To think that the business world is easy is very naive. It is literally dog eat dog. The free market is ugly and many people get the ax, but it is the best system we have. To move to a more centralized market means lower productivity and fewer successes for business owners. Sorry that is just the way it is.

 

None of that is what your post above implies.

Bain is not loading debt on the companies that was belonging to Bain, the company had debt from doing acquisitions.

What you don't read in that article, is those companies all would have shut down had Bain not stepped in and pulled them out of the fire. Some of them did not do well, but that is what free markets. If a company cannot stand, it falls down.

Banks do not loan money based on "I might get paid when they sell it".
- Does your bank give you a 0% mortgage in hopes of seeing the return on the principal once you sell the house ?
VCs do this.

Might want to check what the media is leading you towards. Companies in that article are still in business today, but would not be had Bain not been there to finance the deal.

Look at Accuride. Firestone wanted out of it and rather than just shut it down and sell off the AL stock on the open market and fire the people, Bain financed the deal for it to be spun off. Had they not, do you think a bank would have financed that deal ? ( the answer is no, that is why Bain was there ).
Here is what the company itself has to say about the spin off :
Wow, look at that. The company had increased profitability and market share from the spin off that Bain financed and they added locations, so Evansville, IN got a new Accuride location.
Can you say jobs ?
Can you say in IN not overseas ?

Wow the article points to the evil Bain, but they do not tell you what the outcome of the financing was ( the only one is the company that went under AFTER the IPO = Not Bain ).

You might want to check what the media is feeding you.
You might find out they do not tell you the whole story, only to the point to get you pissed off at Bain and by extension Romney.

For Accuride they do not tell the story of the 1,000s of US jobs they saved, and made a company that is still going strong today. Can't have that, you might get the idea Bain is not an evil company that the government needs to shut down.

That is not good reading, that is a junk article.

 

So it is not an economic principal, just a sound bite you got from the POTUS and repeat and pick a company to use to illustrate the concept.

You don't need to shop at Walmart, it is a choice you make to shop there.

I do not shop there. I went to my 1st Walmart in 1993, and have not been back inside one since. They got 90.00 from me then, and never again.

Look at that, you make the choice to support a company that sells products that are not from US jobs, that make such a mess of the local economy ( some how getting a job a Walmart puts one on the government rolls, where not having a job did not ?? ).

You are a great, use the talking points of "Patriotic Capitalism" but in the next line admit you are part of the problem against this concept.

You might want to review your posts before clicking on submit....

Try again. The debt we are passing on to your kids is going to do more damage than "saving 5 cents on socks".

We could have factories all across the US making everything here. Your kids paying the interest alone on the debt that is going to be there when they are 50, is going to make it so they cannot afford to buy socks made in the US or China or India.
Might want to wake up to this concept, at least your kids might want to, you can keep fiddling while the US burns....

 

Thanks for all the info, SScully.

It is apparent from this thread and from the elections that many Americans fear the private sector. They want bigger and bigger government to protect them.

Those folks need to realize that big government is far more dangerous to them and their freedoms than private businesses ever will be.

 

As for 'economic patriotism', I get skeptical when new terms get coined without clear definition. Kind of like 'Hope and Change'.

Perhaps the government should not clearly define 'economic patriotism', but they can use it as a shield to reward and partner with the most 'economically patriotic' companies. Then the government can target companies they don't like for not being 'economically patriotic'. Picking winners and losers based on government criteria instead of the free market.

I'm sure this systems sounds great to many, and in fact it has been tried before. It was called Facism.

 

You have it right that fearing the public sector has become reality for more than 50% of American voters.

Would be interesting to know what the percentage of voters, that voted for the newly elected POTUS, have a smart phone from Apple or a game console. Nobody is demonizing Jobs for taking big risks, "sending jobs overseas" and making large amounts of money for it.

Steve Jobs had a net worth of ~ $ 7B in 2011
Romney has a net worth of 150M to 260M.

Steve Jobs = New voters buy his company's products (made in China ) due to it being cool ??

Romney = Evil as he made too much money "buy up underperforming companies, strip their assets, load them down with debt and walk away with big profits"

Wow, looks like Romney should give up the VC game and get into the cool device game. Sure pays better

Let's go to the "These guys make nothing" category.

Zuckerberg's net worth = ~ $12B ( after loosing $7B of net worth from the IPO to the bottom of the valley )
Romney has a net worth of 150M to 260M.

That Romney sure is an evil evil man

 

He has Accounts in the Caymans! Bain Capital! EVIL RICH GUY

John Kerry? No comment

 

Think this goes on in Russia to this day.

Berezovsky lost a case when he had to sell his ownership in an oil company to Abramovich ( Putin associate ). His choice go to court ( then jail ) like Khodorkovksy.
Russian government made sure that BP took a beating in their joint venture, to the benefit of the Russia company ( Nationalism : Buy Russian owned by Russians ).

Don't think Russians know how bad it is, as they see it as "punishing" those that made too much money. Just waiting for Russia to roll tanks into the Stan's they want back ( and Georgia ) and pull everything back together again.

It was mentioned above about buying bombs from China to drop on them. China is taking over 1 T-bill auction at a time, they won't need to invade us. We are selling the country to them every time we spend more than we take in, in tax revenue.

 

Not too sure what having an account in the Cayman Islands does for him.

Cayman Islands caved on US pressure for open access. It is not like it was from "the Firm" where you hide billions of dollars there unknown to anyone.

Govt know every transfer over 4,500 ( the IRS limit is 9,999.00, govt limit is much lower ), and knows if you move too much in a month ( even in transactions of 4K or less ).

Who "forgot" to include rental income on his overseas property to avoid taxes on that income ???
Was that Romney....
No it will come to me....
I know he is one of the "good guys", at least that is what the MSM tells me.

 

Prior to the elections,the liberal message boards were swamped with the fears that "Rob-me" would take all the money from the poor and put it in his Cayman Islands accounts.

Apparently, this kind of baseless scare tactic works with millions of Americans.

As for "good guy" Rangel, I was home ill the day the house voted on his censure on C-SPAN. Watching the Dems rally around him and speak in defense on his behalf was sickening. As was his 'acceptence' of his punishment. He basically said he did nothing wrong and the House was wrong to even investigate him, much less punish him. It was truly disgusting. Yet he was re-elected again this week.

My bottom line is this: Both business and government should be run by people with integrity and ethics. History shows the damages to our freedoms and pocketbooks are much more severe when unethical, dishonorable people get into government.

 

And we find out just how compassionate the dems are. Chris Matthews stating he is thankful for Hurricane Sandy on how it helped Obamas to win. You know that hurricane that killed over 100 people. If a Republican stated this, they would certainly have been crucified in the MSM, but the only thing you find on it is an apology from him in HuffPoo.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-sandy-struck/

 

He's the definition of an idiot

 

Keep in mind, the Media does not have a liberal bias.

 

Chris Matthews did apologize and his comment was stupid.

 

Chris Matthews is the ugliest cheerleader I have ever seen.