Looting: Bain Capital riches

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:

 

Ampad:

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.


KB Toys:
Bain Capital did not buy KB Toys until late 2000, more than a year after Romney left for the Olympics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-king-of-bain/2012/01/12/gIQADX8WuP_blog.html

Stage Stores:

From the Plain Dealer:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...s-in-charge-of-bain-during-gst-steel-layoffs/




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:

 

Bump

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.

 

In other words, the same people own both major parties.