Aaron Goldenberg wrote a brief article in American Thinker titled “Mitt Romney and the Hypocrisy of Bain Capital” In it Mr. Goldenberg makes a very good point:
“Mitt Romney was NOT primarily a venture capitalist. A venture capitalist invests in early-stage businesses with the hope that they grow and prosper. These early-stage businesses are often risky investments. Though most ultimately fail, some succeed spectacularly making the risks worthwhile. Apple Computer and Google are two such examples. This is what Mitt Romney means when he says some investments succeed and some fail.
By contrast, Mitt Romney was primarily what is affectionately known as a vulture investor. Bain Capital invested in failing companies with the intention of either restructuring their business or stripping the business and selling its assets. This business model often adversely affects a company’s employees. To be fair, if the company had gone bankrupt on its own, that would have adversely affected the company’s employees too. The question Republican primary voters need to ask themselves is not whether Mitt Romney did anything illegal or immoral. In a climate of near 10% unemployment, do Republicans want a vulture investor to be the face of their party?”
There is a good way to make money and a not so good way to make money. Both are legal. Venture Capitalist, and Vulture Capitalist. The idea of one is to profit by backing a new venture early and profiting off it as it grows. The other is scouting out a failing company that has three ways to pay off:
1) Through restructuring it becomes profitable.
2) Assets are liquidated and the profit comes from the liquidation.
3) Restructure the company so that it is able to borrow massive amounts of cash, profit off the influx of borrowed funds, cash out, and let others deal with the debt after you have made your money.
Its all legal, its all Capitalism. But can one honestly say to themselves that all of the means to make money off a company are equal in the eyes of the voter?
Another question I have seen being contemplated on various blogs but Mr.Riehl on his blog Riehl World View answers it easily:
“Sorry, I do not have to respect that person’s values as a candidate for POTUS, no more than I might if he ran strip clubs, or peep shows, or abortion clinics, because maybe they would pay off big time, too. Just because I am able to respect Romney as a great capitalist does not mean I must accept his values in exercising his acumen as one, now that he seeks to be my president.”
What if Staples had been a company that mass produced pornography and Bain Capital turned it back into a profitable company? Would conservatives still praise Romney for this capitalist venture or would you condemn it? Would they just ignore it?
This issue is not as cut and dry as some want to make it. By now if you have not figured out that “Mitt Romney” is about to be synonymous with “Gordon Gekko” conservatives are very mistaken.
Watch for videos of Mitt Romney with these words streaming below his image.
“I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them!
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed — for lack of a better word — is good.
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms — greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind.
And greed — you mark my words — will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.”
Gordon Gekko, “Wall Street” (1987)
How far down on your personal scale of potential choices is Mitt Romney?
Here’s a dating compatibility quiz you can take to rank your mates:
http://www.votingaid.com/start/usa2012.html
Mitt was not on top of my final score, but he wasn’t at the bottom.
Ron Paul was.
Try it yourself.
@Nan G: Interesting website! I wonder about the weighting, though. I would never vote for Ron Paul because of his suicidal foreign non-policy ideas, yet he came out as my supposed first choice. I played around with some of the slide bars, though, and found that if I strongly agreed (which I don’t) that: “It is within the rights of the President to order an assassination of a U.S. citizen if he or she is engaged in terrorist activities.”, then Ron Paul would drop several notches.
So any bets on whether this site is a secret Paulbot site?
@John Cooper:
I don’t think the weighting is crucial, JC.
I noted that, no matter how I take the quiz, weighing it light or heavy, as long as I am honest, there is less than 10% points between my agreement with Santorum, Gingrich, Romney and Perry.
BUT way down at the bottom, more than 20% points away are both Huntsman and then down 10% more, Paul.
The main difference is are my highest numbers in the 90′s or the 70′s.
If one strongly disagrees with “U.S. troops should be brought home from Afghanistan sooner than currently planned”, Ron Paul goes way down.
John Huntsman just dropped out.
He has endorsed Romney.
Nan G
it must be for their pocket book. why else
a fix for his future.
No surprise he’s throwing his three supporters to Romney. What is surprising is he’s not even waiting for the SC primary.
Pingback: Romney-Santorum [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces
Bain Capital, Gordon Gekko…none of this will make any difference. Every brainwashed liberal already knows that ALL republicans are evil capitalists. The Independents will vote for “Hope and change they can believe in after 4 years of failed policies”. Har-de-har-har, Obama. Say hello to President Mitt Romney.
I would think that a “vulture capitalist” would be the exact perfect person to take the reins of this government. He could strip off the non-profitable agencies, and keep the profitable agencies while streamlining the whole thing.
Smaller government anyone?