How many posters have come along and praised anatta's posting in Politics the last few days, even people who disagree with him? You can't just assert the opposite of something that most of the forum thinks and make it true.

yes

another stupid hypothetical because they're fun.

if George W. was eligible, would he:

win the republican primary (if so, by how much?)
win the general election vs. obama?

I'd probably vote for him

notsureifserious.jpg

The praise is probably more that anatta seems like a smart guy who is pretty skillful at mocking the other side, than from the substance of his posts. Ikestoys doesn't have any redeeming features, of course, but it's not a fair comparison.

suzzer anatta has had enough of these lesser beings man wow really peace is war up is down and tom colin isnt a tin foil ****** and yes anatta cant post. but what did it was vote for W guy ^^^. wow. good luck though man and remember anatta say O u say bama.

holy **** what a joke

Oh snap, Anatta's talking in third person. You know things are going to get live up in here.

oh well it was a good run. just another straight-up, earnest poster who just wanted to talk about things factually run off by the NON REPLY MAFIA

give me a ****ing break suzzer. People were praising his appearance in politics but not for the reasons you'd like to pretend.

They invest in whatever makes them money. They buy healthy businesses too. The thing is, most of the time the leverage of a leveraged buyout sits at the business being bought, not at the buyer. The money they invest themselves is very small compared to the total purchase price and they will do everything they can to suck the bought company dry. So even if the business fails Bain will lose very little. Just look at the businesses previously held by Bain but that are now public, they are all in debt over their eyeballs.

I think people can legitimately criticize this strategy because during the smallest downturn these businesses will fail, while they would probably do fine if they weren't leveraged to the max. Personally I don't think it's that bad because that's how capitalism works, and in the end their involvement is probably a net positive for the market. But you can't pretend like Bain and/or Romney are good guys turning around businesses in trouble.

lol

Danny Devito was the hero in that movie. Just compare the speeches at the end of it.

Corporate vultures, just like real vultures, are really damn important. They take toxic capital and recycle it into something useful. Not to mention Bain did a ton more than simply taking on broke companies. Criticizing romney's involvement in Bain is simpleton populism at it's best.

Successful PE firms add value to the companies they buy, period. How is this anything but positive?

Yeah, Bain was so awful when they were the first investor in staples, which allowed them to grow from 1 store to thousands. The bastards MADE MONEY!



Companies like bain make monies when they make companies better. They lose monies when they don't. Essentially you're criticizing Bain for adding value and being wildly successful.

but they aren't the driver of an economy. Using your own logic, loan sharks and pawn shops are at the economic center. go ahead ikes, dig your way out again, I need a laugh.

The pawn shop and loan shark stuff makes it obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. If a company is bankrupt, what do you suggest happens? Recycling the capital that would be lost otherwise seems like a good idea right? These saved resources then go back into the economy instead of being completely lost. It does drive growth.

brons has been doing callista as alien jokes. I didnt really see it.

Then i watched this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_m0L3SdpPQ

When people criticise Bain it isnt because of their growth capital investments in companies like Staples, its the leveraged buyouts that people are critical of.

Making reference to Staples, one investment amongst thousands, isnt advancing the debate.

How are you defining capital where it would be "completely lost" were it not for leveraged buyouts?

Thanks! I got it off the internet! It's a capital A in a circle, and it's a symbol for Anarchism, which is a system of beliefs which advocate no government!

Staples is far more representative of Bain's history than LBOs.

LBOs allow companies to get a shot to avoid simple liquidation and keep the company functioning, therefore keeping the capital invested in creating the company instead of selling the basic parts. For instance, best buy is worth more than the property it owns. In liquidation, people would only buy the hard assets. In an LBO, more capital is preserved.

I'm confused, any normal definition of capital applies.