I think a lot of people would disagree with you about X. Objectively he bought the company for $44B and now it's worth $9B that's a huge loss. Most people attribute the decline to his "efficiency" measures. Basically losing all the good talent in his company causing a significant decline in users ( because of quality of service). His running of Twitter I think would be a better example of a failure.
That aside hypothetically even if X was doing well - How would the strategy / approach he used in a public company be good for government. These are two very different places?
Just honestly asking Im not a statistician. From a lay person looking high level this seems weird. The conclusion also does not match up with insurance prices that I've personally seen nor correspond with my experience.
I'm here for discussion not trying to put anyone down. Could someone just explain to me what I'm missing. No need to downvote. So if you take a non random sample of data how can you extrapolate that out so much? Does this data line up with other people's data? What am I missing?