If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Romney calls attack ad about a steel mill that Bain Capital closed down "really off target" because they hadn't finished looting the mill until after he left "so that's hardly something that should be on my watch"   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 186
    More: Interesting, Bain Capital, Stephanie Cutter, Blackstone Group  
•       •       •

983 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2012 at 12:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-17 03:56:20 PM

guestguy: Yes, Romney is badong.


I guess he has that in common with kim kardashian
 
2012-05-17 04:07:35 PM

9beers: mrshowrules: You don't get it. At best, Bain/Romney were vulture capitalists that dismantled a company that was failing anyways.

You don't get it, Bain bought GST along with other companies in hopes of building them into stronger, more profitable businesses in hopes of making a shiatload of money. When the steel market crashed, GST was the one targeted for closure because of their outdated equipment and ridiculous union contracts.


You must be a wizard.
 
2012-05-17 04:12:31 PM

mrshowrules: You must be a wizard.


Yes, they spend millions buying a company then dumped millions more into it all so they could screw some overpaid union employees out of a pension. I mean that's what you're claiming right?

Take some time to read up on the steel industry in the US over the past 20 years or so and you might learn a few things that change your mind.
 
2012-05-17 04:24:15 PM

9beers: clambam: Bain Capital tactics reflect a similar attitude: not smart enough/lucky enough to have been born independently wealthy? The rich and by extension the government are within their right to exploit you fully, then discard what's left.

What does an under performing company being closed down have to do with being born well off? How is anybody being exploited if they happen to work for that under performing company and lose their job when it closes? If you were a business owner, would you keep two businesses open when you could close one, grow the other and end up making more money as a result?


If that's how you feel, you should definitely vote for Romney. The issue as I understand it is that many if not most of the companies Bain took over were deemed to be "underperforming," loaded down with debt, stripped of their assets and discarded. Bain seems to have developed a business model in which, no matter what eventually happens to the companies they purchase, the Bain investors always walked away with a healthy profit, to the detriment of the companies' owners and employees. That might be smart business but one has to wonder if the best interests of the people involved were looked after and whether the Bain investors were treating their investments less as a responsibility to be shepherded and more as a victim to be sacrificed.
 
2012-05-17 04:29:49 PM

9beers: Yes, they spend millions buying a company then dumped millions more into it all so they could screw some overpaid union employees out of a pension. I mean that's what you're claiming right?

Take some time to read up on the steel industry in the US over the past 20 years or so and you might learn a few things that change your mind.


That's what I'm claiming. What Bain did, they bought and leveraged the company to the hilt with debt, then sucked the pensions and unions dry and eventually closed the KC plant without reinvesting in that plant, as part of the inevitable backruptcy. But meanwhile they took out 35 million in dividends which they gave back to Bain. That's not reinvestment, that's picking the last shreds of meat off the corpse.
 
2012-05-17 04:32:38 PM

9beers: spend millions buying a company then dumped millions more into


citation please?
 
2012-05-17 04:39:05 PM

clambam: The issue as I understand it is that many if not most of the companies Bain took over were deemed to be "underperforming," loaded down with debt, stripped of their assets and discarded.


And that just goes to show how misinformed people are on this. Private equity firms buy companies in order to build them up and sell them off at a profit. In buying those companies, sometimes you're going to end up with a turd that needs to be flushed. The steel industry has gone through rough times in recent years and a lot of companies have gone out of business and GST probably would have failed even faster had Bain not tried saving it. The steel industry was in a lot of trouble at the time GST was failing, mostly because of cheap imported steel flooding the country. When you start looking at their outdated equipment and ridiculous union contracts, it' not a surprise that they didn't make it.

Fun tidbit, I've worked in the steel industry for the past 15 years and the company I worked for last was bought by a private equity firm and merged with another steel company that they owned. They've since sold it and moved on to their next money making venture. What's funny is they sold the entire corporation to the original owner of the company I worked for. That owner recently bought another steel company with the sole intent of absorbing its customer base and shutting them down. That's the way businesses work, like it or not.
 
2012-05-17 04:49:22 PM

mrshowrules: 9beers: spend millions buying a company then dumped millions more into

citation please?


They didn't dump their own money in. They had the company sell more bonds.

Look, the fact is that Bain didn't really care what happened to the companies. I'm sure they tried to turn some of them around. I'm sure some reinvestments were made - at some plants. I'm sure some of these plants from a bird's eye view were always strategically intended to be closed, and so little or no improvements were made to them. And I'm sure plenty of people got hurt by Bain's greed.

I'm sure in other instances Bain really did create jobs and companies did very well for themselves. Bain's consulting services are probably staffed by very bright newly-minted MBAs who generally have the interest of their clients in mind.

BUT...make no mistake Bain was doing it mostly for the quick return, and didn't care at all if the companies they bought had to file Chapter 11 a few years later. Now, from a pure capitalistic perspective, this is the whole greed is good model - Romney is in the mode of Gordon Gekko. I mean seriously the movie Wall Street is basically this steel plant.

But Romney and Bain were not doing it for the good of the people working there. They didn't care about creating jobs. They didn't care about pensions, or retirement, or the people who go to work every day. Not everyone can be the CEO of their own company. And to me, that's what government's job really is, in my estimation. To look out for the jobs of everyone, to look out for the retirement and welfare of the country.

That's the distinction Obama's trying to make with these videos, and that's the choice we are presented with this election: do you want a guy who has shown he would prefer to make his investors rich on the backs of the poor and middle class, or do you want a guy who would prefer to spread around the wealth a little. My choice is made.
 
2012-05-17 05:10:06 PM

bdub77: That's the distinction Obama's trying to make with these videos, and that's the choice we are presented with this election: do you want a guy who has shown he would prefer to make his investors rich on the backs of the poor and middle class, or do you want a guy who would prefer to spread around the wealth a little. My choice is made.


Investing in a private equity firm and expecting a return on your money is no different than you expecting a return on your 401k. Companies exist to make a profit, not to provide a job for somebody.
 
2012-05-17 05:12:14 PM

9beers: In buying those companies, sometimes you're going to end up with a turd that needs to be flushed.


Why would you buy a turd in the first place? Unless you were planning on reselling the corn.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2012-05-17 05:22:52 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: 9beers: In buying those companies, sometimes you're going to end up with a turd that needs to be flushed.

Why would you buy a turd in the first place? Unless you were planning on reselling the corn.


Or in 9beers' case, to try to polish it and pass it off as gold.
 
2012-05-17 05:24:17 PM

9beers: And that just goes to show how misinformed people are on this. Private equity firms buy companies in order to build them up and sell them off at a profit. In buying those companies, sometimes you're going to end up with a turd that needs to be flushed. The steel industry has gone through rough times in recent years and a lot of companies have gone out of business and GST probably would have failed even faster had Bain not tried saving it. The steel industry was in a lot of trouble at the time GST was failing, mostly because of cheap imported steel flooding the country. When you start looking at their outdated equipment and ridiculous union contracts, it' not a surprise that they didn't make it.

Fun tidbit, I've worked in the steel industry for the past 15 years and the company I worked for last was bought by a private equity firm and merged with another steel company that they owned. They've since sold it and moved on to their next money making venture. What's funny is they sold the entire corporation to the original owner of the company I worked for. That owner recently bought another steel company with the sole intent of absorbing its customer base and shutting them down. That's the way businesses work, like it or not.


Again, if you approve of this kind of merciless, predatory capitalism, you should by all means vote for Romney. I understand perfectly your willingness to what may be perceived as making others suffer to line your own pockets. Nevertheless, you and Mr. Romney may find this to be a hard sell to the American people, which is why he is desperately trying to change the subject and you are equally desperately trying to justify his approach in the name of rational self-interest.
 
2012-05-17 05:27:14 PM

9beers: clambam: The issue as I understand it is that many if not most of the companies Bain took over were deemed to be "underperforming," loaded down with debt, stripped of their assets and discarded.

And that just goes to show how misinformed people are on this. Private equity firms buy companies in order to build them up and sell them off at a profit. In buying those companies, sometimes you're going to end up with a turd that needs to be flushed. The steel industry has gone through rough times in recent years and a lot of companies have gone out of business and GST probably would have failed even faster had Bain not tried saving it. The steel industry was in a lot of trouble at the time GST was failing, mostly because of cheap imported steel flooding the country. When you start looking at their outdated equipment and ridiculous union contracts, it' not a surprise that they didn't make it.

Fun tidbit, I've worked in the steel industry for the past 15 years and the company I worked for last was bought by a private equity firm and merged with another steel company that they owned. They've since sold it and moved on to their next money making venture. What's funny is they sold the entire corporation to the original owner of the company I worked for. That owner recently bought another steel company with the sole intent of absorbing its customer base and shutting them down. That's the way businesses work, like it or not.


Private Equity firms buy other companies to make money. End of story. If it looks like it will be easy enough or have a big enough multiple to build up the company, they will try to do so. If it looks like it will be easier and more profitable to loot the company and shut it down, they will try to do so.

There are also pressures within the P/E firms that can influence their decisions. Private Equity firms raise funds for specific purposes and time lines, and they don't get paid much unless the fund returns a set amount to the investors. After that the management of the P/E firm gets to share in the upside.

Do they need to post a return on a fund soon? Maybe taking out some loan against those assets will provide us the cash we need to be in the money. Did they just raise a fund with a long horizon? Then be more careful and maybe invest in a company as opposed to taking it down.

The important thing to remember with Private Equity (this includes Venture Capital) is they are in the business to make money for their investors and themselves. All the happy horseshiat about saving jobs, building America, takes a back seat to getting a return that puts them in the money on their funds.
 
2012-05-17 05:37:14 PM
Bain bought GST because they saw an opportunity to make money by growing a company and making it more profitable. From all indications, they were doing a pretty good job with it until the steel industry went to shiat. Almost half of the steel companies in America filed for bankruptcy around the time that GST found itself in trouble so it's not like everybody else was doing so much better. Who knows, maybe without the huge labor dispute and strike in 1997, they would have survived the downturn. What kind of morons decide to go on strike at a time that their industry is being threatened by foreign competition?

Who knows, maybe if Clinton had done more to prevent cheap imported steel from flooding the markets, none of this would have happened. By the way, you know who finally slapped tariffs on imports of steel in an attempt to save the steel industry? That's right, George Bush.
 
2012-05-17 05:43:07 PM

9beers: Bain bought GST because they saw an opportunity to make money by growing a company and making it more profitable. From all indications, they were doing a pretty good job with it until the steel industry went to shiat. Almost half of the steel companies in America filed for bankruptcy around the time that GST found itself in trouble so it's not like everybody else was doing so much better. Who knows, maybe without the huge labor dispute and strike in 1997, they would have survived the downturn. What kind of morons decide to go on strike at a time that their industry is being threatened by foreign competition?

Who knows, maybe if Clinton had done more to prevent cheap imported steel from flooding the markets, none of this would have happened. By the way, you know who finally slapped tariffs on imports of steel in an attempt to save the steel industry? That's right, George Bush.


I would say that Bain bought GST because they thought they'd be able to make money by building it up or tearing it down. Bain would do whatever would bring them the most upside.
 
2012-05-17 05:50:42 PM

9beers: bdub77: That's the distinction Obama's trying to make with these videos, and that's the choice we are presented with this election: do you want a guy who has shown he would prefer to make his investors rich on the backs of the poor and middle class, or do you want a guy who would prefer to spread around the wealth a little. My choice is made.

Investing in a private equity firm and expecting a return on your money is no different than you expecting a return on your 401k. Companies exist to make a profit, not to provide a job for somebody.


I disagree that the sole purpose of a company is to make a profit. Companies in the modern era have something called a triple bottom line: people, planet, profit. But in any case, governments do not exist to make a profit. That is my point. Do you want a capitalist to run the country? Or do you want a statesman? Furthermore, would you want a capitalist whose whole business was saddling his target with debt, with the end result that a high number of them declared bankruptcy, while his 'investors' profited? Do you want the US to be that target?

And furthermore, have you considered that in the future, capitalism might be an outdated concept as a way to progress as a species? What happens when almost everything can be done by a robot or computer? What happens when computers almost inevitably can do our job better than we could ever do ours, and much faster? This is something I think we are not yet prepared to debate as a country, but trust me it's on the horizon.
 
2012-05-17 05:54:52 PM

Famous Thamas: I would say that Bain bought GST because they thought they'd be able to make money by building it up or tearing it down.


So why is it that GST is the only example people can cite for Bain supposedly destroying a company for profit? They've been around since 1984 and in all those years, this is the only time that a company they've purchased has failed. If they were this evil job killing monster that democrats want to make them out to be, surely they'd have destroyed other companies, right?
 
2012-05-17 05:58:13 PM

bdub77: I disagree that the sole purpose of a company is to make a profit. Companies in the modern era have something called a triple bottom line: people, planet, profit.


That made me laugh more than any intentionally humorous comment that I've read on Fark.
 
2012-05-17 06:17:26 PM

9beers: Famous Thamas: I would say that Bain bought GST because they thought they'd be able to make money by building it up or tearing it down.

So why is it that GST is the only example people can cite for Bain supposedly destroying a company for profit? They've been around since 1984 and in all those years, this is the only time that a company they've purchased has failed. If they were this evil job killing monster that democrats want to make them out to be, surely they'd have destroyed other companies, right?


They probably have destroyed other companies or left them as shells of their former selves, but it isn't always easy to find out when a P/E firm is involved. If a private company sells itself to a P/E firm the public will likely never know the difference unless the P/E firm decides to tell people about it. If the company is public, there has to be some more disclosure, but once the company goes private it is more or less a black box. I'm agnostic about Private Equity firms as a whole, they simply are, sort of like the Reapers.

However, I don't believe that Romney's time at Bain really qualifies him as an expert on business. It qualifies him and very knowledgeable about how to make money for a small group of people, but that isn't knowledge that scales very well.
 
2012-05-17 06:21:31 PM

Famous Thamas: They probably have destroyed other companies or left them as shells of their former selves, but it isn't always easy to find out when a P/E firm is involved. If a private company sells itself to a P/E firm the public will likely never know the difference unless the P/E firm decides to tell people about it. If the company is public, there has to be some more disclosure, but once the company goes private it is more or less a black box. I'm agnostic about Private Equity firms as a whole, they simply are, sort of like the Reapers.


While it's true that private equity firms are more secretive than publicly traded companies, there is absolutely no way to buy and sell a company without that information being publicly available. If there were any other companies that had failed under Bain's ownership, democrats would be all over it.
 
2012-05-17 06:23:51 PM

9beers: Famous Thamas: They probably have destroyed other companies or left them as shells of their former selves, but it isn't always easy to find out when a P/E firm is involved. If a private company sells itself to a P/E firm the public will likely never know the difference unless the P/E firm decides to tell people about it. If the company is public, there has to be some more disclosure, but once the company goes private it is more or less a black box. I'm agnostic about Private Equity firms as a whole, they simply are, sort of like the Reapers.

While it's true that private equity firms are more secretive than publicly traded companies, there is absolutely no way to buy and sell a company without that information being publicly available. If there were any other companies that had failed under Bain's ownership, democrats would be all over it.


They did it to Dade Behring, too, then sold it to Siemens who is basically shutting down most of the former D-B plants.

/Seeing the results firsthand.
 
2012-05-17 06:31:53 PM

AdmirableSnackbar: They did it to Dade Behring, too, then sold it to Siemens who is basically shutting down most of the former D-B plants.


Not familiar with it but you can't blame Bain for something another company chooses to do.
 
2012-05-17 06:33:52 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Does he get the blame for Steel Dynamics too?


I dunno... if I'm to believe Romney, he was only in charge of Bain when things that poll well were going on, but he wasn't ever there for any of the unpopular things. Combined with his "Let Detroit Fail" op-ed that he doesn't seem to remember though he does recall having the brilliant idea of doing exactly what Obama did, it seems like he wants to take credit for all kinds of good things (that's ok), but isn't responsible at all for any of the bad things. His motto seems to be that the buck stops with him, but the blame stops anywhere else. Overall, Bain has a good track record, but it has done some pretty shiatty things to get there. Sometimes they save companies, other times, they saddle the company with debt, take the assets, and leave taxpayers on the hook. The problem for me comes in that he does not own the mixed record (though somewhat successful)... he doesn't seem to take responsibility for anything. Combine that with him taking credit for things he's openly stated he was against ("Let Detroit Fail," "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person")... The harsh reality for Mr. Romney is that we're judging both candidates on their records and their statements. Job creation has been slower than I'd like, but jobs are being created (the opposite of what was happening under the preceding Republican policies), Bin Laden is dead (Republicans called Obama naive in the campaign when he said he would go after Bin Laden with our troops if Pakistan would not or could not cooperate), GM is alive and turning a profit (Many Republicans did and do still argue that the bailouts for the auto industry were the wrong move, fwiw, I agree with them, but Romney is now trying to take credit for the bailouts too). So we look at their records and one guy has a record of trying to compromise with an intransigent party, but ultimately getting some progress made... and the other guy has a record that is too difficult to understand because he only takes credit for every third thing on the record, and tries to add stuff that he had nothing to do with to polish it even more.
 
2012-05-17 06:39:48 PM

9beers: AdmirableSnackbar: They did it to Dade Behring, too, then sold it to Siemens who is basically shutting down most of the former D-B plants.

Not familiar with it but you can't blame Bain for something another company chooses to do.


I think you misunderstood - they didn't complete the job on D-B but they used the same tactics as with GST. They saddled the company with debt while taking out loans on its name and funneling the money to Bain, all while outsourcing jobs. They then sold D-B to Siemens when Siemens offered Bain more than Bain thought it could get from the remaining husk of D-B. I'm blaming Bain for what they did. Siemens is only finishing the job that Bain only mostly completed.
 
2012-05-17 06:55:32 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: I did say it.

I can put you down for a 'no' then.

Titor's Time Machine: Black or white? Which is it? BLACK OR WHITE?!? PICK ONE!!!

Please.
Marcus Aurelius: My opinion is that Bain didn't own enough of Steel Dynamics to suck the life out of them. It goes to show that you can't win them all.

And another 'no'. Thanks.

Aarontology: Privatized profits and socialized losses is what Republicans call free market capitalism.

Was that a yes or no?


If it was only Bain it would have worked out the way every other time did so he certainly gets no credit for it.
 
2012-05-17 06:57:07 PM

9beers: Famous Thamas: I would say that Bain bought GST because they thought they'd be able to make money by building it up or tearing it down.

So why is it that GST is the only example people can cite for Bain supposedly destroying a company for profit? They've been around since 1984 and in all those years, this is the only time that a company they've purchased has failed. If they were this evil job killing monster that democrats want to make them out to be, surely they'd have destroyed other companies, right?


Even in this very thread, farkers have cited other examples, I was reading a post in this very thread (above yours) about what Bain did to Guitar Center. The reality for VC firms (and this isn't speaking to any morality qualms or anything like that) is that about 40% of what they buy ends up failing. The questions of morality come in how VCs make money off of the failures, whether it is fair to have VCs make a profit on failures when taxpayers take a loss, and whether a company necessarily would have failed were it not for the debt-loading strategies of VCs. GST is a prime example, Guitar Center being another... in fact, here's a neat little chart

si.wsj.net

The pic is hotlined from Wall Street Journal before you go after it as being some leftist rag with no credibility.

The reality for Bain is that of 77 companies they purchased while Mitt Romney was at the head, 22 went bankrupt or closed altogether with Bain making a profit, 8 more closed with Bain losing money. It isn't that shuttering businesses is the status quo for Bain, they participate in some good growth businesses like Sports Authority and others. The problem comes in how they handle the "losers"... When Bain investors make money on their last minute debt practices, but employees lose pensions and money they had actually worked for, or when Bain makes money, but taxpayers end up picking up losses, how do we rectify this with the general belief that people should pay their debts. Bain owns X, X goes bankrupt, but Bain doesn't pay the pensions, they let the taxpayers pick everything up through PBGC so Bain investors can slink off with more money. Imho, it isn't an argument for/against Romney, but a strong, conservative principles based argument for bankruptcy reform that doesn't let VCs shaft the taxpayers and employees.
 
2012-05-17 07:18:16 PM

firefly212: 9beers: Famous Thamas: I would say that Bain bought GST because they thought they'd be able to make money by building it up or tearing it down.

So why is it that GST is the only example people can cite for Bain supposedly destroying a company for profit? They've been around since 1984 and in all those years, this is the only time that a company they've purchased has failed. If they were this evil job killing monster that democrats want to make them out to be, surely they'd have destroyed other companies, right?

Even in this very thread, farkers have cited other examples, I was reading a post in this very thread (above yours) about what Bain did to Guitar Center. The reality for VC firms (and this isn't speaking to any morality qualms or anything like that) is that about 40% of what they buy ends up failing. The questions of morality come in how VCs make money off of the failures, whether it is fair to have VCs make a profit on failures when taxpayers take a loss, and whether a company necessarily would have failed were it not for the debt-loading strategies of VCs. GST is a prime example, Guitar Center being another... in fact, here's a neat little chart

[si.wsj.net image 640x295]

The pic is hotlined from Wall Street Journal before you go after it as being some leftist rag with no credibility.

The reality for Bain is that of 77 companies they purchased while Mitt Romney was at the head, 22 went bankrupt or closed altogether with Bain making a profit, 8 more closed with Bain losing money. It isn't that shuttering businesses is the status quo for Bain, they participate in some good growth businesses like Sports Authority and others. The problem comes in how they handle the "losers"... When Bain investors make money on their last minute debt practices, but employees lose pensions and money they had actually worked for, or when Bain makes money, but taxpayers end up picking up losses, how do we rectify this with the general belief that people should pay their deb ...


I know you probably mean Private Equity as opposed to Venture Capital firms when you said "VC". If 60% of my companies were successful as a Venture Capitalist, I would be the highest performing VC of all time; each night, new chick.

You are spot on with the issues surrounding Private Equity though. Well performing companies meeting milestones and providing a solid exit path for their investors aren't the problems, however there must provide an exit. When a company performs poorly, the shiat hits the fan for the business, and the employees usually take the brunt. The investors have provisions and strategies in place to protect their downside at the expense of everyone else in the company. Employees have their retirements destroyed and lose their jobs, the investors walk away with millions, and the company no longer exists or is simply a shell.
 
2012-05-17 07:40:48 PM

9beers: bdub77: I disagree that the sole purpose of a company is to make a profit. Companies in the modern era have something called a triple bottom line: people, planet, profit.

That made me laugh more than any intentionally humorous comment that I've read on Fark.


That's fine. I still disagree with you, and I happen to believe that companies that don't tow to the standard won't be sustainable in the long run. I don't find it funny to ignore environmental impact or your stakeholders, which includes investors as well as employees. I happen to work for a company that treats its employees well and the bottom line is certainly not entirely profits, so I know they exist - oh and we do VERY well on both profitability and growth.

The fact that you, as you attest, worked in the steel industry for 15 years tells me we come from very different sides of the equation. That still doesn't mean you're right. It just means you're jaded and more than a little amoral based on your own experiences. Some people, probably like yourself, believe that unfettered free market capitalism is the only way. But intelligent people understand that there are limits and shortsightedness to that type of quarter by quarter thinking. I obviously don't include you in that category.
 
2012-05-17 07:53:58 PM
Stay gold, Pony Boy.
 
2012-05-18 12:05:44 AM
What a fantastic douche.

Romney should take out ads on the WE network.
 
2012-05-18 12:23:17 AM
How many people lost their jobs from car dealerships that were closed down when Obama took over GM and Chrysler?
 
2012-05-18 12:33:49 AM

jjorsett: How many people lost their jobs from car dealerships that were closed down when Obama took over GM and Chrysler?


It's OK to close unprofitable businesses when a democrat does it.
 
2012-05-18 12:38:14 AM

jjorsett: How many people lost their jobs from car dealerships that were closed down when Obama took over GM and Chrysler?


How many lost their jobs in the leadup to the crash when SUV were piled up at the docks because of depressed demand?
 
2012-05-18 02:19:33 AM
GOPers are never responsible for anything.
 
2012-05-18 04:13:36 AM

9beers: jjorsett: How many people lost their jobs from car dealerships that were closed down when Obama took over GM and Chrysler?

It's OK to close unprofitable businesses when a democrat does it.


By your very accounts in this thread, yes. Even though most of the people in this thread have argued against it and stated that completing the self-fulfilling prophecy of "unprofitable" is wrong, especially for someone that wants to run a country.

But you said it...

9beers: You don't get it, Bain bought GST along with other companies in hopes of building them into stronger, more profitable businesses in hopes of making a shiatload of money. When the steel market crashed, GST was the one targeted for closure because of their outdated equipment and ridiculous union contracts.


So please explain how Bain attempted to repair and maintain the outdated equipment that would have aided the business or perhaps the collective bargaining with the unions to increase the ability for the company and thus the union to make money. Or hell, any steps it took to save GST. Reading this article (Link), it seems that Bain attempted to make improvements to the company by taking a $36 million dividend and then assuming debt for the company and selling that to investors. Based on what we know about the stock market crisis, I wouldn't say it's far off that Bain intentionally sold bad stock and bet against it through other firms (my personal suspicion).

But please, tell us from the other side of the fence. How does Bain improve business without resorting to sell its debt?
 
2012-05-18 04:13:34 PM

Cookbook's Anarchist: So please explain how Bain attempted to repair and maintain the outdated equipment that would have aided the business or perhaps the collective bargaining with the unions to increase the ability for the company and thus the union to make money.


Bain put money into the plant after they bought the company. It's cute that you think the union was worried about anything other than doing less work for more money.
 
Displayed 36 of 186 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report