Venture or Vulture Capitalism, how does it work? Cancel The title field is required!

1. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   1/13/2012 10:01 AM

   I will admit up front that I don't know how this works, and I am really going by what I have seen on TV.
   
   As I understand it, when a business is in trouble, someone like Bain Capital will come in and try to rescue it. People get fired, I understand that, especially if it was the people who got the business in that mess in the first place, people get laid off, I get that, when a business can't support people, they have to be laid off. Now if the business can't be saved, it closes and is a loss...my question at that point did the company such as a Bain Capitol make money on the deal or did they lose too? If they lost, I can live with that kind of capitalism, if they still made money, I can see that being called vulture capitalism. Now if they turn the business around and make a profit, they deserve to make a profit as well. That works for me, the only question I have is did it create the amount of jobs they say it did?
   
   Now specific to Gov. Romney and Bain Capitol
   
   As I posted before in payroll taxes, Romney I think with Bain Capital took over some business in Kansas City, don't know what they did, what Bain Capital was doing, except that they had promised the employees their pensions and benefits. In the end they closed the thing down and the government had to guarantee the pensions to a tune of $44 million I believe?
   
   Saw part of the Newt Pac movie. Saw what they alleged was down to KB Toys, KB Toys ended up shutting down, all those people lost their jobs, yet Bain Capital came out of the deal with over a million dollars? Is that true?
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
2. Spotts David A

   
   1/13/2012 11:01 AM

   If the super rich created jobs we would not be in the position we are in. When I buy a computer I get a really nice American selling it. When I get it support, it's someone I don't understand no matter how much they try to not have an accent. What I have seen from my limited point of view is the big corporations are not at all about creating jobs in the USA. With all their tax breaks since GWB it looks to me like they are sitting on their money anyway. They are about making money for their stockholders which might help your 401K but does nothing for jobs. Most people who seem to be in the know say that the jobs are created mostly by small business, which would pick up even more if some of the super rich would invest some of their money in them instead of finding ways to get around taxes, regulations, and unions . With mortgage rates at historically low rates, people still cannot get loans and buy unless it is at least 150K which isn't much but there are a lot of homes that are going for less. I'm sorry but I don't feel bad for some of the things they dislike about our system and thereby send their money out of the country because they can make more. How much is enough?

   
   
   
   
3. Wahlin Scott B

   
   1/13/2012 11:01 AM

   I would think you would have to have a degree in finance in order to understand it. In the case of KB Toys, Bain bought the company for $305 million using $18 million of their own money and leveraging the remainder against the assets of KB Toys. Two years after that Bain took out $85 million to pay dividends to Bain and two years after that KB Toys filed for bankrupcy. Two years after that ToyRUs bought the brand for $2 million. ToyRUs belongs to Bain Capital.

   
   
   
   
4. Dennis Cook

   

   1 posts
   
   1/20/2012 1:01 PM

   Big business will create jobs where ever it is the most economical to them. It is their own bottom line they have to look out for, not anyone elses. It makes sense to send jobs overseas to a company that can afford to do so. Why? Because with all the hoops they have to go through in the US (because of govt regulations, minimum wages, etc) its cheaper to make products and have some services overseas. The solution is to make it cheaper to do busniness in the US and that means doing away with all the costly govt bueracrecies that get in the way of doing business. Simple as that.
   
   They dont have all that beauracratic BS elsewhere, thats why they leave

   
   
   
   
5. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   1/20/2012 2:01 PM

   Dennis Cook said: Big business will create jobs where ever it is the most economical to them. It is their own bottom line they have to look out for, not anyone elses. It makes sense to send jobs overseas to a company that can afford to do so. Why? Because with all the hoops they have to go through in the US (because of govt regulations, minimum wages, etc) its cheaper to make products and have some services overseas. The solution is to make it cheaper to do busniness in the US and that means doing away with all the costly govt bueracrecies that get in the way of doing business. Simple as that.
   
   They dont have all that beauracratic BS elsewhere, thats why they leave

   
   
   Dennis,
   
   my biggest issue is to your statement "It is their own (big business) bottom line they have to look out for, not anyone elses." I think it is that issue that is hurting us, because it sounds like they (we) are not caring about our customers, if no customers no business (or successful business I should say).
   
   I wil give you some of the rest of your post, the democrats (typically) push environmental regulations on producers making it more costly to make products. But I also think that in order for a company to meet revenue projections and profit margins, they move production where it is cheaper as well (looking out for themselves), which the republicans support. Those of us who are able to invest in 401k's pension plans, government pension plans etc. all rely on the profit for our retirement.
   
   Minimum wages are a wash in my opinion, wages are determined by the needs of the business and the availability of a labor pool, even when things are going good McDonald's has to pay more then the minimum wage to get help. Also a good wage be it a set minimum or market based, I see it as more buying power for the customers which in turn sells more products for more profit.
   
   Manufacturing jobs have been hurt in my opinion just as much by automation. Also look in the business world, when there use to be typing pools, live operators, etc. seems to me we haven't really replaced all of them yet, or we haven't trained or educated ourselves for those new tech jobs that have been replaced.
   
   I just think it is not fair to blame all of our problems on the government, we the people need to look at ourselves.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
6. Dennis Cook

   

   1 posts
   
   1/23/2012 6:01 AM

   Mel, the repubs dont support sending the jobs oversees, we just understand why it is happening and want a solution to fix it. If it was just automation, is it cheaper to run a robot in china than it is here? I wouldnt think by much. The reason they leave is cost. We simply have outpriced ourselves out of the market. When other countries will do the job for less we need to figure out a way to compete in a global market. Having a minimum wage that is four times that of what they make in china is not a way to lure a business to America. Having all the beauracratic red tape is not a way to attract a company to America. Its a way to make them leave. We need to find a happy medium and the markets will work. Products could sell for less money, which means businesses would be producing more and they would hire more and also pay more for those employees who are ultra productive. Bottom line is businesses hire employees so they can make the company money. When the cost to hire an employee (payroll tax, wages, insurance, 401K) becomes a net negative companies are going to go where its cheaper or close their doors.
   
   We have to make it cheaper in the US so companies do not leave

   
   
   
   
7. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   1/23/2012 8:01 AM

   Dennis,
   
   I don't think minimum wage is the biggest issue in cost, there are states with higher minimum wages then other states, why don't businesses then relocate there? (I guess if you believe Gov. Perry of Texas, they have down there). I will give you 401K's, insurance cost, payroll taxes can all effect that, but businesses offer those benefits to attract good employees and compete against other businesses that are offering those benefits. Typically wages for these jobs are going to be higher then minimum wage anyway. There are probably other issues that are just as much issues that affect the profitability of businesses then the labor issue.
   
   I agree 100% with us needing to find a happy medium, but we as consumers want the cheapest price we can pay and businesses want the most profit possible which seems to include high wages for CEO's and upper management. I hope I don't sound like I begrudge them those salaries, but they are willing to bump up their compensation packages while sending jobs overseas or keeping wages depressed. Why aren't they willing to find a happy medium as well? Of course this is just my opinion with my limited knowledge of these big businesses, heck even though labor cost are usually associated with the biggest expense a business, I'm sure there are tons of other factors that have to be considered.
   
   I think the one thing we tend to forget is how these big business decisions affect the small businesses which are really the true backbone of our economy.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
8. Stephen Okula

   

   3 posts
   
   1/23/2012 3:01 PM

   In which countries, exactly, is the red tape less than in the U.S.? Have you been there? Are they taking our jobs?
   
   There is red tape everywhere, in India, China, Brazil, Korea, name it. Makes no difference.
   
   I've been to places like the Philippines, Turkey, and Kenya, where people line up for a job that might pay $2/day.
   
   When the American worker is prepared to compete with that, we'll be back on top.
   
   Blaming America's lack of industry on regulation, taxes, or red tape is self-delusion.

   
   
   
   
9. Steven Kurta

   

   2 posts
   
   1/23/2012 8:01 PM

   We've earned it.

   
   
   
   
10. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    1/25/2012 7:01 AM

    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: In which countries, exactly, is the red tape less than in the U.S.? Have you been there? Are they taking our jobs?
    
    There is red tape everywhere, in India, China, Brazil, Korea, name it. Makes no difference.
    
    I've been to places like the Philippines, Turkey, and Kenya, where people line up for a job that might pay $2/day.
    
    When the American worker is prepared to compete with that, we'll be back on top.
    
    Blaming America's lack of industry on regulation, taxes, or red tape is self-delusion.

    
    
    
    Really Steve? I'll give you a perfect example, Canada says if you want to treat your whole country like a national park, we will send our oil somewhere else, like China. There aint no red tape and beauracratic BS in Canada and China that is gonna get in the way of bringing that oil to market. The US has over 600,000 miles of pipeline and the reason Obama said no is purely political red tape. We know how to build pipelines

    
    
    
    
11. Stephen Okula

    

    3 posts
    
    1/25/2012 3:01 PM

    I'm sorry Dennis, I can't make any sense of your post.
    
    The U.S treats its whole country like a national park, but we have 600,000 miles of pipeline? Six hundred thousand miles?! Where do you get this stuff?
    
    Canada is sending its oil to China? The US still imports over two million barrels per day from Canada, more than from any other country. Check the link.
    
    ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petro ... mport.html
    
    Are you from Canada? I'd love to hear a Canadian say there's no bureaucracy or red tape there. Where's Larry Allen when you need him?

    
    
    
    
12. Steven Huffstutler

    

    11 posts
    
    1/25/2012 7:01 PM

    ...especially when the Canadian oil will be sent to China after it's refined in Louisiana.......

    
    
    
    
13. Keith Lamb

    

    3 posts
    
    1/26/2012 3:01 AM

    Steven Huffstutler, CGCS said: ...especially when the Canadian oil will be sent to China after it's refined in Louisiana.......

    
    
    Duh.

    
    
    
    
14. McCallum David K

    
    1/26/2012 7:01 AM

    Steve 1.............the comment was made by some official in Canada that if the US wants to treat the entire country as a national park (hence no pipeline construction), fine it would sell the oil to China. The oil in question is shale oil.........not what they currently send to us in some fasion.
    
    Steve 2.........sorry the pipeline was headed to Texas to be refined............no Louisiana refineries involved. No money for the bayou state sorry.

    
    
    
    
15. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    2/13/2012 12:02 PM

    Thank you David for making sense of my post.

    
    
    
    
16. Wahlin Scott B

    
    2/13/2012 1:02 PM

    [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCHNoUcxRvY[/youtube">

    
    
    
    
17. Jon Gansen

    

    1 posts
    
    2/13/2012 5:02 PM

    Why is Robert Redfords opinion so important? Its not. When celebrities voice there opinion on the pipeline or global warming do they look in the mirror. Who cut the tree down so you could have your fire popping in the background. How about the jet you take to film locations or to the independent film festivals. I am assuming his transportation uses fuel. I assume his lifestyle adds to the so called global warming more than the average person but yet it is ok for him to use fossil fuels due to the fact hes doing so much good.
    
    Im curious what you think of this article : http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/13/ny-ti ... -calls-out

    
    
    
    
18. Wahlin Scott B

    
    2/13/2012 5:02 PM

    Jon Gansen said: Why is Robert Redfords opinion so important? Its not. When celebrities voice there opinion on the pipeline or global warming do they look in the mirror. Who cut the tree down so you could have your fire popping in the background. How about the jet you take to film locations or to the independent film festivals. I am assuming his transportation uses fuel. I assume his lifestyle adds to the so called global warming more than the average person but yet it is ok for him to use fossil fuels due to the fact hes doing so much good.
    
    Im curious what you think of this article : http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/13/ny-ti ... -calls-out

    
    
    I think Redford's opinion is equally as valid as a newspaper columnist. The left listens to 99% of scientists while the right puts equal value on the 1%.

    
    
    
    
19. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    2/13/2012 7:02 PM

    Jon,
    
    I think the article has some points, but if I understood some of what I have read, no matter which way the oil sands were piped (west or south), I thought I understood China would have been the principle buyer regardless due to the quality of the oil after it was refined. I could be wrong but that is what I have understood. I also understand that there will be environmental issues going west as well.
    
    Also I don't think the climate change issue applied to the pipe line according to the author, as I understand the issue. It was more about the pipe line going across the aquifers of Nebraska. Something that can be debated and is.
    
    As Robert Redfords opinion is concerned, he has the right to it just as those on the other side of the issue.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
20. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    2/14/2012 7:02 AM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:

    Jon Gansen said: Why is Robert Redfords opinion so important? Its not. When celebrities voice there opinion on the pipeline or global warming do they look in the mirror. Who cut the tree down so you could have your fire popping in the background. How about the jet you take to film locations or to the independent film festivals. I am assuming his transportation uses fuel. I assume his lifestyle adds to the so called global warming more than the average person but yet it is ok for him to use fossil fuels due to the fact hes doing so much good.
    
    Im curious what you think of this article : http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/13/ny-ti ... -calls-out

    
    
    I think Redford's opinion is equally as valid as a newspaper columnist. The left listens to 99% of scientists while the right puts equal value on the 1%.

    
    
    Scott the left listens to scientist who bring consensus. Consensus is not fact, it just means that a bunch of idiots decide to agree on something. Everyone always says you cant dispute the facts of global warming, well you can and here goes. Thousands of years ago this country was mostly covered with a glacier, now its not. Were we driving big SUVS and F150's back then to make the glacier's melt and make the planet warm? Or was it cyclical? Facts lead me to the analysis that it is cyclical and man had nothing to do with the planet warming back then and have nothing to do with the cyclical weather we experience

    
    
    
    
21. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    2/14/2012 7:02 AM

    Dennis,
    
    You make some good points but I also don't think all facts are know either as to what we are doing currently to the environment. Probably hard to gather facts when we've really only been recording weather for not very long?
    
    But also a fact and whether it relates to any global warming or not is up for debate, but hasn't the smog around cities been decreased since the changes to gasoline and emissions from cars? Do people not suffer as much respiratory infections due to plant emissions? (Of course that might be because we don't get outside and have switched our problems to being overweight and diabetic, of course that is probably for a different topic).
    
    I haven't heard of any rivers on fire recently either, I would think that has to be a plus.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
22. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    2/14/2012 9:02 AM

    Mel, the point you make in your post without making it, is that the United States is the best in the world at cleaning up our mess. We strive to reduce as much pollutants as possible and we spend billions of dollars cleaning things up. But the left makes us out as evil polluters who want to put mercury and arsenic in our water supply (Harry Reid). When the fact of the matter is the left is the one who wants to mandate these curly cue light bulbs that are full of mercury. The majority of people are going to throw those away and where is the mercury gonna end up? Yea probably in the water supply. So there supposed good intentions have huge implications on the environment down the road. But its there intentions that matter, cuz they are holier than us mean repubs who wanna kill and pollute everything.
    
    Seems most good intentioned policies the left comes up with seems to hurt more than it helps

    
    
    
    
23. Jon Gansen

    

    1 posts
    
    2/14/2012 10:02 AM

    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:

    Jon Gansen said: Why is Robert Redfords opinion so important? Its not. When celebrities voice there opinion on the pipeline or global warming do they look in the mirror. Who cut the tree down so you could have your fire popping in the background. How about the jet you take to film locations or to the independent film festivals. I am assuming his transportation uses fuel. I assume his lifestyle adds to the so called global warming more than the average person but yet it is ok for him to use fossil fuels due to the fact hes doing so much good.
    
    Im curious what you think of this article : http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/13/ny-ti ... -calls-out

    
    
    I think Redford's opinion is equally as valid as a newspaper columnist. The left listens to 99% of scientists while the right puts equal value on the 1%.

    
    
    Considering Joe nocera is one of your 99% ( called tea party terrorists) I thought maybe you would side with him.
    I would think with the oil being piped from Canada thru the US that it would give the US a stable supply along with drilling in Alaska and the Gulf but I guess we can wait till the last minute when we as a country need it.
    Also considering all of the e-mails that have been leaked on global warming and the computer models that have been shown to be wrong or flawed in there data input I guess being part of the 1% has it advantages. Ex. Himalayan glaciers have not lost ice in last ten years. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/ ... y-reveals/

    
    
    
    
24. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    2/14/2012 11:02 AM

    Dennis Cook said: Mel, the point you make in your post without making it, is that the United States is the best in the world at cleaning up our mess. We strive to reduce as much pollutants as possible and we spend billions of dollars cleaning things up. But the left makes us out as evil polluters who want to put mercury and arsenic in our water supply (Harry Reid). When the fact of the matter is the left is the one who wants to mandate these curly cue light bulbs that are full of mercury. The majority of people are going to throw those away and where is the mercury gonna end up? Yea probably in the water supply. So there supposed good intentions have huge implications on the environment down the road. But its there intentions that matter, cuz they are holier than us mean repubs who wanna kill and pollute everything.
    
    Seems most good intentioned policies the left comes up with seems to hurt more than it helps

    
    
    Dennis, I don't try to look at it as a right or left issue, but I tend to agree and I believe I have stated before, that the democrats have created some issues in regards to our jobs moving overseas because of the pollution issue. While the republicans have wanted cheaper cost which includes labor and less regulations for pollution controls.
    
    But a few of my questions now is why create the polluted mess in the first place because it will cost so much more to clean it up, and sometimes that falls onto the government because the business has gone away, (how many millions are spent on brown-fields by governments fed, state and local in their clean-up and redevelopment?), I know sometimes those issues might not become apparent to begin with but there are times when it does, why not address it before making the mess. Heck there are many businesses that have taken advantage of the need for their services in the environmental arena.
    
    The other question is why can't both sides work together to solve the problems we face? The left really pushed the new light bulbs that contain a very, very small amount of mercury, but the energy these will save in the long run will help with trying to break our energy dependence....something the right (and the left) claim they want to do, so stop fighting it just because the government kind of demanded it, just like fuel mileage regulations, if the people and business would do the right things, the government wouldn't have to step in when looking at the entire big picture. But we have become spoiled on both the right and left, we want our cake and to eat it too.
    
    Those are just my opinions though.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
25. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    2/14/2012 12:02 PM

    Mel, when businesses or people do the wrong things, we have the law for that. No matter how many regulations you put in place somebody is gonna dump their used oil on the road. Its the punishment that is supposed to deter that from happening and cause people to spend money to be cleaner on their own. I worked at a golf course that replaced all of its fuel tanks with way more than was required so we could be good stewards and minimize accidental discharge. There are more people in this country that want to do the right thing and will, but there are always people who will break the law regardless.
    
    As far as mileage mandates, they are not necessary. There is enough people out there that want a fuel efficient car to save money on gas. The demand for the product is already there. But if I want to mow my fairways five days a week instead of three, the govt shouldnt be telling me I cant because we need to save fuel. Simple liberties are being taken away from us all the time and people dont think its that big of deal. Since when is the all powerful government the ruler of mankind?