[phil_20686]

 billw55, on 2012-July-19, 08:38, said:

This much I can agree with. Bain was not a business that built things, mined things, or in general created anything at all. Essentially, Romney made his fortune reorganizing assets without actually producing much of anything, as far as I can tell.

I just don't understand this thread of thought. There are lots of badly run companies. Companies like Bain specialise in taking badly run companies that go under, and reorganising them so they are profitable again. Then they sell them. That is how they add value. There are two main ways an inherently profitable company can be run into the ground, (1) bad finance and overindebted, and (2) too many unproductive employees. The end result is always firing some people and fiddling around with the financing.

Having a more productive economy nearly always means making the same stuff with fewer people.

[Winstonm]

 phil_20686, on 2012-July-22, 08:39, said:

I just don't understand this thread of thought. There are lots of badly run companies. Companies like Bain specialise in taking badly run companies that go under, and reorganising them so they are profitable again. Then they sell them. That is how they add value. There are two main ways an inherently profitable company can be run into the ground, (1) bad finance and overindebted, and (2) too many unproductive employees. The end result is always firing some people and fiddling around with the financing.

Having a more productive economy nearly always means making the same stuff with fewer people.

I would suggest, Phil, that a reason perhaps why you do not uderstand this thread of thought is due to the fact you have not been on the receiving end of the pink card. Life should not be about maximizing profits - it should be about how we treat each other.

[blackshoe]

Danny Wegman, just for one example, treats his customers — and his employees — extremely well. He also makes boatloads of money. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[phil_20686]

 Winstonm, on 2012-July-22, 08:58, said:

I would suggest, Phil, that a reason perhaps why you do not uderstand this thread of thought is due to the fact you have not been on the receiving end of the pink card. Life should not be about maximizing profits - it should be about how we treat each other.

Sure, but that argument can be applied to every labour saving device. When the the steam engine came in farriers everywhere lots their jobs, then cheaper trade made cheaper labour in poorer countries available which destroyed the coal mining industry (among others). Then mechanical mass production destroyed most jobs in manufacturing, but also brought washing machines, cars and dishwashers to the masses, now the internet is destroying retail. There is always an area of the economy where jobs are being lost because of progress.

The flip side of this is that destroying old industries makes way for new ones. Technology has been growing employment for the last two decades, and every new job means a worker leaving a different industry. It is precisely the death of old industries that makes labour available for new industries.

There can be a structural problem if the skills needed for the new industry are so different that segments of the labour market struggle to find employment, but labour markets have been fantastically fluid in the past, and there is no reason to believe that this will stop.

[Winstonm]

When it comes to comparing technological advancement causing a shift in the labor force to forced layoffs and firings to increase profitability, well, that dog won't hunt.

Bain Capital has more in common with T. Boone Pickens as a corporate raider than with the combustion engine replacing the horse.

[phil_20686]

 Winstonm, on 2012-July-22, 15:00, said:

When it comes to comparing technological advancement causing a shift in the labor force to forced layoffs and firings to increase profitability, well, that dog won't hunt.

? This is exactly how economic progress works. Today waterstone's employees, tomorrow taxi drivers, then who knows...

I mean you only ever fire people to increase profitability, you would never fire someone if you thought it was going to make you less profitable? Normally the end state is cheaper products rather than higher profitability, as high profit margins mean there is space for competition, although they can persist in the short term if there are barriers to entry, (or unclear metrics of performance, eg law firms).

Productivity is the key metric. If you can do the same job with fewer people, then that is a win for society. That is how stuff gets cheaper. Sure then you have to find new jobs for people, but that is generally not a problem. There is always some new stuff/service that people want. More efficient management is progress exactly equivalent to better technology.

Suppose in one year productivity in the economy advances by 3%. Then you have 97% of the workforce making all the stuff that it took 100% of the workforce, previously. Then you can set this 3% to do something new. That is what firing achieves, you return them to the labour market, where new industries can bid for their labour to provide some new service.

[mike777]

1) In real life productivity will run closer to only 1%...which is a problem.
2) Americans I think would find many European work/vacation/firing/ laws shocking but worth a discussion.

[hrothgar]

 phil_20686, on 2012-July-22, 08:39, said:

I just don't understand this thread of thought. There are lots of badly run companies. Companies like Bain specialise in taking badly run companies that go under, and reorganising them so they are profitable again. Then they sell them. That is how they add value. There are two main ways an inherently profitable company can be run into the ground, (1) bad finance and overindebted, and (2) too many unproductive employees. The end result is always firing some people and fiddling around with the financing.

Having a more productive economy nearly always means making the same stuff with fewer people.

Nice theory, but it doesn't line up with the facts.

The vast majority of Bain Capital's profits were made off a small number of large deals, most of which involved tax dodges and offloading pension liabilities to the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corp.

In a many of these cases, Bain created overindebted companies that failed with a few years.

[Winstonm]

Quote

? This is exactly how economic progress works

We were not talking about economic progress - we were talking about Bain Capital.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2012-July-22, 18:02, said:

We were not talking about economic progress - we were talking about Bain Capital.

If Bain was not economic progress, not sure what chance Romney has.

[Cthulhu D]

So did anyone else see Rush Limbaugh claiming that Batman was a setup for Mitt because the bad guy is 'Bane' and Mitt worked at 'Bain' and they sound the same?

Apparently 'liebrals' have been engaged in long term planning on this since 1993.

The depressing part is I'm not even joking. This man is a Republican party leadership figure too - amply demonstrated by the fact that any time a GOP memember says he isn't, they issue an apology to say that he, infact, is. It's beautiful. One of the most powerful men in the Republican party is willing to give credence to the idea that there is a multi decade liberal conspiracy to discredit Mitt Romney (hahaha), or is actively lying.

It's even more insidious than that. Given that the man is either a liar or stupid, which one of these statements is true:

A) The GOP is so debased that it looks to a known liar for intellectual leadership

B) The GOP is full of such intellectual dwarfs that a man who believes in aforementioned conspiracy is a 'conservative giant'

Not that the democrats are much better, but then again, you don't see the head of the democratic national committee referring to John Steward as a 'progressive force in the nation' but then again maybe you do :ohdear:

[mike777]

A) The GOP is so debased that it looks to a known liar for intellectual leadership

B) The GOP is full of such intellectual dwarfs that a man who believes in aforementioned conspiracy is a 'conservative giant'




And your point is that the polls show it is 50/50 ....

I think you miss or are afraid to say your main point



you are saying 50% of America votes why?

[Cthulhu D]

 mike777, on 2012-July-23, 00:03, said:

A) The GOP is so debased that it looks to a known liar for intellectual leadership

B) The GOP is full of such intellectual dwarfs that a man who believes in aforementioned conspiracy is a 'conservative giant'




And your point is that the polls show it is 50/50 ....

I think you miss or are afraid to say your main point



you are saying 50% of America votes why?

It's just depressing as an outside observer. America can chose between a bad (centre?) right party lead by Obama, or an ur-fascist party lead by Mitt Romney.

Your elections are rife with gerrymandering (a practice so discredited even northern Ireland(!) has moved past it). First past the post voting is as inelegant as it is stupid. That's ignoring the fact that election officials is an elected(!) partisan(!!) position, and these people have been caught with their fingers blatantly in the till.

Basically American, land of free, home of democracy has

A) The worst electoral system in the Western world, bar none. This is an impressive achievement.

B) A pretty poor choice.

But money is speech and electoral reform doesn't have any money behind it so I guess US citizens don't get to have a real democracy, particularly if they are black. It's a depressing state of affairs. I thought the rallying cry was supposed to be no taxation without representation - so why no senate seats for Washington D.C. Depressing.

[mike777]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-23, 00:26, said:

It's just depressing as an outside observer. America can chose between a bad (centre?) right party lead by Obama, or an ur-fascist party lead by Mitt Romney.

Your elections are rife with gerrymandering (a practice so discredited even northern Ireland(!) has moved past it). First past the post voting is as inelegant as it is stupid. That's ignoring the fact that election officials is an elected(!) partisan(!!) position, and these people have been caught with their fingers blatantly in the till.

Basically American, land of free, home of democracy has

A) The worst electoral system in the Western world, bar none. This is an impressive achievement.

B) A pretty poor choice.

But money is speech and electoral reform doesn't have any money behind it so I guess US citizens don't get to have a real democracy, particularly if they are black. It's a depressing state of affairs. I thought the rallying cry was supposed to be no taxation without representation - so why no senate seats for Washington D.C. Depressing.

thank you for your post

you post as an outsider....important points

--


my guess is Repulicans think your post is a joke or reasons to vte no...but you move the discusion forward

[Zelandakh]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-22, 23:08, said:

So did anyone else see Rush Limbaugh claiming that Batman was a setup for Mitt because the bad guy is 'Bane' and Mitt worked at 'Bain' and they sound the same?

Similar to those who called for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers to be boycotted or banned for making money from 9/11.

[mike777]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-23, 00:42, said:

Similar to those who called for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers to be boycotted or banned for making money from 9/11.

you keep making posts about making money.........

nOt about being equal

[Cthulhu D]

Quote

Similar to those who called for Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers to be boycotted or banned for making money from 9/11.

You cannot make this stuff up.

 mike777, on 2012-July-23, 00:31, said:

thank you for your post

you post as an outsider....important points

--


my guess is Repulicans think your post is a joke or reasons to vte no...but you move the discusion forward

The problem is that the US discussion never actually moves forward. Gerrymandering has been recognised as a problem since, what, 1880? Outsourcing definition to electoral boundaries to an independent commission and Implementation of a single transferable vote (also known as instant run off voting) would do a lot to reform the US electoral system. Actually it would radically reform it. Ultimately any sort of system here - approval voting (or better yet for the US, Borda Count, the system used for MVP election in MLB)

I would further suggest:

Implementation of 5, 7 or 9 senators per state and proportional representation (using an STV) for Senate seats. Territories can have a reduced number - I'd suggest 2 but that is prejudiced by my experience. This would enable minor party representation in the US senate(!). Requiring coalition governments ever would change the nature of the US political debate forever.
Implementation of mandatory voting - controversial, but freedom comes at a price - your responsibility to society. The main goal is actually to reduce voter disenfranchisement, as with the next suggestion.
Moving elections to a weekend.
Scrapping the electoral college - this just damages presidential elections.

Just the first two changes (STV + scrapping gerrymandering) would change everything forever. The rest is just a cherry on top.

[Vampyr]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-23, 00:26, said:

It's just depressing as an outside observer. America can chose between a bad (centre?) right party led by Obama, or an ur-fascist party led by Mitt Romney.

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-23, 01:22, said:

Implementation of 5, 7 or 9 senators per state and proportional representation (using an STV) for Senate seats.

You seem to misunderstand some basic facts about the American political system - mainly that it is not a paliamentary system.

Obama and Romney are not the leaders of their respective parties; they are individuals running for President. There can be no such thing as a coalition government, because governments are not formed that way. And the legislative houses may have a majority that is not the President's party -- this is actually fairly common for midterm Congresses.

I don't really see why more senators (there are currently two per state) would be an improvement. In any case, proportional representation is again not possible, since people vote for individuals instead of parties. Also it is important that Senators represent states rather than being some kind of national party figure, since the reason there are two per state is so that they can represent, at least to some extent, their state's interests; with only a population-based legislature such as exists in the House of Representatives, they tyranny of the majority might cause smaller states' interests not to be protected.

It must be understood that the US has much less of a "federal" state than the UK or Australia; perhap in some ways less than the EU . Therefore voting shcemes that work in other countries cannot be implemented there.

[hrothgar]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-23, 01:22, said:

Gerrymandering has been recognised as a problem since, what, 1880?

The expression was coined in 1812

[Cthulhu D]

 Vampyr, on 2012-July-23, 02:56, said:

You seem to misunderstand some basic facts about the American political system - mainly that it is not a paliamentary system.

Obama and Romney are not the leaders of their respective parties; they are individuals running for President. There can be no such thing as a coalition government, because governments are not formed that way. And the legislative houses may have a majority that is not the President's party -- this is actually fairly common for midterm Congresses.

I know - presidential year elections are very different from midterms as a result because it's impossible to motivate the majority in non presidential years so the CRAZIES from both sides are out in force. In addition the the US has much stronger factional politics so discussing the 'democrats' as a whole is flawed. However, it is a useful shorthand to say that Obama heads up the Democrats, just as I'd say David Cameron heads up the Tories - despite the fact that Sayeeda Warsi and Andrew Feldman are the actual party leaders, and the party is not called the Tories.

Indeed, the statement 'David Cameron leads the Tories' is completely factually incorrect, but I doubt most people even know who Sayeeda Warsi is, so indicating that she is the de jure leader of the conservative party is not helpful to any sort of constructive discussion. Similarly, everyone knows what you're talking about when you say David Cameron leads the Tories, or that Julia Gillard and not Jenny McAllister leads the ALP.

Quote

I don't really see why more senators (there are currently two per state) would be an improvement. In any case, proportional representation is again not possible, since people vote for individuals instead of parties. Also it is important that Senators represent states rather than being some kind of national party figure, since the reason there are two per state is so that they can represent, at least to some extent, their state's interests; with only a population-based legislature such as exists in the House of Representatives, they tyranny of the majority might cause smaller states' interests not to be protected.

Sorry, I thought this truth was self evident. Enabling proportional representation (which would obviously require constitutional change), would then lead to the election of minor parties. It is likely that at some time these minor parties would hold the balance of power. Having to form a coalition with others forces you to negotiate and compromise rather than engage in the increasingly partisan bickering in the US. This behavior is easily seen in the European parliaments, such as Germany. I am unclear why giving each state more senators would result in a reduction in representation for that state, though it would make the fundamental inequities in the system more clear.

Quote

It must be understood that the US has much less of a "federal" state than the UK or Australia; perhap in some ways less than the EU . Therefore voting shcemes that work in other countries cannot be implemented there.

If I have not made it clear before, I disagree with the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism." The US is no more or less exceptional than Germany. The US's inability to organise a functional government is its own fault and not an intrisic property of including the land area of the US in your borders.

Quote

The expression was coined in 1812

Transpires that the first election was Geryymandered in the US in 1789. So, that's what, 223 years to get that one fixed? Nice going guys.