Pundits upset over attacks on Romney's Bain days; reveals the true nature of Capitalism

I listen to talk radio on my way into work every morning and was surpirsed to hear the commentator defending Mit Romney against the attacks of his fellow Republicans based on his profiteering days at Bain Capital.

They were apoplectic that hard core Republicans were attacking "capitalism", calling their attacks un-American and a betrayal of what the party stands for.



They had me laughing because I saw this for what it really was; they are upset because the criticism has shown one of the many ways in which capitalism can be abused.

Capitalism, as practiced in the real world, goes far beyond the private ownership of productive capital. Capitalism as it actually exists includes different forms of corporate ownership, different forms of investment and financing schemes, interest, the acceptance of greed as an objective good, usury, using capital for profit, using capital to prevent competitors from making profit, monopoly, free trade, involvement of the highest levels of government, and a utilitarian view of the worker. Any discussion of Capitalism which reduces the term to the basic definition of the word is unrealistic. In other words, the economic system actually operating under the name Capitalism is very different than the basic definition of the word, and with all due respect to Dr. Waters, what he described as true Capitalism is really a different economic system that also includes the private ownership of capital but actively rejects and prevents unjust practices. For the purpose of debate about our current economic situation, Capitalism must be considered as including all of the views and practices commonly accepted as part of the system.

Distributist Review


What Bain did was to force companies to accept a leveraged buyout; they would find a good productive company with a lot of assets and finance the money needed to buy out the company by borrowing against the assets of the company they had not yet gained possession of. When they aquired that company, the formerly productive and well run business found itself strapped with the debt used by the buyers for the takeover.

The buyers would then use the company's assets to back further loans to buy out other companies until they had sucked the original company dry and walk away with the profits as the original company was forced to declare bankruptcy, close shop and put all its workers out on the streets.

Instead of using a good company as a steady source of profits for years to come, they got greedy, wanting all the profits RIGHT NOW and sucked it dry, leaving the empty shell behind. If you want to know what happened to the American manufacturing sector, the practice of leveraged buy-outs had a lot to do with closing down productive companies on American shores for the enrichment of the wealthy elite.

Conservative pundits call criticism of these practices un-American. I call the wanton destruction of American industry un-American. It is because these practices were allowed to go on during the '80s and '90s that America no longer has a strong manufacturing base or a middle class anymore.

Conservative pundits can't stand the idea of people catching on to what the wealthy elite did to this country in order to gain all of their wealth. They don't want us catching on to the fact that, yes indeed, the rich did gain their wealth by stealing it away from the poor and middle class through leveraged buy-outs and the destruction of American industry for their own short-term gain.

If the American people wake up and learn what has been done to them in the name of "capitalism" God only knows what thay may do.

Not only are conservative pundits upset over these new attacks, now the private equity "industry"(hostile takeover kings) are becoming uncomfortable with the light Romney is casting upon their business tactics.

Private equity trembles over 'vulture' label as Romney rises

An industry that likes operating in the shadows is uncomfortably in the campaign limelight

The titans of private equity have long feared this moment. As Mitt Romney has established himself as the front-runner for the Republican nomination, not only has his record at Bain Capital come under intense scrutiny and withering attacks — but so has the private equity industry.

Mr. Romney’s opponents are the loudest, accusing such firms of carving up companies and cutting jobs. Newt Gingrich said over the weekend that Bain looted companies and fired employees, and Rick Perry on Tuesday called private equity firms “vultures.” An anti-Romney documentary calls him a “predatory corporate raider.”

And if Mr. Romney faces a well-financed Obama re-election campaign, the industry’s top officials know that the president will continue to push the portrayal of Mr. Romney as a fat-cat job-destroying deal maker.

“We were bracing ourselves for this, but we’re not even in the general election yet,” said a senior private equity executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Expect more pain.”

MSNBC

They should be afraid; if the public was more aware of how these scumbags made their living by plundering companies for their own short-term gain, people would be calling for the whole industry to be outlawed, and for good reason.

Romney tries to paint his corporate raiding days as him being in the business of helping out start-ups and (oops!) a few failed along the way. This is disingenuous as helping the start-ups was done through the Venture Capitol side of his investment portfolio (less profitable but it allows him to create the illusion that he was helping business, at least sometimes).

The two faces of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital

There’s Mitt Romney, job-creator, the Bain executive who swooped in to help start-ups become nationally successful enterprises. Then there’s Mitt Romney, job-destroyer: the Bain executive who swooped in to help ailing firms reorganize, lay off workers, and sold them off at a profit — only to have some of them go bankrupt later.

First, there’s venture-capital Romney — the Bain businessman who invested in fledgling start-ups, typically through obtaining a minority stake. This is the version that Romney himself likes to tout on the campaign trail. In his early years at Bain, Romney helped make deals like the $5 million investment sunk into Staples in the 1980s — buying a minority stake that ultimately made Bain $13 million when the office-supply store went public in 1989. Bain was also among a handful of venture-capital firms that helped found the Sports Authority through another minority stakeholder investment.

On the flip side, there’s private-equity Romney — the Bain businessman who pursued corporate buyouts that typically secured majority control of mature firms, helped reorganize them, then sold them off a few years later. These were Romney’s business deals that scored the biggest gains during his time at Bain — and those that were significantly more fundamental to building Bain’s industry-leading reputation than the small venture-capital investments that dominated the early part of his business career. Ten of these private-equity deals produced 70 percent of the dollar gains that Bain made during Romney’s tenure from 1984 until 1999 — or about $1.75 billion in total — as the Wall Street Journal points out.

Washington Post

For an example of how Private equity really works, see this article on How Bain Capital quadrupled its investment in bankrupt KB Toys in just 16 months.

A guy who could justify this type of crap definitely WILL NOT get my vote.

reply to post by FortAnthem


" The buyers would then use the company's assets to back further loans to buy out other companies until they had sucked the original company dry and walk away with the profits as the original company was forced to declare bankruptcy, close shop and put all its workers out on the streets. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The usual Outcome of Corporate Raiding is Not Only the Loss of Capital , but more Importantly , the Loss of Jobs . How can Mitt Romney talk about Job Creation in his Campaign Speeches knowing full and well that his Past is still Around to Haunt him ? Wake Up America , this Guy is a Phoney ! ........

Here's a vid posted by a pro-Newt group showing the effects of Mitts brand of Capitalism.

Don't let the source put you off; its worth watching.

It profiles several of the companies Romney has destroyed over the years and includes interviews with people who were put out of work by this monster.




Romney defenders are quick to point out that a woman's claim that Romney owns 15 homes is inaccurate.

It may be the only inaccuracy in the film but, they jump all over it. BTW they point out he owns ONLY three homes (worth several million each).

See; only 3 mansions under his belt. A real man of the people this guy.

reply to post by FortAnthem


This will mostly be one of the reasons why Romney will drop out of this race, or why he will lose a lot of support...This will come back and get him big time, and there is no dodging it this time Mitt...I can picture his hair turning gray over this, better get another coat of Rogaine before your next television appearance...

This will literally be the Bain"Bane" of his existence...

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

This will mostly be one of the reasons why Romney will drop out of this race, or why he will lose a lot of support...This will come back and get him big time, and there is no dodging it this time Mitt...I can picture his hair turning gray over this, better get another coat of Rogaine before your next television appearance...

This is what Republicans stand for though...by the end of this campaign..they will be cheering about what he did at Bain.

I highly doubt he will drop out over this...he uses it himself as one of his strengths.

Bain also owns clear channel and Premiere Radio Networks.. just keep that in mind...

Originally posted by FortAnthem

What Bain did was to force companies to accept a leveraged buyout; they would find a good productive company with a lot of assets and finance the money needed to buy out the company by borrowing against the assets of the company they had not yet gained possession of. When they aquired that company, the formerly productive and well run business found itself strapped with the debt used by the buyers for the takeover.

I have never understood how this is possibly legal. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

They've been doing it since at least the eighties too...

They call it Vulture capitalism at worst but at least vultures let their prey die naturally. These clowns are more like serial killers.

Originally posted by Jessica6


I have never understood how this is possibly legal. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

Its legal because congress is bought and paid for by lobbyists who keep them from passing even the slightest regulations on the financial sector.