Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
The Romney campaign understandably touts the activities of Bain Capital during Romney’s tenure there, and perhaps its activities in general, as beneficial. The argument, as I understand it, is that the country, presumably the economy in particular, is better off
than it would have been otherwise. We are, generally speaking, better off because of Bain Capital and, in particular, because of the activities of Bain Capital when Romney was in charge.
That a case for regarding Bain Capital as, ultimately, beneficial can be made. That such a case has been made is evidence for that and a presentation of that argument here would be redundant. Moreover, such a presentation is probably best left to others more knowledgeable
than I.
An argument for Bain Capital being, on the whole, a benefit is in danger of missing a crucial point, however.
Consider that there were costs, or pain, as a result of the activities of Bain Capital. I assume that is not controversial. Companies were eliminated, employees were laid off, lives were disrupted, individuals suffered financially and saw there opportunities diminished, and so forth, as a result, in part, of the activities of Bain Capital. Now grant, for the sake of argument, that the activities of Bain Capital resulted in more good than bad. Grant that the country, the economy, what one will, was ultimately improved by the activities of Bain Capital during Romney’s tenure. Furthermore, grant that the individuals harmed, the individuals who bore the costs, are now better off than they would have been without Bain Capital. Grant, that is, that those negatively affected by the activities are, at present, in a better financial situation, than they would have been if Bain Capital had not acted.
Even granting all that, the problem for Romney is that he, and a few others, evidently benefited immensely without sharing the pain and that he, and a few others, presumably benefited far, far more than those who suffered. Even if one looks at the activities of Bain Capital as activities that were, ultimately, beneficial for all concerned, even if one assumes that those who suffered as a result of said activities ultimately benefited, it seems clear that Romeny was willing to engage in business practices which, in the end, resulted in the concentration of tremendous wealth in the hands of himself and a few others and the concentration of the costs, and some benefits, in individuals other than himself and a few others.
Romney, and others, can argue, with some justification, that firms like Bain Capital, private
equity firms, are ultimately beneficial and necessary. That said, it is, arguably, not clear what answer should be given to the concerned individual who points out that Romney appears to have been comfortable with a process that distributed costs and benefits in a way that dramatically favored him and a few others.
If Romney’s argument is, in part, that he should be president because of what he accomplished at Bain Capital, then it seems reasonable to ask why the country favor a candidate who was, in his career in private industry, decidedly enthusiastic about concentrating benefits in the hands of a few and costs in the hands of others.
Note also that arguing that Romney behaved precisely as he should have, that he sought to maximize profits and that he had a fiduciary responsibility to do so, does not address the concern. One could take the position that Romeny’s activities were entirely acceptable, even
laudable, and look askance at a candidate who has, in the past, endeavored to ensure that
a few benefit tremendously and that others bear the costs.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Wow…glad Kevin wrote this post rather than me. I think he’s pretty accurately reflecting how many people interpret Romney’s time at Bain.
The other issue, one which was pointed out by the Daily Show, is that Romney’s history at Bain has led to criticism from the rest of the field that sound awfully…err…liberal.
There is also the issue that Romney once drove to Canada with his dog strapped to the roof of his car. http://www.care2.com/causes/the-curious-incident-of-mitts-dog-on-the-roof-of-his-car.html
LikeLike
I didn’t write that, that was nathaniel. Alas, until people sign up I can’t properly attribute their imported posts.
LikeLike
I think Mitt Romney is going to be 2012’s answer to Bob Dole. “Well, heck, it’s his turn to run.” Then some better (from the right-of-center perspective) candidate runs in 2016.
LikeLike
Ahhhh yes. The Mitt Dog story. Was wondering just how long it would take to materialize this time. The fact that Newt is running with it means that he is in panic mode and, if one listens, they can hear Dandy Don quietly singing…Turn out the lights…the party’s over….
I have been very disappointed in Newt this past couple of weeks and quite frankly, it has greatly diminished my opinion of him. For someone who references Reagan in every other sentence, this is very un-Reaganesque…
LikeLike
John Stewart did a bit on Newt last night that was really hard on Newt . . . but it was all stuff Newt said. And Newt was surprised that anyone could take offense, which boggles my mind. Anyhoo, I never thought Newt was going to take the gold . . . despite having predicted his inevitable victory not so long ago.
LikeLike
Dave!- Great that you found the place. I don’t put any stock into the dog story, but have some friends that are big animal lovers and they are pretty disgusted by the incident. I doubt they would have voted for him anyway, but I found the story amusing.
LikeLike
The dog story is one that reveals poor judgement (for many reasons), but not something fatal to a presidential campaign.
LikeLike
The thing with Bain isn’t whether private equity is good or bad. But WMR claims his time there means he understands the economy. Perhaps true, from a corporate perspective. But it is not at all clear that he understands the economy the way ‘average’ Americans do. In the electoral perspective this is the “can he relate to the troubles of average Americans” question. Its looking like no & his time at Vain, and comments about liking to fire people and corporations are people too all contribute to that.
LikeLike
Brian, I’m sending you an invitation so you can get set up as an editor.
LikeLike
Maybe he and Obama can both go out for a beer and show they both understand “average” Americans. 99% of people running for president of the US probably don’t understand us (them?). But this business is about perception…and right now, Bain does not help the perception of Romney (and his comment on liking to fire people could become the Bain of his existence – Ha!). Then again, our current man of the people seemed to overcome that issue with a few bowling outtings…
LikeLike
Yup, my point is the perception. Dubya ‘won’ that perception, though I’m fairly confident he had little clue of how us little people live our lives. Which is not to say that big Al or Kerry were any more down to earth.
LikeLike