I say there is detail missing, and then post details that I DO know. How is that hypocritical?An additional $80,000 was given to them for payroll protection. That's on top of the half million dollars. Why is this place so special and gets this money when so many other businesses around it are closed with no help.
You are right. There is a lot of... funny you call it "detail"... there is a lot of context missing. As I said before, context matters. Yes, let the investigations start.
Do you see how hypocritical you are? You support your argument by saying there is a lot of detail missing and then try to justify the gallery getting that much money because of the type of business it is while you talk down about a podcaster, an "anti-vaxxer" getting relief. One doesn't share your views but obtained relief within the guidelines of the law. The other is getting relief to help a known crackhead but son of a president sell his art. You choose the scenario that helps the crackhead to follow because that's part of YOUR team.
Due diligence requires that you use what you know, and discover what you NEED to know to come to a conclusion through critical thinking.
I KNOW that a high-end art gallery deals in high-end money. They are not selling prints for $100 at a craft show. They are selling prints for $20,000 in a gallery setting. To rich people. If Georges Berges has clients that will buy a $500K painting, then they have a big payroll. Even if it's only TWO people that own/operate. These are facts of business.
I can also tell you that a chef at Nobu makes more money than all day staff at a single McDonald's put together. Nobu asking for a bigger loan from the SBA would be fully expected. Just like a multimillion dollar art gallery needing more than a podcaster in his basement.
I am not talking down a podcaster, I am talking about two businesses that are very different from one another. A podcaster has low overhead. A podcaster is not affected by a loss of walk-in customers and public showings. A podcaster is not losing $20,000 single-piece art sales due to his gallery being physically closed and not being able to do showings. A podcaster who doesn't believe in COVID should also not be AFFECTED by COVID, and should certainly not need a business loan to make up for lost podcast income. Especially in a time when people are turning to online entertainment in their homes more than ever in history. It's like selling umbrellas in a rainstorm.
An online podcaster needing 1/5 of the loan that a multimillion dollar brick-and-mortar gallery has gotten? That adds up far less than the $350K the gallery got this year, and the $150K they got last year.
This stuff is Business 101. You claim you are of high intelligence. Simple business observations like this should not be taxing you.
I could care less that his son is a drug addict or a recovering drug addict. I'm not sure how that affects why the gallery should or should not get a loan that they applied for and apparently met the qualifications for. What exactly does it have to do with people buying his art, or a gallery selling it on spec?
That pillow guy is a crackhead. Does that mean he shouldn't get paid for the pillows he sells? Should he have been denied a loan to start his business? Should it be against the law for him to donate to Trump's election committee and ongoing begging for money to cover his attorney fees (that he'll probably refuse to pay)?
Since you are learning what "context" means and almost use the word correctly, what does the addiction context do for you with regard to the loan the gallery received?

