patrick.net

Government doesn't "create" jobs. It hampers job creation with laws, rules, regulations, statuates, procedures, codes and other oppressive, abusive and needless red tape created and administered by busy bodies and nincompoops.

Common sense, yes. Oppressive and abusive government micro-management, no.

Honest Abe says

Government doesn't "create" jobs. It hampers job creation with laws, rules, regulations, statuates, procedures, codes and other oppressive, abusive and needless red tape created and administered by busy bodies and nincompoops.

Common sense, yes. Oppressive and abusive government micro-management, no.

I've always been curious, where does oppressive and abusive government micro-management start for you? What level of laws, rules, etc. if any are necessary in your judgement or is total anarchy the ideal state? We let the financial industry free of many long standing (oppressive, abusive, red tape) rules and it resulted in one of the worst economic crashes in American history. Should we eliminate all of the rules on the financial industry and see how it works out?

I fully expect another blast of am radio platitudes, but one can always hope for a reasoned answer.

bob2356 says

I fully expect another blast of am radio platitudes

The ignore feature is great for tuning out the Rushbots.

thomaswong.1986 says

No I am a WHITE Native Californian

Wong,

You claim you are a CPA and an investor, now you are claiming to be a white man. Your bullshit never stops, does it? Your comments are proving that you are an idiot and Chinese. That's enough proof to me.

Oh, and are you even aware of the history? The government did start the jobs in Silicon Valley. And don't forget it was US government who put the GPS satellite. If you say GPS didn't create jobs, you just promoted yourself to idiot from imbecile.

Gubmint is always bad. We should go back to the Antebellum South where a few wealthy plantation owners controlled everything. ;-)

A little government help?
The Federal bailout that saved Mitt Romney (Rollingstone.com)

Looks like Romney needed the government far more than the ave. American.

Nobody says

Your comments are proving that you are an idiot and Chinese.

what does my log on name have to do with my identity ?
especially coming from someone else who calls himself "Nobody"...
At least you could have been more creative using "Noah Body"

No! The govt doesnt make anything, they are a customer for many products
that private industries design and create with specific govt "performance" requirements.

American in Japan says

The Federal bailout that saved Mitt Romney (Rollingstone.com)

Bain and Company or Bain Capital was bailed out? Or was it Bank of New England?

If it was BoNE isnt that what the FDIC is supposed to do anyway ?
Its whole purpose to ensure deposits...read some of the comments in the discussions portion of the page.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829#disqus_thread

I quote:
"The first thing they did was cutting cost by laying off workers. Then the 2nd thing what they did was to start selling all machinery, and the last thing they did was selling the walls of plant. Once all these were all completed, then they took profit before filing bankruptcy. This is how Romney accumulated his wealth. He is not a job creator for 12 million Americans. Be aware..." --Globalwatcher

The question remains: job destroyer or job creator?

American in Japan says

The question remains: job destroyer or job creator?

It seems obvious the left wing media (rolling stones) rather only focus on one or two examples yet ignore many other success stories.

Based on their criteria one would have painted entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley as job destroyer as well since only a handful actually make it in the long run.

Laid off around here... who hasnt been laid off, down sized, bankrupted if they worked in Silicon Valley for say the past 20-30 years. Its as common as the changing seasons.

Overall RS takes a pretty immature view of American business. I wouldnt trust what they say.

This is an odd statement made .."then they took profit before filing bankruptcy"... Profits ? you need more color to understand this.. and frankly its up to the Trustee to approve payments made 1 year before the filings as it relates to "related parties".

American in Japan says

Tally of Job Creation By Bain Proves Vexing (Wall Street Journal)

from the article...

"But several other experts said Mr. Abowd's method contained its own flaws, including that it fails to account for the value of guidance offered by Mr. Romney and other Bain executives. A Romney campaign official echoed that criticism, saying the method was an "unorthodox" approach that implied every passive stockholder is a job creator, giving no additional credit to firms such as Bain that actively assist companies in which they invest."

as such there are more than a few example right here in the Bay Area where you have firms who "take no equity position" but collect a fee to turn a company (many start ups) and mature their processes to become viable public companies.

many start ups which are engineering centric and ignore proper selling / accounting staffing and logistics eventually "screw up royally" ... these turn around firms come in and clean things up taking some management responsibility and hire staff in order for client corporations to behave and conduct business in a mature fashion. Example .. create accurate financial statements which will pass an audit which will be used for new round of venture capital, bank lending, possible IPO, or sold to another company. The proper treatment of revenue recognition by various young companies is a big problem around here for younger industries like Electronic Gaming and Social Networking.

Once you clean things up.. you can get funding, growth and more hirings!

>Once you clean things up.. you can get funding, growth and more hirings!

Yes, you could get more, but I doubt you will.

Also Bain Capita; still has a majority share of Sensata :

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=ST+Major+Holders

It seems obvious the left wing media (rolling stones) rather only focus on one or two examples yet ignore many other success stories.

The Rolling Stones article is on the left but look at the others The Wall St. Journal, Rightwingnews.com, etc.

This one at least says there isn't much way of knowing whether Bain resulted in a net gain of jobs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-22/romney-sheds-crocodile-tears-for-exported-jobs-o-malley-says.html

Please provide more sources of these success stories.

So far I am unconvinced..at best it is a zero-sum game and at worst, Romney has profited at the expense of the American worker.

American in Japan says

Looks like Romney needed the government far more than the ave. American.

Socialism for the rich! It's what America is all about.

What do you all think of this story. Be specific please...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829

That's in the Rolling Stone. Any right winger worth his salt will tell you that therefore they get to ignore it, as they do everything else they don't want to hear.

I thought it was interesting. Reminds me a little of some of the stunts DOnald Trump pulled earlier in his career.

True, but the Wall St. Journal isn't exactly left wing (see above).

American in Japan says

What do you all think of this story. Be specific please...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829

or was it Bank of New England... and not Bain. What BAIL OUT or a Bank Take over? Who funds the FDIC ? Tax payers, think again !

Do you really eat up all this BS from the likes of Stephanie Cutter !
These Obama clowns dont have a hour of business education or experience.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-mitt-romney-get-a-bailout-for-bain-and-company/2012/07/24/gJQAvzSh7W_blog.html

The FDIC deals with this problem constantly when it seizes banks, figuring out how it can get the most money out of distressed loans. Changing the terms or reducing the loan is fairly typical, as the FDIC indicates in its Guide to Bank Failure.

The FDIC’s Resolution Handbook also says (page 80):

Restructuring a loan for a financially distressed borrower is normally more productive for the receiver than foreclosing on the collateral or initiating lawsuits to collect the debt. Maximizing recovery on failed institution assets is the receiver’s responsibility, and litigation expenses can very rapidly consume any funds recovered

The FDIC tries to collect as much as possible, but ultimately has to make good on deposits at least up to $250,000. (In the Bank of New England case, the limit was $100,000 at the time, but the agency decided to guarantee all deposits.) But any shortfall is made up through assessments made on FDIC-member banks.

That’s right — no taxpayer money is involved. The FDIC prides itself on not taking taxpayer funds.

greedy Bain Investors.. from Unions to Oprah..

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/look_who_parks_their_cash_at_bain_88KSQrw8BXciEidja2ZQXN#ixzz274M4g6UP

But Bain’s private-equity executives have enriched dozens of organizations and millions of individuals in the Democratic base — including some who scream most loudly for President Obama’s re-election.

Government-worker pension funds are the chief beneficiaries of Bain’s economic stewardship. New York-based Preqin uses public documents, news accounts and Freedom of Information requests to track private-equity holdings. Since 2000, Preqin reports, the following funds have entrusted some $1.56 billion to Bain:

* Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund ($2.2 million)

* Indiana Public Retirement System ($39.3 million)

* Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System ($177.1 million)

* The Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System ($19.5 million)

* Maryland State Retirement and Pension System ($117.5 million)

* Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada ($20.3 million)

* State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ($767.3 million)

* Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System ($231.5 million)

* Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island ($25 million)

* San Diego County Employees Retirement Association ($23.5 million)

* Teacher Retirement System of Texas ($122.5 million)

* Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System ($15 million)

These funds aggregate the savings of millions of unionized teachers, social workers, public-health personnel and first responders. Many would be startled to learn that their nest eggs are incubated by the company that Romney launched and the financiers he hired.

Leading universities have also profited from Bain’s expertise. According to Infrastructure Investor, Bain Capital Ventures Fund I (launched in 2001) managed wealth for “endowments and foundations such as Columbia, Princeton and Yale universities.”

According to BuyOuts magazine and S&P Capital IQ, Bain’s other college clients have included Cornell, Emory, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame and the University of Pittsburgh. Preqin reports that the following schools have placed at least $424.6 million with Bain Capital between 1998 and 2008:

* Purdue University ($15.9 million)

* University of California ($225.7 million)

* University of Michigan ($130 million)

* University of Virginia ($20 million)

* University of Washington ($33 million)

Major, center-left foundations and cultural establishments also have seen their prospects brighten, thanks to Bain Capital. According to the aforementioned sources, such Bain clients have included the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Ford Foundation, the Heinz Endowments and the Oprah Winfrey Foundation.

They may have made money as a benefit, but I am still not convinced that any wealth was created by Bain Capital. On principle I would have to say that I wish they had invested with another company even if it meant slighty lower gains. At least I have been reading the various links (many can't be bothered with more than short soundbites.) Someone eloquently stated that there is a difference between "entrepreneur" and "capitalist".

And then there are the three large toy retailers that Bain Capital bought, leaving only Toys R Us with a near monopoly.

Why does anybody give a shit about Mitt Romney anymore? He will never have any chance at real power again, and just goes back to being a kind of douchey rich guy. There are hundreds of douchey rich guys who also don't matter.

Because the myths of free markets with the corporations will raise their ugly head again...and many will be deceived.

Kevin says

Why does anybody give a shit about Mitt Romney anymore?

Because in every way that matters, he still represents the WORSHIP of the GOP for the FIRE gods. They will fellate anyone who has megabucks and hang on their every word. It matters not which dimwit who lucked into billions in the casino I suppose, but he is the poster boy.

This is hardly news.

Corporate Raiders became acceptable in the 80's so the stigma that it had back then does not apply to today. Now had this been the "Good fight" for all these years, I could understand the distraction.
But it seems to me like Romney has been singled out by the Left as the only person in History to do this. The Left went along with it in the 80's and 90's, because there were Fat middle aged experienced White guys that were getting the Job axe, and for every three of them that got fired. An inexperienced premium example of affirmative action filled their shoes for a fraction of either of their salaries.

It was a fine example of Regan style bipartisanship that fit both agendas.

CaptainShuddup says

Corporate Raiders became acceptable in the 80's so the stigma that it had back then does not apply to today. Now had this been the "Good fight" for all these years, I could understand the distraction.

But it seems to me like Romney has been singled out by the Left as the only person in History to do this.

No. Wrong.

The point is that if you want to claim to be all about service to others and to the country, then that doesn't square well with having been a corporate raider in the past, which is more along the lines of just getting money for yourself and your company, totally at the expense of others.

Americans don't have a problem with selfishness, or with doing work that has no redeeming qualities other than making money.

But if you're running for President, it might be nice if you have a history of personal goals other than just providing for yourself and your family (without regard for who gets harmed in the process).

.thomaswong.1986 says

greedy Bain Investors.. from Unions to Oprah..

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/look_who_parks_their_cash_at_bain_88KSQrw8BXciEidja2ZQXN#ixzz274M4g6UP

But Bain’s private-equity executives have enriched dozens of organizations and millions of individuals in the Democratic base — including some who scream most loudly for President Obama’s re-election.

Why doesn't anybody address this instead of going "yeah, but it's still wrong and they are still jackasses!". I mean sure, if you think you made a mistake all these years then you have the right to change your mind and oppose Bain, but at least admit that you were part of the idiocy that you decry now and give back some if not all the money you made from Bain, maybe to a local charity of sorts. Hypocrites.

American in Japan says

They may have made money as a benefit, but I am still not convinced that any wealth was created by Bain Capital. On principle I would have to say that I wish they had invested with another company even if it meant slighty lower gains. At least I have been reading the various links (many can't be bothered with more than short soundbites.) Someone eloquently stated that there is a difference between "entrepreneur" and "capitalist".

I mostly agree with your assessment, but there are a lot of entities that don't produce anything and make money from it, or make far more than they contribute. If people would have been consequent they would never have invested in such a corporate raider company instead of benefiting from its profits (which is arguably some sort of profit they generated for others, but likely net it may be a zero sum at best like you said).

So much for creating wealth..

FDA and it's internal report from 2007 on fulfilling it's mission: In a nutshell they can't. If anything has significantly changed in 2013, I would be happy to receive that information; having said that, I don't know that there has been any meaningful improvement in the last 6 years.

But "they" seem to do a good job of suppressing info, as even finding this juicy tidbit was a challenge.

AFAIK, the FDA is failing miserably in its stated mission

http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/dockets/AC/07/briefing/2007-4329b_02_01_FDA%20Report%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology.pdf

Nobody says

4. FDA no longer overseas the food safety killing kids and elders who are vulnerable.

Where was the FDA on this?.....Asian shrimp raised on pig feces....Has it stopped yet? Waiting on anyone who can shed light on this topic as I would hope to be better informed

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/asian-seafood-raised-on-pig-feces-approved-for-u-s-consumers.html

Had the misfortune of going to Emory from 1994-1998. It is a place is utterly devoid of school spirit where they were charging 8c for a pat of butter and 15c for cream cheese. This was during the Bill Chace era.

Bain is about making money and Emory makes money off the backs of people hungry for prestige. Seems like liberal democrats and republicans like that equally.

Being a country-fried republican at Emory: automatic outcast

thomaswong.1986 says

According to BuyOuts magazine and S&P Capital IQ, Bain’s other college clients have included Cornell, Emory, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame and the University of Pittsburgh. Preqin reports that the following schools have placed at least $424.6 million with Bain Capital between 1998 and 2008:

They put money into their own pockets at the expense of destroying main street. I don't have good evidence on it, just observation. Home depot killed the neighborhood hardware store and staples killed the mom-and-pop office supply store. I suspect that they made money for their investors at the expense of the aggregate economy

American in Japan says

They may have made money as a benefit, but I am still not convinced that any wealth was created by Bain Capital. On principle I would have to say that I wish they had invested with another company even if it meant slighty lower gains. At least I have been reading the various links (many can't be bothered with more than short soundbites.) Someone eloquently stated that there is a difference between "entrepreneur" and "capitalist".

The people that support the party of the 'corporate raiders' (Usu republican) are also the type of idiots who need to demonstrate their patriotism by putting up a flag on the back of their car. Being a good citizen means generating something worthwhile and adding to the GDP, without parasitizing other areas of economy to do so. And paying fair share of taxes in the process.

Rationalizing corporate raiders: not nearly as patriotic

CaptainShuddup says

Corporate Raiders became acceptable in the 80's so the stigma that it had back then does not apply to today. Now had this been the "Good fight" for all these years, I could understand the distraction.

Not that I'm an Obama fan necessarily, but I love people who thought Romney was a good candidate based on having 'business experience'

marcus says

But if you're running for President, it might be nice if you have a history of personal goals other than just providing for yourself and your family (without regard for who gets harmed in the process).

Not sure that elite universities aren't parasitic in their quest for cash

MMR says

Had the misfortune of going to Emory from 1994-1998. It is a place is utterly devoid of school spirit where they were charging 8c for a pat of butter and 15c for cream cheese. This was during the Bill Chace era.

Bain is about making money and Emory makes money off the backs of people hungry for prestige. Seems like liberal democrats and republicans like that equally.

CaptainShuddup says

Corporate Raiders became acceptable in the 80's so the stigma that it had back then does not apply to today. Now had this been the "Good fight" for all these years, I could understand the distraction.

Lunch with Gordon Gekko? Sure. Hang out at his parties? Sure. Put him in the White House? Fuck no!

There's a difference between having a secret admiration for someone whose principles you despise, and putting a sociopath in charge of foreign policy and nuclear launch codes.

Good insights here distinguishing rentierism from "innovative" capitaism:

How rich moochers ruin America (Salon.com)

The election is over but this problem is worse than ever.