Do you mean you would need to see proof that the observation is correct before you can link evidence that it's incorrect? If so that seems somewhat difficult to achieve.
"Bankrupt" by definition means unable to pay one's debts, doesn't it? Perhaps there's another definition I am unaware of, so that may have been an invalid assumption on my part. But if that wasn't gumby's original point, then what was? Which precise aspect of PE is pathological and parasitic? Assuming the company can pay off all its debts, what exactly has gone wrong (wrong economically/financially; I've already explained I'm sympathetic to other stakeholders like customers and workers).
No, that's not what bankrupt means. Bankruptcy almost never happens when there is literally zero value left. In the archetype we're discussing, there is enough value in the company to pay the banks and PE firms lavishly and exorbitantly, but not enough to do that and keep the company healthy (or indeed, alive, in countless cases). So the PE firms choose just the first one.
> Assuming the company can pay off all their debts
This, too, seems to be unfounded assumption that turns out to not be correct, as explained above.
OK, so there is enough value in the company to pay the banks and PE firms lavishly and exorbitantly, but not enough to pay all their debts. So which debts can they not pay?
