How Private Equity Works - from a professor of corporate law, corporate finance and securities law at Yale Law School

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 9:17 PM GMT
    By Jonathan Macey, professor of corporate law, corporate finance and securities law at Yale Law School

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577154521024107002.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    Excerpts only:

    Mitt Romney's candidacy is subjecting the entire private-equity industry—where Mr. Romney spent most of his business career—to vicious attacks by journalists and several of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination.

    Newt Gingrich's political action committee is sponsoring a film called "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" that accuses Mr. Romney and his former company, Bain Capital, of taking over companies, looting them, and then tossing their workers out on the street. Jon Huntsman's attacks on his rival include the description of private equity as a business that "breaks down businesses [and] destroys jobs, as opposed to creating jobs and opportunity, leveraging up, spinning off, [and] enriching shareholders."

    This is anticapitalist claptrap. Private-equity firms make significant investments in companies, mainly U.S. companies. Most of their investments are in companies that underperform industry peers. Frequently these firms are on the brink of failure.

    Because private-equity firms are, by definition, equity investors, they make money only if they improve the performance of their companies. Private equity is last in line to be paid in case of insolvency. Private-equity firms don't make a profit unless their companies can meet their obligations to workers and other creditors.

    The companies in which private-equity investors are able to turn a profit generally grow, rather than shrink. This is because the preferred "exit strategy" by which private-equity firms profit is to take the private companies in which they invest and enable them to go public and sell shares that will help the company grow even stronger. As for turnaround success stories, Continental Airlines, Orbitz and Snapple have all benefitted at some time from private-equity investment.
    ...
    Private-equity firms not only help corporate performance, but in the long run they lead to more employment and higher wages as well. The alternative to the leaner, smaller firms created by private equity are bankrupt firms that do not employ anybody.
    ...
    Unlike some other investors who trade in debt and derivatives, private-equity firms make money by investing in businesses that make things and provide services. This industry should be applauded, not attacked.

    Assaults on the private-equity industry really are attacks on economic freedom, because the private-equity process is nothing more and nothing less than free-market capitalism at work. Shame on all the people, particularly those who claim to be friendly to capitalism, who attack Mitt Romney because of his association with the U.S. private-equity industry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 10:38 PM GMT
    I think a lot of people misunderstand the role of private equity - or even the corporate decisions that should be made. The alternative to a dynamic market place is one like Japan where they had refused for over a decade to deal with their banking crises leaving bad debts on the books and property well overvalued in hopes that incomes would catch up.

    I am looking forward to seeing if Romney can adequately communicate a defense of capitalism and markets - that will be the test for him to win the Presidency. So far, of the victory speech, I think it was a good one. Gingrich and Perry have disqualified themselves - and it's better we knew that now... I just hope that Romney will govern as he argues.

    For an added bonus, he should be talking weekly about a new specific business that has chosen to reduce jobs in the US because of the regulations of this administration with the Keystone XL pipeline and Gibson Guitars front and center.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 11:03 PM GMT
    I think most of understand what private equity and venture capitalism are and - to me at least - they're morally neutral. It's what one does within one's firm and career that is in question. And in Romney's case, he chose to make his money, primarily - though not exclusively - through "vulture" tactics.

    Also, this all puts the lie to Romney's "job creator" talking points as he destroyed more than he created and creating jobs was never the point of Bain.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 11:48 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidI think most of understand what private equity and venture capitalism are and - to me at least - they're morally neutral. It's what one does within one's firm and career that is in question. And in Romney's case, he chose to make his money, primarily - though not exclusively - through "vulture" tactics.

    Also, this all puts the lie to Romney's "job creator" talking points as he destroyed more than he created and creating jobs was never the point of Bain.

    Romney and Bain's record is a good one. All the "vulture" rhetoric makes no sense to everyone who understands how private equity works. Yours will be a battle for those who won't understand, but there will be numerous human interest stories of those whose jobs were saved, enabling families to keep homes, pay for food, etc. The desparate ones such as Gingrich and Perry have helped. The Obama team had planned a similar tactic hoping if Romney is the nominee, he would not have time to respond. That tactic is gone. Everything is on the table, and the job will be to translate the facts per the OP to what people can understand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 12:07 AM GMT
    riddler78 said... Gingrich and Perry have disqualified themselves - and it's better we knew that now...

    Gingrich knows his point has no validity. A few weeks ago the good Newt briefly made the same point and later admitted his point was against the free market system and said he was wrong, but had just been briefly upset with Romney. Now the bad Newt has reemerged, still knows the points don't make sense, knows he is done, permanently, but doesn't care. He is angry with Romney. Giving him that $5M was like giving a water pistol to an angry 5 year old.

    In the case of Perry, he fell in love with the term "vulture capitalism". Funny thing about him is 1) He doesn't know Bain's record or how private equity works, 2) He is, in fact, railing against the free market system, 3) He's too goddamn stupid to even realize it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 1:14 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidI think most of understand what private equity and venture capitalism are and - to me at least - they're morally neutral. It's what one does within one's firm and career that is in question. And in Romney's case, he chose to make his money, primarily - though not exclusively - through "vulture" tactics.

    Also, this all puts the lie to Romney's "job creator" talking points as he destroyed more than he created and creating jobs was never the point of Bain.

    Romney and Bain's record is a good one. All the "vulture" rhetoric makes no sense to everyone who understands how private equity works. Yours will be a battle for those who won't understand, but there will be numerous human interest stories of those whose jobs were saved, enabling families to keep homes, pay for food, etc. The desparate ones such as Gingrich and Perry have helped. The Obama team had planned a similar tactic hoping if Romney is the nominee, he would not have time to respond. That tactic is gone. Everything is on the table, and the job will be to translate the facts per the OP to what people can understand.


    Bain's record is very clear, particularly during Romney's tenure. In fact, most of the jobs "created" by Bain were after Romney stepped down. And as the week has worn on, the number Romney "created" went from "100,000" to "tens of thousands" to "thousands."

    In terms of the primary argument, the majority of people aren't paying attention to the race yet, so the Bain story is far from over.

    What I think is hilarious is that you were pro-Gingrich and Perry as each ascended and flamed out but now that they've dared tell the truth about how companies like Bain works and how Romney made the money he didn't inherit, they're "desperate." icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 1:31 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidI think most of understand what private equity and venture capitalism are and - to me at least - they're morally neutral. It's what one does within one's firm and career that is in question. And in Romney's case, he chose to make his money, primarily - though not exclusively - through "vulture" tactics.

    Also, this all puts the lie to Romney's "job creator" talking points as he destroyed more than he created and creating jobs was never the point of Bain.

    Romney and Bain's record is a good one. All the "vulture" rhetoric makes no sense to everyone who understands how private equity works. Yours will be a battle for those who won't understand, but there will be numerous human interest stories of those whose jobs were saved, enabling families to keep homes, pay for food, etc. The desparate ones such as Gingrich and Perry have helped. The Obama team had planned a similar tactic hoping if Romney is the nominee, he would not have time to respond. That tactic is gone. Everything is on the table, and the job will be to translate the facts per the OP to what people can understand.

    Bain's record is very clear, particularly during Romney's tenure. In fact, most of the jobs "created" by Bain were after Romney stepped down. And as the week has worn on, the number Romney "created" went from "100,000" to "tens of thousands" to "thousands."

    In terms of the primary argument, the majority of people aren't paying attention to the race yet, so the Bain story is far from over.

    What I think is hilarious is that you were pro-Gingrich and Perry as each ascended and flamed out but now that they've dared tell the truth about how companies like Bain works and how Romney made the money he didn't inherit, they're "desperate." icon_lol.gif

    Look, maybe you're trying for an audience here, but don't waste your time trying to spin your BS about Bain and private equity with me. I know exactly what's it about. Either you don't or you seek to spin it for the uninformed.

    The whole issue of Bain will be handled during the election if Romney is the nominee. But the attention will be kept on a failed President, and the effort against him will be significant.

    As far as who I was for in terms of the Republican candidates, I never in this forum expressed support for anyone. I had commented that Gingrich would be effective in a debate against Obama, which I still think is the case, but I did not support him. Regarding Perry, never expressed support for him either.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 1:36 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidI think most of understand what private equity and venture capitalism are and - to me at least - they're morally neutral. It's what one does within one's firm and career that is in question. And in Romney's case, he chose to make his money, primarily - though not exclusively - through "vulture" tactics.

    Also, this all puts the lie to Romney's "job creator" talking points as he destroyed more than he created and creating jobs was never the point of Bain.

    Romney and Bain's record is a good one. All the "vulture" rhetoric makes no sense to everyone who understands how private equity works. Yours will be a battle for those who won't understand, but there will be numerous human interest stories of those whose jobs were saved, enabling families to keep homes, pay for food, etc. The desparate ones such as Gingrich and Perry have helped. The Obama team had planned a similar tactic hoping if Romney is the nominee, he would not have time to respond. That tactic is gone. Everything is on the table, and the job will be to translate the facts per the OP to what people can understand.

    Bain's record is very clear, particularly during Romney's tenure. In fact, most of the jobs "created" by Bain were after Romney stepped down. And as the week has worn on, the number Romney "created" went from "100,000" to "tens of thousands" to "thousands."

    In terms of the primary argument, the majority of people aren't paying attention to the race yet, so the Bain story is far from over.

    What I think is hilarious is that you were pro-Gingrich and Perry as each ascended and flamed out but now that they've dared tell the truth about how companies like Bain works and how Romney made the money he didn't inherit, they're "desperate." icon_lol.gif

    Look, maybe you're trying for an audience here, but don't waste your time trying to spin your BS about Bain and private equity with me. I know exactly what's it about. Either you don't or you seek to spin it for the uninformed.

    The whole issue of Bain will be handled during the election if Romney is the nominee. But the attention will be kept on a failed President, and the effort against him will be significant.

    As far as who I was for in terms of the Republican candidates, I never in this forum expressed support for anyone. I had commented that Gingrich would be effective in a debate against Obama, which I still think is the case, but I did not support him. Regarding Perry, never expressed support for him either.


    LOL. My audience is you and riddler, who must, on some level know that Bain's actual record is. What I wonder is are you deluding yourself due to Obama Derangement Syndrome, or being purposefully misleading because you approve of vulture capitalism but know that the majority of Americans find it objectionable.

    And the president has been enormously successful, and he's enormously well-liked by the majority of Americans whereas Romney is disliked by big swaths of the Republican base, who may fall in line but will not be energized.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 1:40 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidLOL. My audience is you and riddler, who must, on some level know that Bain's actual record is. What I wonder is are you deluding yourself due to Obama Derangement Syndrome, or being purposefully misleading because you approve of vulture capitalism but know that the majority of Americans find it objectionable.

    And the president has been enormously successful, and he's enormously well-liked by the majority of Americans whereas Romney is disliked by big swaths of the Republican base, who may fall in line but will not be energized.

    Getting the last word doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. And for the other readers who don't understand Bain's record or private equity, in this thread why should they believe you over the Yale Professor? This should be good... maybe the Yale Professor has a mistress?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 1:45 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidLOL. My audience is you and riddler, who must, on some level know that Bain's actual record is. What I wonder is are you deluding yourself due to Obama Derangement Syndrome, or being purposefully misleading because you approve of vulture capitalism but know that the majority of Americans find it objectionable.

    And the president has been enormously successful, and he's enormously well-liked by the majority of Americans whereas Romney is disliked by big swaths of the Republican base, who may fall in line but will not be energized.

    Getting the last word doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. And for the other readers who don't understand Bain's record or private equity, in this thread why should they believe you over the Yale Professor? This should be good... maybe the Yale Professor has a mistress?


    It's not about the last word. I suspect that both you and riddler know the misery that Bain caused by engaging in vulture capitalism and extracting all the wealth from companies and sending them into bankruptcy - as I'm sure you're familiar with Paul Singer's reign of economic terror in Latin America.

    The reality is that you support this kind of immoral behavior but know that most Americans will find it objectionable, so you have to create a "job creation" argument. icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 1:58 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidLOL. My audience is you and riddler, who must, on some level know that Bain's actual record is. What I wonder is are you deluding yourself due to Obama Derangement Syndrome, or being purposefully misleading because you approve of vulture capitalism but know that the majority of Americans find it objectionable.

    And the president has been enormously successful, and he's enormously well-liked by the majority of Americans whereas Romney is disliked by big swaths of the Republican base, who may fall in line but will not be energized.

    Getting the last word doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. And for the other readers who don't understand Bain's record or private equity, in this thread why should they believe you over the Yale Professor? This should be good... maybe the Yale Professor has a mistress?


    It's not about the last word. I suspect that both you and riddler know the misery that Bain caused by engaging in vulture capitalism and extracting all the wealth from companies and sending them into bankruptcy - as I'm sure you're familiar with Paul Singer's reign of economic terror in Latin America.

    The reality is that you support this kind of immoral behavior but know that most Americans will find it objectionable, so you have to create a "job creation" argument. icon_cool.gif

    So where is the Yale Professor going wrong, and what data do you have to back up your position? Given his credentials in his field http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/JMacey.htm including all he has published, do you really think you offer a credible rebuttal that would cause us to do anything but laugh?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 2:27 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidIt's not about the last word. I suspect that both you and riddler know the misery that Bain caused by engaging in vulture capitalism and extracting all the wealth from companies and sending them into bankruptcy - as I'm sure you're familiar with Paul Singer's reign of economic terror in Latin America.

    The reality is that you support this kind of immoral behavior but know that most Americans will find it objectionable, so you have to create a "job creation" argument. icon_cool.gif


    Creative destruction also results in misery. At the core of markets - and what makes markets superior to any form of central planning in the long run is its ability to allocate capital efficiently.

    I wonder - do you deliberately search for providers of services that cost more without any additional benefit? Would you pay double for the exact same haircut and service if you could get the same next door for half the price? Why do you expect businesses to do differently and how is this in any way more or less immoral than what you do?

    As for this idea of "vulture capitalism" - sometimes you do need to cut drastically to save a company. We already have zombies in the economy in the form of the big automakers who really haven't resolved their cost issues (have you seen its stock over the last year?). Is this somehow more benevolent than allowing it to be broken down considerably in order for that resources in people and money can be reallocated to sectors of the economy that have growth and demand?

    Is it a good thing that we don't need switch board operators or buggy whip makers anymore? Or would it have been better for the government to protect these jobs and industries as well?

    I seriously don't think you understand this issue of "vulture capitalism". I mean at a very emotional level, it's appealing to think that rich people should be more generous with their money but this fundamentally ignores how economies work and how profits incentivize and provide signals for how capital can be most efficiently allocated in order that new needs and wants are met.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 2:39 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidLOL. My audience is you and riddler, who must, on some level know that Bain's actual record is. What I wonder is are you deluding yourself due to Obama Derangement Syndrome, or being purposefully misleading because you approve of vulture capitalism but know that the majority of Americans find it objectionable.

    And the president has been enormously successful, and he's enormously well-liked by the majority of Americans whereas Romney is disliked by big swaths of the Republican base, who may fall in line but will not be energized.

    Getting the last word doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. And for the other readers who don't understand Bain's record or private equity, in this thread why should they believe you over the Yale Professor? This should be good... maybe the Yale Professor has a mistress?


    It's not about the last word. I suspect that both you and riddler know the misery that Bain caused by engaging in vulture capitalism and extracting all the wealth from companies and sending them into bankruptcy - as I'm sure you're familiar with Paul Singer's reign of economic terror in Latin America.

    The reality is that you support this kind of immoral behavior but know that most Americans will find it objectionable, so you have to create a "job creation" argument. icon_cool.gif

    So where is the Yale Professor going wrong, and what data do you have to back up your position? Given his credentials in his field http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/JMacey.htm including all he has published, do you really think you offer a credible rebuttal that would cause us to do anything but laugh?


    The Yale Law Professor is an apparent ideologue who chose to present no data about Bain, it's performance and the outcomes of the companies they invested in. So what is there to rebut?

    The Wall Street Journal's own reporting says that 1 in 5 of every company Bain "invested in" went bankrupt within 8 years of their taking it over. Yes, there were some successes but what Bain did best was make a lot of money for it's investors through cost-cutting, outsourcing labor, and doing it primarily with borrowed money. In fact, Bain even sought federal bailout money while Romney was CEO.

    Romney is a vulture capitalist. He wants to privatize the profits and socialize the risks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 2:42 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidIt's not about the last word. I suspect that both you and riddler know the misery that Bain caused by engaging in vulture capitalism and extracting all the wealth from companies and sending them into bankruptcy - as I'm sure you're familiar with Paul Singer's reign of economic terror in Latin America.

    The reality is that you support this kind of immoral behavior but know that most Americans will find it objectionable, so you have to create a "job creation" argument. icon_cool.gif


    Creative destruction also results in misery. At the core of markets - and what makes markets superior to any form of central planning in the long run is its ability to allocate capital efficiently.

    I wonder - do you deliberately search for providers of services that cost more without any additional benefit? Would you pay double for the exact same haircut and service if you could get the same next door for half the price? Why do you expect businesses to do differently and how is this in any way more or less immoral than what you do?

    As for this idea of "vulture capitalism" - sometimes you do need to cut drastically to save a company. We already have zombies in the economy in the form of the big automakers who really haven't resolved their cost issues (have you seen its stock over the last year?). Is this somehow more benevolent than allowing it to be broken down considerably in order for that resources in people and money can be reallocated to sectors of the economy that have growth and demand?

    Is it a good thing that we don't need switch board operators or buggy whip makers anymore? Or would it have been better for the government to protect these jobs and industries as well?

    I seriously don't think you understand this issue of "vulture capitalism". I mean at a very emotional level, it's appealing to think that rich people should be more generous with their money but this fundamentally ignores how economies work and how profits incentivize and provide signals for how capital can be most efficiently allocated in order that new needs and wants are met.


    We're not debating capitalism but vulture capitalism, so stop conflating the two. Perhaps that works on the Tea Party kids that Romeny and company play tricks on but some of us have studied it and can separate the two.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 2:44 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidThe Yale Law Professor is an apparent ideologue who chose to present no data about Bain, it's performance and the outcomes of the companies they invested in. So what is there to rebut?

    The Wall Street Journal's own reporting says that 1 in 5 of every company Bain "invested in" went bankrupt within 8 years of their taking it over. Yes, there were some successes but what Bain did best was make a lot of money for it's investors through cost-cutting, outsourcing labor, and doing it primarily with borrowed money. In fact, Bain even sought federal bailout money while Romney was CEO.

    Romney is a vulture capitalist. He wants to privatize the profits and socialize the risks.


    That's actually a better track record than startups. Further, it's also a matter of self selection - look at the companies that Bain took over. Yes plenty of savings through cost cutting, and leverage - how is this in any way a bad thing considering that again, it's about using resources more efficiently?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 2:46 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidThe Yale Law Professor is an apparent ideologue who chose to present no data about Bain, it's performance and the outcomes of the companies they invested in. So what is there to rebut?

    The Wall Street Journal's own reporting says that 1 in 5 of every company Bain "invested in" went bankrupt within 8 years of their taking it over. Yes, there were some successes but what Bain did best was make a lot of money for it's investors through cost-cutting, outsourcing labor, and doing it primarily with borrowed money. In fact, Bain even sought federal bailout money while Romney was CEO.

    Romney is a vulture capitalist. He wants to privatize the profits and socialize the risks.


    That's actually a better track record than startups. Further, it's also a matter of self selection - look at the companies that Bain took over. Yes plenty of savings through cost cutting, and leverage - how is this in any way a bad thing considering that again, it's about using resources more efficiently?


    Because it's not about "using resources more efficiently", it's about making money for their investors, yes, but primarily for themselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 2:46 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidWe're not debating capitalism but vulture capitalism, so stop conflating the two. Perhaps that works on the Tea Party kids that Romeny and company play tricks on but some of us have studied it and can separate the two.


    The two are the same - that's your problem. When Bain buys out companies it's not as if they are already strong companies to begin with. You accept that some will thrive but some will fail. That's the thing about risk. This is very much to do with the core of capitalism - that you attempt to differentiate the two simply has no basis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 2:49 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidBecause it's not about "using resources more efficiently", it's about making money for their investors, yes, but primarily for themselves.


    You cite 1 in 5 failing - as if this is a bad record. It's not. Yes it's about making money for their investors and themselves through the carry - and what's the problem with that? That's one of the fundamental building blocks of capitalism and markets. If someone could do better they would. You want to use a label of vulture capitalism when the alternative are zombie firms that were already well on their way to crumbling.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 2:50 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWe're not debating capitalism but vulture capitalism, so stop conflating the two. Perhaps that works on the Tea Party kids that Romeny and company play tricks on but some of us have studied it and can separate the two.


    The two are the same - that's your problem. When Bain buys out companies it's not as if they are already strong companies to begin with. You accept that some will thrive but some will fail. That's the thing about risk. This is very much to do with the core of capitalism - that you attempt to differentiate the two simply has no basis.

    They're just going to spin to try and confuse people. And use the term "ideologue" to avoid a debate because Christian is utterly incapable of debating people who know what they are talking about. We'll just have to have all the human interest stories of families whose jobs were saved. We will have to ask about Obama's role as a venture capitalist with Solyndra and GM jobs lost. Much to nail them to the wall on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 2:54 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWe're not debating capitalism but vulture capitalism, so stop conflating the two. Perhaps that works on the Tea Party kids that Romeny and company play tricks on but some of us have studied it and can separate the two.


    The two are the same - that's your problem. When Bain buys out companies it's not as if they are already strong companies to begin with. You accept that some will thrive but some will fail. That's the thing about risk. This is very much to do with the core of capitalism - that you attempt to differentiate the two simply has no basis.

    They're just going to spin to try and confuse people. And use the term "ideologue" to avoid a debate because Christian is utterly incapable of debating people who know what they are talking about. We'll just have to have all the human interest stories of families whose jobs were saved. We will have to ask about Obama's role as a venture capitalist with Solyndra and GM jobs lost. Much to nail them to the wall on.


    As they say... "When they can’t criticize you without misrepresenting what you said, you know you’re winning."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 3:13 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidWe're not debating capitalism but vulture capitalism, so stop conflating the two. Perhaps that works on the Tea Party kids that Romeny and company play tricks on but some of us have studied it and can separate the two.


    The two are the same - that's your problem. When Bain buys out companies it's not as if they are already strong companies to begin with. You accept that some will thrive but some will fail. That's the thing about risk. This is very much to do with the core of capitalism - that you attempt to differentiate the two simply has no basis.

    They're just going to spin to try and confuse people. And use the term "ideologue" to avoid a debate because Christian is utterly incapable of debating people who know what they are talking about. We'll just have to have all the human interest stories of families whose jobs were saved. We will have to ask about Obama's role as a venture capitalist with Solyndra and GM jobs lost. Much to nail them to the wall on.


    As they say... "When they can’t criticize you without misrepresenting what you said, you know you’re winning."


    I'm just going to leave you two boys to your mutual masturbation session where the fantasy that LBOs = capitalism and Bain Capital under Romney was making markets more efficient.

    Y'know, they now advertize Seroquel on the TV. Maybe you should ask your doctor how it can help you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 3:23 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidI'm just going to leave you two boys to your mutual masturbation session where the fantasy that LBOs = capitalism and Bain Capital under Romney was making markets more efficient.

    Y'know, they now advertize Seroquel on the TV. Maybe you should ask your doctor how it can help you.

    That's probably as graceful a way out as you can go. When you discount a renowned professor, decide to completely ignore his points because you label him an "ideologue", you don't have much left. Can't imagine any moderate being swayed by this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 3:45 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidI'm just going to leave you two boys to your mutual masturbation session where the fantasy that LBOs = capitalism and Bain Capital under Romney was making markets more efficient.

    Y'know, they now advertize Seroquel on the TV. Maybe you should ask your doctor how it can help you.

    That's probably as graceful a way out as you can go. When you discount a renowned professor, decide to completely ignore his points because you label him an "ideologue", you don't have much left. Can't imagine any moderate being swayed by this.


    Said professor didn't have any points, just a lot of talking points, and you "discount renowned" professors constantly on here. Do the names Krugman, Harris-Perry and Warren ring any bells for you? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 3:57 AM GMT
    So I wonder how far the Democrats and rivals will want to push this line of "vulture capitalism". Given the mood of the country by November, it could well be his experience in firing people may turn out to be a significant positive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 4:55 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidSo I wonder how far the Democrats and rivals will want to push this line of "vulture capitalism". Given the mood of the country by November, it could well be his experience in firing people may turn out to be a significant positive.


    It's exactly the opposite. Only 1/4 of Republicans even want him so far.