"The Bain in Pain: Why Romney’s so afraid of talking about what he did at Bain" - Slate

[NRaleighLiberal]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2012/07/romney_and_bain_capital_why_he_s_so_afraid_of_talking_about_what_he_did_at_bain_.html?tid=sm_tw_button_toolbar

"Mitt Romney seems genuinely stunned that President Obama would question the value of his proudest accomplishment, founding and running Bain Capital for 15 years (or maybe a little bit more). To Romney and others who work in finance, it’s self-evident that what private equity firms like Bain do is beneficial to the economy. Private equity firms buy underperforming businesses and restructure them. With new management and investment, some of these firms thrive while others fail. As a result, investment is allocated more efficiently. This is creative destruction in its pure form and if you question it, they say, you must not believe in capitalism.

To Barack Obama and most liberals, it’s no less obvious that there’s something faulty about this model of financial capitalism as it has been practiced over the past 30 years. Leveraged buyouts, which are what private equity firms do, load companies with debt, extract value for middlemen, and displace workers. Heads-I-win, tails-you-lose practices in the financial sector, regulatory loopholes, and tax advantages produce runaway winners like Romney while middle-class workers lose ground. As the gap between economic victims and executioners grows, the resulting society becomes more unequal and unfair.

Both positions in this argument—that Obama doesn’t believe in capitalism, that Romney doesn’t care about workers—are distortions. But after a week of skirmishing, Obama has the upper hand for reasons that go beyond the campaign-season truism that when one guy wields the hammer, the other guy looks like a nail. Here are five reasons why the Obama campaign wants this subject—what Romney did at Bain, when he left, what he had for lunch when he worked there—to stay front and center for as long as possible."

snip

yet another worthwhile read....

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. It was a good read ...

However, I must take issue with one ancilliary (and probably a throw-away) point:

Both positions in this argument—that Obama doesn’t believe in capitalism, that Romney doesn’t care about workers—are distortions.

While there is evidence that President Obama believes in capitalism, even relatively free market capitalism; what evidence is there that romney cares about workers? It seems that every move in the Bain business model was made without regard to the effect on the workers.

I have yet to see a single report where Bain provided severance packages or extended, paid, healthcare coverage for the dislocated workers; I have yet to see where Bain even provided out-placement services for the (non-management) workers of the shuttered businesses.

Face it, Mr. Weisberg, the Bain model, as with all modern business models, has zero regard for the worker.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. Bain could have protected the pension funds of the companies they raided

But they choose to turn that over to the Pension Benefit Guarantee (PBGC) for the taxpayers to pick up the tab. In many cases, only partially. See: AmPad.

He was and is a snake.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. That's my point ...

Where is Mr. Weisberg's evidence that romney cares about the workers?

I guess it can be said that he MAY be concerned about the workers in the same abstract way that a kid cares about ants ... right before he stomps on their trail and floods their mount.

Or as someone here once pointed out:

"romney cares about (workers) the same way a tick cares about the dog."

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. Yep - I was agreeing with you.

[bemildred]

2. This is what comes of believing your own bullshit. nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Hats off to Slate - this was well written!

It’s not clear that private equity—like other forms of financial innovation—is good for America.

Because "Private Equity" isn't "good for America". It is a glorified hedge fund that does hands on investing (as opposed to mere market hedges) that are good for Private Equity. LBOs do not bring benefit to the society (aka, America), they bring benefit to their owners and investors while leeching the life blood out of a society.

We have been in this environment for 30 years, and it has produced nothing but limited wealth in the hands of a few. Thats yer trickle down economics right there - but when you are offshoring the gains, you aren't even trickling any longer.

Paul Krugman has a good article on this today as well - also making the case for a bottom up economics approach which IS good for society/America:

Krugman: Thirty Troubling Years

[beac]

5. K&R for Romney on the run from his record! n/t