Bain Capital is Most Unethical Business in America (Iran, illegal, Pelosi)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is what ALL the business schools hammer into their students. Bottom line. Bottom line. Over and over. As a poster mentioned last week this monomaniacal behavior would be considered psychotic in a person. Unfortunately managers are being trained to be monomaniacal psychotics with only one goal. That goal is to maximize profits for the owners.
Bain Capital is one such company that had the good fortune to hire an already psychotic manager. They and he made huge amounts of money destroying the futures of countless employers and previous investors. Their goals were to transfer as much wealth from the many to the few and they succeeded very well. Most of the victims are still suffering from the financial beating they took from these thieves.
Other consideration associated with corporations as people would be, in addition to Free Speech, are corporations now limited by criminal law that applies to people. If I deliberately harm another person I have committed a felony assault. Are corporations now held to the same standard? If one corporation deliberately or even inadvertently harms or kills another corporation has the first corporation committed an assault or murder? I would have to conclude that it has because it is now a person.
The Supreme Court granted corporations a great deal of freedom but did it also burden them with even more responsibility?
I'm sure you wont have any problem then listing these companies where they have such a history.
Here you go:
UniMac
KayBee Toys
DDI
AmPad
By the way I have no problem what Bain did. The do what private equity firms do.
Turning a profit and paying their shareholders no matter what.
It's called free-market capitalism.
That is what ALL the business schools hammer into their students. Bottom line. Bottom line. Over and over. As a poster mentioned last week this monomaniacal behavior would be considered psychotic in a person. Unfortunately managers are being trained to be monomaniacal psychotics with only one goal. That goal is to maximize profits for the owners.
Bain Capital is one such company that had the good fortune to hire an already psychotic manager. They and he made huge amounts of money destroying the futures of countless employers and previous investors. Their goals were to transfer as much wealth from the many to the few and they succeeded very well. Most of the victims are still suffering from the financial beating they took from these thieves.
Other consideration associated with corporations as people would be, in addition to Free Speech, are corporations now limited by criminal law that applies to people. If I deliberately harm another person I have committed a felony assault. Are corporations now held to the same standard? If one corporation deliberately or even inadvertently harms or kills another corporation has the first corporation committed an assault or murder? I would have to conclude that it has because it is now a person.
The Supreme Court granted corporations a great deal of freedom but did it also burden them with even more responsibility?
"But the evidence suggests that the stereotype of private equity as destroyer of jobs is perhaps overblown. A National Bureau of Economic Research working paper looks at what happens to employment after the buyouts of 3,200 companies that took place between 1980 and 2005. It turns out that Gingrich was at least partly right about the effects that Bain Capital and its ilk have on jobs. The study examines the payroll at the factories, offices, and stores at each buyout target before and after the takeover. The authors find that employment at these establishments falls by about 6 percent in the five years following the ownership change—the result of plants being shuttered, and layoffs at the ones that remain open—relative to employment changes at a comparison set of companies. However, these losses are almost—but not quite—offset by new jobs created after the takeover by building new factories, offices, and stores, or acquiring them from other companies.
The authors calculate that there’s still a net loss of jobs, but it’s only about 1 percent. And they point out that the much higher rate at which PE-run companies shutter or downsize some factories while opening or expanding others may be a reflection of efforts to create efficiencies that make the companies more profitable and (perhaps) make America a richer country".
Also, why don't the SELLERS of failing companies get a bad rap?
Shouldn't the original owners of these companies make a commitment to keep their doors open (and retain all their workers) even if they can't figure out a way to make a profit?
But, then when failure becomes inevitable, all the employees lose their jobs. How is that good for a community?
IMO Solyndra is way more controversial. Any monies Bain may have lost was private equity, on the other hand Obama bet BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to help his donors, and the company flopped. Talk about crony capitalism, eh?
Makes you wan't to puke when the Obama campaign's platform is to demonize Bain and Romney while the Solyndra debacle is hanging around their neck.
PLEASE, LET'S GET THIS GUY OUT OF OFFICE. OUR COUNTRY CAN'T TAKE ANOTHER FOUR YEARS.
That is what ALL the business schools hammer into their students. Bottom line. Bottom line. Over and over. As a poster mentioned last week this monomaniacal behavior would be considered psychotic in a person. Unfortunately managers are being trained to be monomaniacal psychotics with only one goal. That goal is to maximize profits for the owners.
Bain Capital is one such company that had the good fortune to hire an already psychotic manager. They and he made huge amounts of money destroying the futures of countless employers and previous investors. Their goals were to transfer as much wealth from the many to the few and they succeeded very well. Most of the victims are still suffering from the financial beating they took from these thieves.
Other consideration associated with corporations as people would be, in addition to Free Speech, are corporations now limited by criminal law that applies to people. If I deliberately harm another person I have committed a felony assault. Are corporations now held to the same standard? If one corporation deliberately or even inadvertently harms or kills another corporation has the first corporation committed an assault or murder? I would have to conclude that it has because it is now a person.
The Supreme Court granted corporations a great deal of freedom but did it also burden them with even more responsibility?
Nice talking points for the uninformed. You're gonna have to do better than that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
