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.
Will **Rand Rover **return to address this? Bets?
Who?
…who?
Dood, it’s hug a fish, then you cry. Have you learned nothing from us?!
Also, replace #4 with mockery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I specifically said that shrinking business was a legitimate reason for layoffs. We can identify several reasons.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Those born to money have no incentive to produce for society and no legitimate right to their inheritance. We agree.
No one here is opposed to capitalism.
A person born rich becoming richer is the hallmark of your respect? And I’m stupid if I’m not in awe of that?
I’m sure Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt and Astor agree with you. I’d love to hear what his employees thought.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, Romney, what a loser. Why, during that same time frame, Obama must have organized several midnight basketball leagues!
Glad you agree!
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.