Mr. Romney, just what in the fuck ARE you responsible for?

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

When the recession ended, demand went up, and all the other automakers that had laid off a bunch of people had to scramble to hire new employees to meet demand. Volkswagen already had those employees ready and took advantage, increasing significantly its market share in Europe and notably for the first time in many years Volkswagen is becoming a much bigger player in the United States. Volkswagen could actually become the world's biggest automaker in the next ten years.

Oh, wow. Here I thought it had something to do with a reputation for high quality products and the highest non-hybrid mpg ratings in both gas and Diesel engines. OH, and they're coming out with "the first compelling alternative to the Toyota Prius."

Silly me, their growth is because the German government forced their German sites to retain workers in the face of a relatively stable ride through the 08 global crash.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Why don't you ask Bain and Romney? He was described in their SEC filings as Bain's "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president" until 2002.

Which I've already posted, and you've already ignored once.

The claim you sneer at is not the OP's. It is Bain's.

Will Rand Rover return to address this? Bets?

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by RickJay

The guy has Forgettable Election Loser written all over him. You cannot help but think of Dole, Kerry, Mondale and the like...

Who?

Originally Posted by RickJay

...when you look at Mitt Romney.

...who?

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Well, it sure beats the liberal playbook:

1. Refute basic economic fact.

2. Denounce everyone else as trolling and being too mean to debate with.

3. Cry / hug a fish / etc

4. Smugly proclaim victory.

Unlike them, I haven't said one thing in contradiction to economic reality.

Dood, it's hug a fish, then you cry. Have you learned nothing from us?!

Also, replace #4 with mockery.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Venture capital sometimes implodes otherwise good businesses, from my readings about Bain I feel more often than most VC firms Bain actually left struggling firms in better shape than they found them when they sold them off. A VC isn't responsible for what happens once they no longer own the company. However, one of the great things about capitalism is it more efficiently distributes capital, and to that ends even when VCs essentially implode a company, that's not necessarily bad. A poorly performing company represents a large amount of capital improperly deployed, imploding it at a profit can be thought of as the equivalent of blowing up a beaver dam to restore water flow.

I'd say that Bain investing in new companies wishing to expand is a VC function. Taking a company and spinning it isn't. VCs are actually interested in the reasonably long term health of a company.
Now, you are right that they aren't responsible, (so Romney shouldn't take credit for job creation after Bain got out) - except when they left the company in such a state that it was not financially viable after any downturn. If you suck the blood out of a person, you can't disclaim responsibility when he collapses in the street just because he was moving when he left your office.

I'm not entirely defending all VC activity, Bain certainly was engaged in some of what I'd call LBO shop behavior which often is indicative of pure corporate raiderism.

Which is what is in question. The real VC activity is job creating, no doubt about it, but doesn't appear to be where Bain made its money.

Companies should not keep jobs here if it does not make economic sense, expecting them to or trying to force them to is foolish and destructive.

I'm arguing for a better more global measure of what makes economic sense - which puts a company in its environment, not as if it were in isolation.

Why? It's not the job of private industry to pay for vaguely defined "costs to the community" as a consequence of their business decisions. When a company commits a tort or despoils common goods like the environment or the road system they owe the community compensation. But there is no common right to be employed or have a certain number of employed persons in a community. This foolish line of thinking would justify a competitive company that comes into a region and puts an uncompetitive company out of business being forced to pay for the people whose jobs they have destroyed. That's against the interests of society as it would lead to a grossly inefficient economic system.

Companies are part of the community also. A community with high unemployment is just as spoiled as one that is polluted. Now I'm not saying that companies should be prevented from firing people - just that the cost savings must take into account social costs, since they are part of society.
Companies are big fans of tax breaks to bring jobs into a community. They should not complain of the inverse situation.

Due to certain performance metrics used to determine CEO pay you do have companies that make short-term decisions to maximize executive compensation. This is a real problem, but I think people overestimate how much of that is at the root of layoffs. Companies that live on short term decisions like that are rarely successful in the long term, and lots of layoffs are done by companies that have been in business for decades who have no other choice due to the business climate. Employees are an important resource, and while all CEOs put it optimistically, it is rarely the case that the long term value of the company is increased by mass layoffs. Instead, it is most often done because the company's business is shrinking and the company will die if it doesn't scale back operations.

I specifically said that shrinking business was a legitimate reason for layoffs. We can identify several reasons.
1. Shrinking business
2. Gross inefficiency. Not much of a reason any more, it was 30 years ago.
3. Cost savings through outsourcing. This is where the economic cost of the decision on the community needs to be considered.
4. Short term improvement of the bottom line. When the division is to be sold off, no one cares about the long term. The suckers who buy it can worry about that.
I'd say number 4 is where Romney operated.

[Sitnam]

I really do believe Martin Hyde's post is a cogent Republic position and perhaps deserves a better thread to debate it in, but what the hell.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Barack Obama thinks the way forward is to subsidize American manufacturers with special tax breaks, and to mumble vague rhetoric about the evils of outsourcing.

Conservatives and liberals want tax breaks, its who their constituents currently believe the burden is disproportionately applied to that is of concern. I'm not sure how the anti outsourcing rhetoric is vague, it is clear the US is losing jobs. When will we gain them back and how? I notice Disney is not copacetic with services and material equivalent to it's own being produced elsewhere, if net product for less money is the zenith of a capitalist that issue should be a no-brainer for Republicans. And yet it isn't. Understandably, who would want their revenue outsourced?

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Bain Capital lead to productivity increases at Staples, which lead to some people losing their jobs. Especially overpriced local distributors and sellers of office equipment. But the beneficiaries were every other company that used office supplies, cheaper office supplies made those companies more productive which created far more jobs.

We agree that a managers first responsibility is to the health of the company as a whole, it's where the break point is between board members and pensioners that is in contention.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Religion is for the stupid and the weak, but if anyone is to worship something they should worship capitalism, unlike the false godhead of Christianity that has never done a single positive thing in history, capitalism delivers.

It is a force. No doubt. But not necessarily for good. Free market capitalism is a shinning beacon for Republicans as a driving light to prosperity. Here's a lesson is how Stand Oil worked the free market system:

Standard Oil sells barrels at $3 to states A,B,C. It takes $1 to make a barrel so Startup LLC joins the market to sell theirs at $2 in state A. In response Standard Oil sells barrels to B and C at $3.50 and A at $.90, lower than the cost to produce it driving Startup LLC out of business, later raising prices to recoup the costs it incurred.

All of this is free market which has nothing to do with the best/most efficiently produced product winning.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Capitalism has delivered more people from squalor, poverty, and desperation than all the worthless idiots in the Peace Corps and such combined and multiplied over a thousand times.

Technology has done that. In your description the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism seem to be the same or at least intertwined. Capitalism existed before that with it's roots even before Mercantilism. Getting the best value in exchange for your produce wherever you can isn't rocket science.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

Further, capitalism has produced liberty. For over a thousand years aristocratic ancient regimes which had controlled all power through their control of the land had gone essentially unchallenged. Everywhere capitalism took root the aristrocrats power was destroyed and it has never recovered. The old aristrocrats were inefficient, lazy, and unproductive, capitalism allowed those who could more efficiently operate to generate greater and greater shares of societal wealth. The aristocrats were bankrupted, and with their wealth went their power. In their place arose democratic systems of government, which while not perfect, proceeded to increase liberty perpetually from that time until now.

Those born to money have no incentive to produce for society and no legitimate right to their inheritance. We agree.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

People that are opposed to capitalism are essentially embracing human misery, death, and absolutism. To me, that makes them essentially "enemies of mankind" and the worst, most abominable monsters around.

No one here is opposed to capitalism.

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

I admire Mitt Romney's ability to run a business and become wealthy. Anyone who doesn't admire that in general is stupid.

A person born rich becoming richer is the hallmark of your respect? And I'm stupid if I'm not in awe of that?

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

What I know is this, Romney believes in capitalism which is the only true engine of human prosperity. Obama does not, and thus Obama is an unacceptable demon who should be driven from his position lest he enslave us further with poverty and desperation.

I'm sure Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and Astor agree with you. I'd love to hear what his employees thought.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

No one here is opposed to capitalism.

Not true. Evil Captor expressed appreciation for socialism, MrDibble is an anarchist, there are a few anarchosyndicalists and I'm sure Martin Hyde would class anyone with a Keynesian, state capitalist or democratic socialist bent as opponents of capitalism.

[pikey pete]

All I know is that the McCain campaign rejected Romney after looking at his tax returns, and instead went with PALIN. that has to say something.

[pikey pete]

Oh, and after reading this thread, I also know that Martin Hyde, while quite articulate, is a mouthpiece for conservative rhetoric. I applaud him for his well spoken repetition of failed policies. Maybe he needs to study up on what a 'robber baron' is.

[a35362]

Originally Posted by pikey pete

All I know is that the McCain campaign rejected Romney after looking at his tax returns, and instead went with PALIN. that has to say something.

I think Game Change said the McCain people realized that between the two of them, McCain and Romney owned about 15 homes, and Romney was never really seriously considered after that. I don't think it said anything about his taxes, although that may have been a consideration as well.

[Hyperelastic]

Yeah, Romney, what a loser. Why, during that same time frame, Obama must have organized several midnight basketball leagues!

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by Hyperelastic

Yeah, Romney, what a loser.

Glad you agree!

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I'm sure Martin Hyde would class anyone with a Keynesian, state capitalist or democratic socialist bent as opponents of capitalism.

That isn't a failing of them, but of Martin.

The thing is, there's not necessarily a relationship between being for capitalism and being against government. You can be for both. It's perfectly possible to have a capitalist society with a strong government and good regulation. The government creates the playing field and the rules, and the corporations set out to earn points based on those rules. Unfortunately the people who think it's okay and right to be able to jam an elbow into an opponent's eye with the justification that earning more points indicates the virtue of said act are loud, currently organized, and are trying to push the ref off the field.

Capitalism without government is anarchy or libertarianism, but capitalism with government is still capitalism.