoc, for months without basis (separately empirically-sound basis has not been provided even for limited time use).
A minority, who can work from home without consequences, continue to ruin (or support ruin of) lives of a majority who cannot work at all.
Weekend rant done, I better get back to writing about investing!