Cory Booker's Apostasy

Don Quixote said:
imo, too many venture capitalists are vulture capitalists that do nothing but loot the value of existing companies in the name of 'saving' them

is it any wonder that the u s of a has a shrinking middle class

is it not possible for us companies to compete with foreign businesses without striping workers of their benefits and decent wages

still, much of the blame does reside on us, or as has been said, 'we have met the enemy and he is us'
Click to expand...

I agree, but we can't put the globalization genie back into the bottle. As long as corporations can scan the globe for the cheapest labor, the most lax environmental regulations, etc., the race to the bottom will continue. There is no incentive for them to stay and provide jobs here when they can maximize profit by employing slave labor abroad with no consequences.

Companies used to have to prove that their enterprises served for the good of society in order to obtain a charter. Those days are long gone.
 
Bijou said:
No I don't. You speculate with zero knowledge about how my opinion of Bain was informed. Yours was informed by the right-wing talking points handed out by Fox every day. See? I can do it, too.
Click to expand...

Interesting enough, we can actually verify that Sports Authority benefited from Bain. Whether the originating source was "Fox News" or this board matters little when the information is verifiable.

You can "do it" but you have to be disingenuous to do it. You have formed your opinion either by deliberately maintaining ignorance in the face of information provided that shows your assertions false, or through talking points. Either way matters little to me. They are both equally weak.
 
Damocles said:
Interesting enough, we can actually verify that Sports Authority benefited from Bain. Whether the originating source was "Fox News" or this board matters little when the information is verifiable.

You can "do it" but you have to be disingenuous to do it. You have formed your opinion either by deliberately maintaining ignorance in the face of information provided that shows your assertions false, or through talking points. Either way matters little to me. They are both equally weak.
Click to expand...

Good for Sports Authority. Does that mean that everything Bain Capital touched turned to gold? No, it doesn't. This discussion and my opinion of Bain Capital isn't limited to the actions they took on behalf of one company. There are myriad examples, articles and stats available about Bain and I have read enough of them to have formed an opinion about it, as I assume you have as well. I don't need for you to cite your sources for me and *prove* why your opinion of them is more favorable than mine. You needing *proof* every time someone's opinion differs from yours is what is weak.
 
Bijou said:
Good for Sports Authority. Does that mean that everything Bain Capital touched turned to gold? No, it doesn't. This discussion and my opinion of Bain Capital isn't limited to the actions they took on behalf of one company. There are myriad examples, articles and stats available about Bain and I have read enough of them to have formed an opinion about it, as I assume you have as well. I don't need for you to cite your sources for me and *prove* why your opinion of them is more favorable than mine. You needing *proof* every time someone's opinion differs from yours is what is weak.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

We can, however, see that they are more often successful than they fail simply looking at the companies for which they provided capital. The articles are the talking points I refer to... There is reality we can use to compare with their assertions. Bain could not fail more often than they are successful, not and maintain themselves as a profitable concern.

Tell me, do you fully comprehend what Bain does, what venture capital is, or do you believe as I have read in ignorant talking points that they "buy and take apart companies"?
 
Bijou said:
I agree, but we can't put the globalization genie back into the bottle. As long as corporations can scan the globe for the cheapest labor, the most lax environmental regulations, etc., the race to the bottom will continue. There is no incentive for them to stay and provide jobs here when they can maximize profit by employing slave labor abroad with no consequences.

Companies used to have to prove that their enterprises served for the good of society in order to obtain a charter. Those days are long gone.
Click to expand...

too true, companies used to wonder why employee loyalty went away and employees used to wonder what happened to companies that cared for their employees, one answer is the MBA and associated bean counters that required a healthy profit each quarter rather than accept that markets fluctuate or investing in the future by research would bring a healthy profit in the future
 
Damocles said:
:rolleyes:

We can, however, see that they are more often successful than they fail simply looking at the companies for which they provided capital. The articles are the talking points I refer to... There is reality we can use to compare with their assertions. Bain could not fail more often than they are successful, not and maintain themselves as a profitable concern.

Tell me, do you fully comprehend what Bain does, what venture capital is, or do you believe as I have read in ignorant talking points that they "buy and take apart companies"?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of what Bain Capital does, and the issue isn't their success or failure in that endeavour; on the contrary, their 'success' is contingent upon the success AND/OR failures of those companies they've sought to assist.
 
Bijou said:
Yes, I'm aware of what Bain Capital does, and the issue isn't their success or failure in that endeavour; on the contrary, their 'success' is contingent upon the success AND/OR failures of those companies they've sought to assist.
Click to expand...

Correct, and if those companies failed more often than they were successful after the high risk investment from Bain can you tell me what the result for Bain's bottom line would be?

Their success is contingent on the company being able to pay back their high risk loan. It benefits them when the companies they invest in are successful, and there is a negative result when the companies fail. The assumption that you could make high risk loans and just magically make money on companies that cannot pay it back is just silly nonsense. Even my 8 year old daughter can understand that isn't how it works.
 
Damocles said:
Correct, and if those companies failed more often than they were successful after the high risk investment from Bain can you tell me what the result for Bain's bottom line would be?

Their success is contingent on the company being able to pay back their high risk loan.
Click to expand...

Yes, as in $20.00 for each dollar invested. When their ROI is 2000% as was the case with Ampad, Bain's success is guaranteed, whether the company wins or loses.
 
Bijou said:
Yes, as in $20.00 for each dollar invested. When their ROI is 2000% as was the case with Ampad, Bain's success is guaranteed, whether the company wins or loses.
Click to expand...

Only if they pay back the money. The reality is, the owners of the company choose to make the loan. Again, can you tell me how successful they would be if every company they loaned money to was unable to pay back the loan?
 
Damocles said:
Only if they pay back the money. The reality is, the owners of the company choose to make the loan. Again, can you tell me how successful they would be if every company they loaned money to was unable to pay back the loan?
Click to expand...

The company went bankrupt and had to pay the money back. They were able to enrich Bain 100 million on a 5 million dollar investment by paying Ampad's creditors a 0.002 percent return.

That's how.
 
Azathoth said:
Bijou, care to back up your claims with facts?

Also, attacking Booker for accepting donations from investors is a pretty low blow. It does not make him a "sellout." He is one of the most popular politicians in the US, and for good reason: he's honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker
Click to expand...

No candidate can be a contender with out heavy-hitters financing him. Accepting donations isn't why I'm calling him a sell-out.

Softening his stance on previously-held ethical standards because they don't fit with the crew whose ass he's kissing is what makes him a sell-out.

As for Bain Capital's handling of Ampad and their sweet deal when Ampad went bankrupt, use your google. The facts are all easily accessed that way.
 
Booker is making sure Wall Street knows he'll protect them...it's an FYI for when he runs for congress. He's no democrat he's a bluedog republican like Obama.
 
Bijou said:
The company went bankrupt and had to pay the money back. They were able to enrich Bain 100 million on a 5 million dollar investment by paying Ampad's creditors a 0.002 percent return.

That's how.
Click to expand...

Again, only if they pay the money back. This isn't the only company that they deal with, there is a reason they were considered so high risk that they couldn't negotiate a better term from a bank...

Now can you tell me who was CEO of Bain when the bankruptcy went down? And can you tell me how quickly the company would have been in bankruptcy without the capital they sought and gained from Bain?

Also, do you understand that the company themselves sought this loan, and sought to take these terms because they were extremely high risk and knew it?
 
Damocles said:
Again, only if they pay the money back. This isn't the only company that they deal with, there is a reason they were considered so high risk that they couldn't negotiate a better term from a bank...

Now can you tell me who was CEO of Bain when the bankruptcy went down? And can you tell me how quickly the company would have been in bankruptcy without the capital they sought and gained from Bain?

Also, do you understand that the company themselves sought this loan, and sought to take these terms because they were extremely high risk and knew it?
Click to expand...

seems like the company mentioned had poor management
 
Bijou said:
I already know the difference. That's why I cited that there IS a difference. I don't need your version of an explanation but thanks anyway. Good typing practice for you. :)
Click to expand...

So in other words, you don't know the difference and are now embarrassed to actually discuss the very issue you brought up?

It isn't my 'version'. It is what actually happened. Take a look at Soros more closely. He is known for 'breaking the Bank of England' with the Pound play. He is a speculator plain and simple. His actions helped hammer the poor and middle class when Britain had to devalue. You can ignore that all you want or say that his philanthropy makes up for it... but it doesn't change the fact that he did it.
 
Bijou said:
Destroys livelihoods. Buys businesses and 'restructures' by eliminating jobs.

That's it in a nutshell. Use your google if you want details.
Click to expand...

well... you certainly have the democrats talking points down. Unfortunately for you, that is not what venture capital firms do.

Not even close.
 
Superfreak said:
So in other words, you don't know the difference and are now embarrassed to actually discuss the very issue you brought up?

It isn't my 'version'. It is what actually happened. Take a look at Soros more closely. He is known for 'breaking the Bank of England' with the Pound play. He is a speculator plain and simple. His actions helped hammer the poor and middle class when Britain had to devalue. You can ignore that all you want or say that his philanthropy makes up for it... but it doesn't change the fact that he did it.
Click to expand...

Go look up 'Ampad'. Let me know what you think of the terms of that arrangement with Bain. :)
 
Bijou said:
What SF 'pointed out' doesn't equate to the facts on the ground. How sad that SF's opinion is the beginning and end to the 'enlightenment' you seek.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. That is precisely what Venture Capital firms do. If all they did is come in, run up debt, fire people etc... why would anyone ever loan them money again? You are simply spouting off talking points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top