Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Crabtownboy, Sep 8, 2012.
This was job destruction.
Obama is doing the same sort of thing using our tax dollars when he funds green energy companies that go bankrupt while kicking back millions to Obama and the Dems.
What Crabby did not tell you:
Romney Camp on Ampad from Internet:
And.....OOPS! You left out that one of the Bain executives still on the Ampad board in 1998 and 1999 was Jonathan Lavine, who still works for Bain today and who BTW, just happens to be a top bundler for Barack Obama.
Bain Capital did not buy KB Toys until late 2000, more than a year after Romney left for the Olympics.
From the Plain Dealer:
REFUTED, ONCE AGAIN! :laugh: :thumbs:
One of the sad, but necessary, truths of a free market economy is that the job market will constantly be changing and some workers will lose their jobs or have their jobs change because of changes in the market.
Right now the American workforce is seeing part of a shifting global economy where workers in other countries are providing lower costs for manufacturers and industries to go and produce their goods. It would be foolish of a company not to consider that kind of a move.
It would be equally foolish to think that companies must be limited to their American workforce when that workforce costs exceed that of the competition.
Companies are also part of that transition. Just because you are an employee in a company does not guarantee your perpetual employment. If there are improprieties which occur in a transition of companies than those should be presented to the SEC or other authorities for review. However, we also must recognize that some companies will go through a life cycle that is part of their process.
At what point does a board of directors have to provide perpetual employment to any of their employees?
Bain Capital is part of a larger global economic process that continues to bring prosperity and better living conditions to millions and billions of individuals. The truth of free market economics is that billions of people are better off today than they would have been 100 years ago. Now if Bain has acted illegally there are recourse measures which can be taken. However, if they simply were doing what business (and government) has done for decades than this is a pointless quibble. Bain is simply acting in the best interest of their board and stakeholders. Some companies are healthy and because of that health will last a long time, providing for their stakeholders. Some companies aren't and need to be either adjusted or brought to an appropriate end to ensure broader, continued economic prosperity.
The Rolling Stone piece cited in the OP is a good example of unbalanced, yellow journalism. It neglects to mention how Bain Capital contributed and only selects portions of difficult economic moves. Part of a free market economy that is tough is what happens to owners, managers, workers, and other stakeholders. For every one or two companies that succeed there are a dozen or more that fail. It is part of the system of broader economic prosperity.
Our global marketplace is changing and reshaping often. Here's a fun little factoid for you: If the iPad was made in America solely by American workers it would cost about $10,000 a piece. Is Apple wrong for outsourcing the production to save costs and expand their market base? Now certainly conditions in those plants and factories should be properly maintained. (I am certainly concerned with working conditions.) But is it reasonable for us as a free people to require Apple to make their good here in the US? Can we objectively criticize them for not doing so? After they make $100,000,000,000 off a product and inject that money back into supply more jobs across continents are they suddenly an immoral company?
Now take that example and add Bain Capital to the mix. I don't think the OP acknowledges the intricate complexities of a free market economy. If we were to go to a managed economy, globally, the impact would be destructive to workers and companies. The article in the OP believes a managed economy, or highly regulated, is the way to go. History has shown us that this is never the case.
Trumpeter calls this whole process "creative destruction." Now politicians don't like using the word "destruction" when they talk about jobs and workforce. But do we really believe that as a society we should still support and shoulder the workforce that makes horse-shoes when new cars are rolling off the line everyday? Some industries and jobs will naturally become obsolete in a free market economy. That is a hard truth. But it is a necessary truth for continued prosperity and growth across borders and in our own lives.
So in closing...I think the OP is wrong.
PIJ - wonderful, well thought-out and articulated post - it must have taken you at least an hour to compose. Thanks! :flower:
I'd hate for Crabby to miss an opportunity to respond.
Thanks for the kind words LE, just something I've been thinking about lately.
Just bumping this back up there since crabby is back and posting.
Since Crabby is around I'll bump it again. Awaiting your reply man.
So do not complain when US jobs are sent overseas.
Using borrowed money to make millions for self while putting people out of work with no severance pay may be legal, but it hardly seems legal not, to me, Christian.
Capitalism is built on greed and greed is a great motivator. It has provided good living for many and destroyed the lives of others. I do not know that there is a better economic system ... but it is not perfect. Perhaps a better system will be developed someday.
I do not see where Romney has shown concern for those he put out of work. In fact, I do not see where he has shown concern for those jobs saved or created. They were simply by products of Bain and Romney making money. I do not believe he particularly cared if a company survived or died as long as he and Bain made money. But, again, this is Capitalism ... individuals do not matter, profits is what matters.
I feel very fortunate. I believe I have lived through the golden era of American Capitalism and that the future is rather bleak. Bleak not so much because of the economic system, but bleak because our politicians, in both parties, refuse to tackle the difficult issues and correct problems where the solution would be unpopular politically. They continue to 'kick he can down the road' and this will make it more and more painful when the 'piper has to be paid'.
I do not see this election as a choice between the lesser of two evils, but the evil of two lessers.
When I was young candidates were selected in the smoke filled back rooms. I thought it a bad system. However after watching a number of elections where the candidates have been selected through a primary process I have come to the conclusion that the smoke filled back rooms produced more capable candidates. Now it is primarily money that selected the candidate and, to me, that has resulted in poor candidates who are more concerned about special interest groups than the American citizens as a whole. To me primaries put us on a slippery slope and with the Supreme Court decision making unlimited contributions legal it turned that slippery slope into an almost vertical cliff. All this IMHO.
In other words, the same people own both major parties.
Number of jobs Romney sent overseas. 0
Number of jobs Obama sent oversears. Over 300,000. (Including the DNC and Obama Campaign Call Centers!)
See Factcheck.org at http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
Crabby caught <PA deleted LE> again! How sad.