Romney Vulture Capitalist Another Example Of What Is Wrong With Capitalism?

many of these companies were job creators and functioning just fine, they only failed when private equity firms ruined the economy selling bad mortgages

now these same private equity firms furthered what they started by downsizing the companies that they helped to ruin by flipping them for quick profits

romney was managing one

 

I'm not talking about going to 'extremes' of any type. We cannot just throw out the whole/old system. That won't likely happen, unless we are no longer "America".

I'm not one to lose faith in our overall system either. I can see a LOT of places where we go wrong (on both the business AND government sides of things). And anyone who thinks that "capitalism" is THE sole answer... is not looking at reality. At the very least, things MUST be regulated properly. People should not be seen as mere pawns within the system; it is a mistake to view them in that manner. All need a vested interest in the system itself, for it to truly be of good value. Sure, we can/will have the 'wealthy', it's just that the SYSTEM which made them wealthy cannot be seen as something which others should NOT benefit SIGNIFICANTLY from.

That is, if someone must be worth $20B (instead of $24B), that we may have a decent healthcare system... SO BE IT. But this notion that one is never wealthy-enough, and as a result of some misguided ideology (like a BAD religion) they ravage/pilfer the literal ability of others to make a decent/fair living... needs to be 'mitigated' (and that is happening, right now). The political conversations have turned significantly from the petty silliness of blaming "Obama" for what's going on... to the financial SYSTEM itself; and that discussion won't end any time soon (thank God).

For a time, yes. Still, those wealthy people do not exist in a vacuum. What they've reaped from, is also that which they must invest in. As popular as it is for some to say, you don't get something for nothing... it would be beyond wise for those who are hyper wealthy to realize and accept that the SAME applies to them.

Actually, considering what I've seen of government and of corporations... I WANT government to be STRONGER than corporations. Any entity or machine with that much power, that can't come anywhere near serving the individuals it makes use of (as corporations tend to resemble), isn't something that I want a particularly weak government going up against. That is, if the PEOPLE are the "government"... then we have more of a say in how our lives are lived. I don't see corporations even THINKING about setting up something like that. In essence, the MOST WEALTHY people will have the MOST POWER; they will rule kingdoms, determined by profit and accumulation of wealth itself. They will be concerned with little else; that is what we are witnessing right before our eyes with MANY corporations today.

Government isn't perfect... but I'd say it's a better entity than a business tends to be over time.

If the average citizen is not allowed some reasonable amount of economic autonomy, then there is little interest in maintaining even things that are truly 'valuable'. Once the masses realize that playing along with a given system doesn't even contribute to their very survival... serious unrest will likely be the end-result. And amidst destruction of the type that is possible, within a nation which has turned upon itself is desperation and despair.

Some who are very wealthy, are too short-sighted to see that what I'm extrapolating via good common sense... would likely visit their doorstep. Most reasonable people realize that what I'm pointing out here, is at least very probable... if the masses seek to correct injustices OUTSIDE of the system we presently have in place; there would most likely be violence (of some sort). Many would lose their wealth, as it has been taken or destroyed by the unrest they SHOULD have seen coming.

Look, this is all an OLD OLD story; one doesn't have to be a great economic, political or social scholar to see these things are more than possible (even likely). And personally, I do get tired of warning the "smart" conservatives around me... but I find myself doing that, because I see how DRAWN they are to the promise of lopsided-benefits, garnered in a SYSTEM which disproportionately affords economic ADVANTAGES to the most wealthy (who need them far less), than the working guy (90+% of Americans) who need a simple hand up from time to time.

Has anyone noticed, that the term "job creator", should actually become "profit generator"? Sure, some jobs stem from a business making a profit, but we know beyond the shadow of a doubt... that helping Americans to find work and survive (getting/holding employment) is certainly NOT what businesses and corporations are above. No, they aren't "job creators"; not really.

 

capitalisms goal should be to better the nation because that is the market its profiting from

what these equity firms do is pilage the market and sap it dry of wealth for itself they do not better the economy or the nation

the government should regulate them so they cannot invest in companies specifically to downsize them for profits but to invest to build them through innovations and risk so that they can grow and create more jobs

 

If you have govt. regulate investment you put the U.S. govt. in the position of choosing the winners and losers in the U.S. economy.

As we saw with Solyndra and many, many other places, that seldom works well because the U.S. federal govt. officials don't have a direct financial interest in the outcome and thus have little incentive to make good, factually based decisions.

 

yes government does have an interest in the outcome as successful companies pay the most taxes

allowing government to pick or at least influence winners and losers with taxation legislation will help create a more efficient market

 

Yeah so Romney is supposed to run a bankrupt business so other people can make money... makes a lot of sense.

 

For that leap you need to provide evidence that the government has any real ability to pick "winners and losers".

 

Romney and people like him, ought not be able to do what he did. It's a matter of changing the type of people we elect, so that the laws ultimately enacted lead to better results for the majority of people in this nation. Getting "rich" is fine; but getting there just ANY kind of way imaginable... isn't truly acceptable.

Romney is hardly a friend to America IMO.

 

I'm sure all the people condemning Romney in this thread and elsewhere can list a number of venture capitalists and other wealthy people and organizations that are willing to invest large amounts of money in failing businesses and keep all their employees working at all costs.........

 

What's wrong with capitalism is that is owns governments, and people think that more governance or banker-bought (Obamas) will fix the problem.

 

"Venture (Viper) Capitalism" ought not be allowed, in general; not the FORM of it that Romney and others are allowed to carry out. It's poison period. America doesn't NEED that kind of capitalistic-excrement.

Romney is merely the most familiar face (representation) of what we're discussing; surely there are many like him. And that is exactly why looking at what he has done, ought to be focused-upon and illuminated for all of this nation to see. Romney is only the amazingly-visible 'tip' of that whole evil iceberg.

 

I agree; yet we can only change the nation over time. As an African American who grew up during the Civil Rights Era, I can tell you that persistence and diligence is what it will ultimately take.

There are no quick-fixes for these economic problems the nation faces.

 

he is suppose to take risk with his capital and build that business so that it can grow and create jobs not fire people so he can fatten his pockets

it requires a bit of work but he and other firms like this make a quick buck taking the easy way and send someone on welfare

 

So.

Your idea of what a capitalist SHOULD do is to RISK millions of HIS OWN MONEY just so he can POSSIBLY create jobs for someone else?

Life doesn't work that way.

I wouldn't spend hundreds of my own money. Much less thoiusand or if I had it millions just to create jobs for other people.

You do realize don't you that the more money you risk with an investment that the greater the returns on that investment you are supposed to reasonably expect to make back?

If you risk millions of dollars, then you had better be expecting millions in profits.

 

Your claims about Romney's record @ Bain are false.

 

And this is why you and people who think like you will never run a successful business.

If a worker isn't being productive he needs to be let go. If they are not an asset to a company... they need to be let go.

The whole point of having workers is to enhance the product you are providing, not diminish it.

 

Sadly a principle missed by far too many people.

 

The problem is that a very small fraction of a % of the population, have manipulated the situation to this stage. Our world relies upon their premise, but it does not necessarily mean that it has to be this way.

The people who've been pursuaded by the world's rich that this is the best option, will only realise their mistake when they themselves are impacted by this. And it's in the post, coming their way.

 

You do know that the prime investor in Bain was a guy from South America.

So the money flow goes:

1. US dollars in US economy.
2. US dollars to another country.

He actually helped the decline of the US; quite the patriot you got there - running for POTUS.

 

no. its not anything wrong with capitalism. you are extremely misinformed. it's whats wrong when you combine socialism with greedy people like mitt romney. what i mean is that bain received bailouts...government sponsored subsidies to do what they did.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...is-bain-capital-received-millions-in-bailouts

hes an unethical bastard, and the fact that anyone would vote for him makes my stomach turn. this is what happens when you allow the left wing liberal welfare state to run amok and destroy the free market. people lose their jobs and have to start their lives all over again.

 

You're using the publication of The John Birch Society as a source?

I remember when they were denouncing President Reagan as a closet liberal

 

You have to understand global politics to understand why the JBS would consider Reagen a liberal. All our modern presidents support globalization, which means they are neoliberals. Yes, establishment republicans and democrats differ as to some in house policy, mainly social legislation, but in the grand scheme of things they are nearly identical. They all support free trade, interventionism, central planning, the U.N., NATO, WTO, etc. The John Birch Society firmly believes in sticking to original American principles. This puts them highly against the FED and any global entity. Good Americans, though the mainstream programming I'm sure makes someone who doesn't do their own research hesitant to trust them.

 

Are you a JBS member Dr. R? I'm thinking about signing up. Something I never saw myself doing with anything, but being so adamantly against globalization and the FED makes me want to.

 

You are absolutely correct! Many of the greedy manipulators (within the 1%)... won't feel it, until it hits their pockets (it likely can/will in due time).

 

I do not grant folk with their hands out the power to define 'fair'...Without capitalism there is no serious money (or freedom) and everyone suffers.