Venture Capitalism, in a nutshell

[California Girl]

I must say that your initial analysis was excellent. This is a partisan issue nonetheless. To democrats only republican venture capitalism is bad. Democrat venture capitalisim is good. That makes business a partisan issue. Workers unite and rise up against the greedy capitalists is coming expressly from democrats who have an ignorant mass to exploit.

Maybe I'm just naive and hoping that Liberals generally will understand the value of VCs.

Sure we do.

VC isn't the issue.

Wealth creation isn't the issue.

Job creation is the issue.

Willard Romney has no job creation experience.

The current problem is no jobs, because there is no demand, because people aren't spending, because of uncertainty.

The current problem is not that we have a bunch of badly run companies that need cannibalizing, spun off, and sold.

You were elected to speak on behalf of all liberals? Why? You're not a liberal. You and truffmocker are the idiot cousins of liberals.

 

[Synthaholic]

Maybe I'm just naive and hoping that Liberals generally will understand the value of VCs.

Sure we do.

VC isn't the issue.

Wealth creation isn't the issue.

Job creation is the issue.

Willard Romney has no job creation experience.

The current problem is no jobs, because there is no demand, because people aren't spending, because of uncertainty.

The current problem is not that we have a bunch of badly run companies that need cannibalizing, spun off, and sold.

You were elected to speak on behalf of all liberals? Why? You're not a liberal. You and truffmocker are the idiot cousins of liberals.

Another prime example of you not being interested in debate, or even hearing any other viewpoints.

Troll on.

 

[Truthmatters]

she is a partisan hack who thinks listening and reading others thoughts is bad for you.

 

[Synthaholic]

she is a partisan hack who thinks listening and reading others thoughts is bad for you.

More than that, she's just a liar, plain and simple.

 

[California Girl]

Sure we do.

VC isn't the issue.

Wealth creation isn't the issue.

Job creation is the issue.

Willard Romney has no job creation experience.

The current problem is no jobs, because there is no demand, because people aren't spending, because of uncertainty.

The current problem is not that we have a bunch of badly run companies that need cannibalizing, spun off, and sold.

You were elected to speak on behalf of all liberals? Why? You're not a liberal. You and truffmocker are the idiot cousins of liberals.

Another prime example of you not being interested in debate, or even hearing any other viewpoints.

Troll on.

I am interested... in the views of individuals, not groups. Clue: You say "We" as though you speak on behalf of all liberals... and yet, the reason I started this thread was because a liberal said they did not know enough about VCs to comment. Ergo, not all liberals do understand it - and that is not a criticism, it is a statement of fact. I am sure there are plenty of conservatives who don't understand it either.

The thread was not meant to do anything other than inform. And I started it because idiots (like you) keep lying about what VCs do... and you really should not eat your own.

 

[California Girl]

she is a partisan hack who thinks listening and reading others thoughts is bad for you.

You are a partisan hack that has yet to demonstrate any ability to think. Your 'opinions' all belong to others. You have no ability to critically think, or rationally analyse information.

 

[derk]

Hats.. and at the present they are dwindling as an alternative source of finance.

The Fundraising Side

Venture capitalists’ money doesn’t generally come from the VCs themselves, but from LPs who invest with the goal of earning greater returns than alternative investments provide. Because returns from venture capital investments have lagged returns from other classes of investments in recent years, LPs have been reallocating their money away from venture capital. As a result, VCs aren’t able to raise as much money as they used to.

Banks and other debt providers aren’t a substitute either. They will run afoul of usury laws if they charge the interest rates necessary to generate the rate of return expected for investments in the risky young companies that venture capitalists put their money in.


Unless the types of high growth entrepreneurs who got venture capital financing in a previous era, but won’t in today’s market, figure out a way to grow fast without venture capital, the shrinking venture capital industry is a problem for the future of high growth entrepreneurship in the United States.

This is my main issue with trade and American politicopreneurs like Mitt Romney the father of government ran health care. They fail to put America first instead they continue the march to move economic resources out of America. Whether you believe in the warfare of economics or not the United States is losing the battle to control its own Economic Security. Instead relying on foreign nations to supply us with the capital for private enterprise. Soon the stimuli's from the government will meet with stagnation , because the revenue won't be there to support it either. The one issue I think allot of us have overlooked is that the capital and the profits are staying where they are used in the countrys that are supplying the goods an services. Primarily China and other lower wage countrys.

Cutting and pasting chunks of text might make you look smart, but it is against the rules of the board... it being plagiarism and all that.

Let me know when you can think all by yourself and maybe I'll engage with you again. Maybe not.

Being a snorting little whiner who uses short obnoxious quips to pass off as original thoughts or ideas or as an opinion are juvenile don't you think ANGEL?

This is what I said sweet flower.

This is my main issue with trade and American politicopreneurs like Mitt Romney the father of government ran health care. They fail to put America first instead they continue the march to move economic resources out of America. Whether you believe in the warfare of economics or not the United States is losing the battle to control its own Economic Security. Instead relying on foreign nations to supply us with the capital for private enterprise. Soon the stimuli's from the government will meet with stagnation , because the revenue won't be there to support it either. The one issue I think allot of us have overlooked is that the capital and the profits are staying where they are used in the countrys that are supplying the goods an services. Primarily China and other lower wage countrys.[/quote]

 

[California Girl]

Hats.. and at the present they are dwindling as an alternative source of finance.

The Fundraising Side

Venture capitalists’ money doesn’t generally come from the VCs themselves, but from LPs who invest with the goal of earning greater returns than alternative investments provide. Because returns from venture capital investments have lagged returns from other classes of investments in recent years, LPs have been reallocating their money away from venture capital. As a result, VCs aren’t able to raise as much money as they used to.

Banks and other debt providers aren’t a substitute either. They will run afoul of usury laws if they charge the interest rates necessary to generate the rate of return expected for investments in the risky young companies that venture capitalists put their money in.


Unless the types of high growth entrepreneurs who got venture capital financing in a previous era, but won’t in today’s market, figure out a way to grow fast without venture capital, the shrinking venture capital industry is a problem for the future of high growth entrepreneurship in the United States.

This is my main issue with trade and American politicopreneurs like Mitt Romney the father of government ran health care. They fail to put America first instead they continue the march to move economic resources out of America. Whether you believe in the warfare of economics or not the United States is losing the battle to control its own Economic Security. Instead relying on foreign nations to supply us with the capital for private enterprise. Soon the stimuli's from the government will meet with stagnation , because the revenue won't be there to support it either. The one issue I think allot of us have overlooked is that the capital and the profits are staying where they are used in the countrys that are supplying the goods an services. Primarily China and other lower wage countrys.

Cutting and pasting chunks of text might make you look smart, but it is against the rules of the board... it being plagiarism and all that.

Let me know when you can think all by yourself and maybe I'll engage with you again. Maybe not.

Being a snorting little whiner who uses short obnoxious quips to pass off as original thoughts or ideas or an opinion are juvenile don't you think ANGEL?

This is what I said sweet flower.

This is my main issue with trade and American politicopreneurs like Mitt Romney the father of government ran health care. They fail to put America first instead they continue the march to move economic resources out of America. Whether you believe in the warfare of economics or not the United States is losing the battle to control its own Economic Security. Instead relying on foreign nations to supply us with the capital for private enterprise. Soon the stimuli's from the government will meet with stagnation , because the revenue won't be there to support it either. The one issue I think allot of us have overlooked is that the capital and the profits are staying where they are used in the countrys that are supplying the goods an services. Primarily China and other lower wage countrys.

[/QUOTE]

You left out the cut and paste this time? Good. Next time, cut, paste, link. Not rocket science.

 

[derk]

Cutting and pasting chunks of text might make you look smart, but it is against the rules of the board... it being plagiarism and all that.

Let me know when you can think all by yourself and maybe I'll engage with you again. Maybe not.

Being a snorting little whiner who uses short obnoxious quips to pass off as original thoughts or ideas or an opinion are juvenile don't you think ANGEL?

This is what I said sweet flower.

This is my main issue with trade and American politicopreneurs like Mitt Romney the father of government ran health care. They fail to put America first instead they continue the march to move economic resources out of America. Whether you believe in the warfare of economics or not the United States is losing the battle to control its own Economic Security. Instead relying on foreign nations to supply us with the capital for private enterprise. Soon the stimuli's from the government will meet with stagnation , because the revenue won't be there to support it either. The one issue I think allot of us have overlooked is that the capital and the profits are staying where they are used in the countrys that are supplying the goods an services. Primarily China and other lower wage countrys.

You left out the cut and paste this time? Good. Next time, cut, paste, link. Not rocket science.[/QUOTE]

You know from my post I was stating that Investments in The United states are drying up and its partly due to Mitt Romney and other financial managers investing in overseas markets. What I posted was italicized and most people would understand I was referencing an article.
Venture Capitalists Failure to Make Money is a Problem for Entrepreneurs : Money :: American Express OPEN Forum

 

[midcan5]

The story of 'California Girl in Wonderland'

All that is missing is a frog, a prince, and a princess this thread gets fairy tale of the month award. Oh I know there's good and bad, but what's the fun. The apologists for the rich like Cali Girl are just too funny. Has a wingnut ever apologized for a poor sucker down on their luck, possibly because some venture capitalist sold their job to China? I wonder.

Midcan's link of the day: Shirts Made in USA : All American Clothing

 

[Toro]

You know from my post I was stating that Investments in The United states are drying up and its partly due to Mitt Romney and other financial managers investing in overseas markets. What I posted was italicized and most people would understand I was referencing an article.
Venture Capitalists Failure to Make Money is a Problem for Entrepreneurs : Money :: American Express OPEN Forum

That's not true. VC returns have been poor because if the ocean of money which flooded the market during the Tech Bubble. Only now are VC returns starting to normalize. It's also interesting to note that really good VC funds are virtually impossible to enter as a new LP.

 

[California Girl]

The story of 'California Girl in Wonderland'

All that is missing is a frog, a prince, and a princess this thread gets fairy tale of the month award. Oh I know there's good and bad, but what's the fun. The apologists for the rich like Cali Girl are just too funny. Has a wingnut ever apologized for a poor sucker down on their luck, possibly because some venture capitalist sold their job to China? I wonder.

Midcan's link of the day: Shirts Made in USA : All American Clothing

So, you got envy. Good to know Romney was right. You got nothing to counter the logic of my OP - which I will grant you is impossible - because it's a factually accurate overview of VCs.... but you do have a problem with me personally because I (apparently) have more money than you deem appropriate. Must suck to be that envious of others.

On the bright side, congratulations on creating a whole post without quoting someone else to make yourself look intelligent... (I would argue that it has the opposite impact but that's just me)... and even better.... you managed not to plug some book on amazon. Well done, you!

 

[syrenn]

Given some of the hyperbole and lunacy that's been put forward on USMB about Mitt Romney's background as a venture capitalist, I thought I'd try and give y'all a non-partisan, rational overview of what venture capitalism is, it's benefits, and the downside.

In a nutshell, venture capitalist provide an injection of capital (finance, money, cash, bucks) into a company that has a business need for that capital. It is an alternative to a bank loan. Sometimes companies approach venture capitalists because the bank won't lend, or because they can't get a decent interest rate from a bank. Often it is used to develop a new product, invest in better equipment or technology.

Venture capital companies are also known as private equity companies (although there are some slight differences between the two), or, in the case of an individual venture capitalist, they are often nicknamed 'business angels'.

Most venture capital companies lend in specific markets, in which they have some form of expertise, so by partnering with a venture capital company, the business not only gets an injection of money, it also has access to the venture capitalist's expertise and experience.

Venture capital companies also often invest in high risk start up businesses that banks have refused loans due to the high risk, or companies that are failing - often due more to internal issues, such as incompetent management. In those instances, the venture capital company may remove the management and replace them with more experienced staff.

More often than not, the investment made by the venture capital company benefits the recipient company. The venture capital company owns a share - and makes money, and the recipient reaps their own financial reward.... the workers have jobs, the owner has their profit and everyone is happy.

Once in a while, it does not work and the venture capital company will sell off the assets of the company in order to recoup some or all of its investment. Sometimes they also make a profit on that.

Clearly, the subject is far more complex than I have outlined - but.... that's a basic overview. I hope it helps clarify the benefits - and the downside.

If you want to see 'venture capital' in action, watch the program 'Shark Tank'... that is individual 'venture capital' in a nutshell.

In a nut shell...


on the money!

 

[Toro]

Mitt Romney's candidacy is subjecting the entire private-equity industry—where Mr. Romney spent most of his business career—to vicious attacks by journalists and several of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination.

Newt Gingrich's political action committee is sponsoring a film called "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" that accuses Mr. Romney and his former company, Bain Capital, of taking over companies, looting them, and then tossing their workers out on the street. Jon Huntsman's attacks on his rival include the description of private equity as a business that "breaks down businesses [and] destroys jobs, as opposed to creating jobs and opportunity, leveraging up, spinning off, [and] enriching shareholders."

This is anticapitalist claptrap. Private-equity firms make significant investments in companies, mainly U.S. companies. Most of their investments are in companies that underperform industry peers. Frequently these firms are on the brink of failure.

Because private-equity firms are, by definition, equity investors, they make money only if they improve the performance of their companies. Private equity is last in line to be paid in case of insolvency. Private-equity firms don't make a profit unless their companies can meet their obligations to workers and other creditors.

The companies in which private-equity investors are able to turn a profit generally grow, rather than shrink. This is because the preferred "exit strategy" by which private-equity firms profit is to take the private companies in which they invest and enable them to go public and sell shares that will help the company grow even stronger. As for turnaround success stories, Continental Airlines, Orbitz and Snapple have all benefitted at some time from private-equity investment. ...

Private-equity firms not only help corporate performance, but in the long run they lead to more employment and higher wages as well. The alternative to the leaner, smaller firms created by private equity are bankrupt firms that do not employ anybody. And private-equity firms tend to use more incentive-based pay than other firms. A 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report shows that the companies in which private-equity firms invested had low employment growth relative to their peers, and their employment growth rose after they were acquired by a private-equity firm. ...

The Forbes article also goes on to assert, in the same vein as many other attackers, that "the nature of private equity is to be ruthless and only care about using as much borrowed money as possible in order to gin up the potential return on equity."

Such an accusation fundamentally mischaracterizes the relationship between debt and equity. Equity investors do not get paid until the creditors do. Moreover, unless those lending money to the portfolio companies of private-equity firms are abjectly incompetent, they will not lend to companies that are not highly likely, if not virtually certain, to be able to repay it. ...

At the height of the financial crisis in 2008, the GAO's private-equity report observed that academic research "generally suggests that recent private equity LBOs [leveraged buyouts] have had a positive impact on the financial performance of the acquired companies." The same GAO report noted that in the 2004-2008 period it studied, none of the 500 complaints received by the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Investment Management involved private-equity fund investors. The GAO also noted that institutional investor associations and bar associations reported that "fraud has not been a significant issue with private equity firms."

Unlike some other investors who trade in debt and derivatives, private-equity firms make money by investing in businesses that make things and provide services. This industry should be applauded, not attacked.

Assaults on the private-equity industry really are attacks on economic freedom, because the private-equity process is nothing more and nothing less than free-market capitalism at work. Shame on all the people, particularly those who claim to be friendly to capitalism, who attack Mitt Romney because of his association with the U.S. private-equity industry.

Jonathan Macey: How Private Equity Works - WSJ.com

 

[Paulie]

Given some of the hyperbole and lunacy that's been put forward on USMB about Mitt Romney's background as a venture capitalist, I thought I'd try and give y'all a non-partisan, rational overview of what venture capitalism is, it's benefits, and the downside.

In a nutshell, venture capitalist provide an injection of capital (finance, money, cash, bucks) into a company that has a business need for that capital. It is an alternative to a bank loan. Sometimes companies approach venture capitalists because the bank won't lend, or because they can't get a decent interest rate from a bank. Often it is used to develop a new product, invest in better equipment or technology.

Venture capital companies are also known as private equity companies (although there are some slight differences between the two), or, in the case of an individual venture capitalist, they are often nicknamed 'business angels'.

Most venture capital companies lend in specific markets, in which they have some form of expertise, so by partnering with a venture capital company, the business not only gets an injection of money, it also has access to the venture capitalist's expertise and experience.

Venture capital companies also often invest in high risk start up businesses that banks have refused loans due to the high risk, or companies that are failing - often due more to internal issues, such as incompetent management. In those instances, the venture capital company may remove the management and replace them with more experienced staff.

More often than not, the investment made by the venture capital company benefits the recipient company. The venture capital company owns a share - and makes money, and the recipient reaps their own financial reward.... the workers have jobs, the owner has their profit and everyone is happy.

Once in a while, it does not work and the venture capital company will sell off the assets of the company in order to recoup some or all of its investment. Sometimes they also make a profit on that.

Clearly, the subject is far more complex than I have outlined - but.... that's a basic overview. I hope it helps clarify the benefits - and the downside.

If you want to see 'venture capital' in action, watch the program 'Shark Tank'... that is individual 'venture capital' in a nutshell.

Another downside, or maybe more of a consequence, is that venture capital companies acquire so much control over so many companies, that competition becomes sparse as only a few large companies have market sectors cornered.

Call me a crazy right winger, but I don't see that as a symptom of the free market, I see it as an inevitability from stifling regulations. As businesses can not compete due to lack of compliance for financial reasons, they get swallowed up by conglomerates and competition is reduced.

 

[derk]

The reason there are very few start ups in the united states is, because the business isn't here. You can't say raising capital to speculate with is a zero sum game. It isn't those dollars are overseas mostly in China and Taiwan and other Asian country's. The economics of America the once great American entrepreneur is almost gone. Unless he can get assistance to compete with his idea against the foreign company's and government owned enterprises there is very little chance of getting help. Venture capital here in America is little more than a pool of risk adverse gamblers who are hawking assets and any tangibles from one failed venture to the next staying a few steps ahead of investors.
Take a look at this......

The venture capital boom and the Internet Bubble (1995 to 2000)By the end of the 1980s, venture capital returns were relatively low, particularly in comparison with their emerging leveraged buyout cousins, due in part to the competition for hot startups, excess supply of IPOs and the inexperience of many venture capital fund managers. Growth in the venture capital industry remained limited throughout the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, increasing from $3 billion in 1983 to just over $4 billion more than a decade later in 1994.

The private equity crash (2000 to 2003)
The technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite index peaked at 5,048 in March 2000, reflecting the high point of the dot-com bubble.The Nasdaq crash and technology slump that started in March 2000 shook virtually the entire venture capital industry as valuations for startup technology companies collapsed. Over the next two years, many venture firms had been forced to write-off large proportions of their investments,

Don't feed me your institutionalized bull shit about the honors of financial management. Especially the golden tongued millionaire jet set that robbed pensions and promised the moon and anything else they could so they got peoples money. They kept quiet knowing that the internet wasn't gonna quadruple and continue to grow. They also knew that the interenet companys they were backing had very little prospects for growth beyond a fad, and a small niche in markets that were evaperating. Talk about revisionist history. You have capitalism confused with religion.
I end leaving you with this: Crowd funding is emerging as an alternative to traditional venture capital. Crowd funding is an approach to raising the capital required for a new project or enterprise by appealing to large numbers of ordinary people for small donations.(They got the idea from charities- good old Bernie!)Here we go again, lol.

The 1980s
(LBO boom)
•
The 1990s
(LBO bust and the VC bubble)
•
The 2000s
(Dot-com bubble to the credit crunch

 

[Trajan]

Given some of the hyperbole and lunacy that's been put forward on USMB about Mitt Romney's background as a venture capitalist, I thought I'd try and give y'all a non-partisan, rational overview of what venture capitalism is, it's benefits, and the downside.

In a nutshell, venture capitalist provide an injection of capital (finance, money, cash, bucks) into a company that has a business need for that capital. It is an alternative to a bank loan. Sometimes companies approach venture capitalists because the bank won't lend, or because they can't get a decent interest rate from a bank. Often it is used to develop a new product, invest in better equipment or technology.

Venture capital companies are also known as private equity companies (although there are some slight differences between the two), or, in the case of an individual venture capitalist, they are often nicknamed 'business angels'.

Most venture capital companies lend in specific markets, in which they have some form of expertise, so by partnering with a venture capital company, the business not only gets an injection of money, it also has access to the venture capitalist's expertise and experience.

Venture capital companies also often invest in high risk start up businesses that banks have refused loans due to the high risk, or companies that are failing - often due more to internal issues, such as incompetent management. In those instances, the venture capital company may remove the management and replace them with more experienced staff.

More often than not, the investment made by the venture capital company benefits the recipient company. The venture capital company owns a share - and makes money, and the recipient reaps their own financial reward.... the workers have jobs, the owner has their profit and everyone is happy.

Once in a while, it does not work and the venture capital company will sell off the assets of the company in order to recoup some or all of its investment. Sometimes they also make a profit on that.

Clearly, the subject is far more complex than I have outlined - but.... that's a basic overview. I hope it helps clarify the benefits - and the downside.

If you want to see 'venture capital' in action, watch the program 'Shark Tank'... that is individual 'venture capital' in a nutshell.

shark tank is starting again next week I think, never miss it. parlay your talent and luck, the amercian way.

 

[Trajan]

Mitt Romney's candidacy is subjecting the entire private-equity industry—where Mr. Romney spent most of his business career—to vicious attacks by journalists and several of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination.

Newt Gingrich's political action committee is sponsoring a film called "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" that accuses Mr. Romney and his former company, Bain Capital, of taking over companies, looting them, and then tossing their workers out on the street. Jon Huntsman's attacks on his rival include the description of private equity as a business that "breaks down businesses [and] destroys jobs, as opposed to creating jobs and opportunity, leveraging up, spinning off, [and] enriching shareholders."

This is anticapitalist claptrap. Private-equity firms make significant investments in companies, mainly U.S. companies. Most of their investments are in companies that underperform industry peers. Frequently these firms are on the brink of failure.

Because private-equity firms are, by definition, equity investors, they make money only if they improve the performance of their companies. Private equity is last in line to be paid in case of insolvency. Private-equity firms don't make a profit unless their companies can meet their obligations to workers and other creditors.

The companies in which private-equity investors are able to turn a profit generally grow, rather than shrink. This is because the preferred "exit strategy" by which private-equity firms profit is to take the private companies in which they invest and enable them to go public and sell shares that will help the company grow even stronger. As for turnaround success stories, Continental Airlines, Orbitz and Snapple have all benefitted at some time from private-equity investment. ...

Private-equity firms not only help corporate performance, but in the long run they lead to more employment and higher wages as well. The alternative to the leaner, smaller firms created by private equity are bankrupt firms that do not employ anybody. And private-equity firms tend to use more incentive-based pay than other firms. A 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report shows that the companies in which private-equity firms invested had low employment growth relative to their peers, and their employment growth rose after they were acquired by a private-equity firm. ...

The Forbes article also goes on to assert, in the same vein as many other attackers, that "the nature of private equity is to be ruthless and only care about using as much borrowed money as possible in order to gin up the potential return on equity."

Such an accusation fundamentally mischaracterizes the relationship between debt and equity. Equity investors do not get paid until the creditors do. Moreover, unless those lending money to the portfolio companies of private-equity firms are abjectly incompetent, they will not lend to companies that are not highly likely, if not virtually certain, to be able to repay it. ...

At the height of the financial crisis in 2008, the GAO's private-equity report observed that academic research "generally suggests that recent private equity LBOs [leveraged buyouts] have had a positive impact on the financial performance of the acquired companies." The same GAO report noted that in the 2004-2008 period it studied, none of the 500 complaints received by the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Investment Management involved private-equity fund investors. The GAO also noted that institutional investor associations and bar associations reported that "fraud has not been a significant issue with private equity firms."

Unlike some other investors who trade in debt and derivatives, private-equity firms make money by investing in businesses that make things and provide services. This industry should be applauded, not attacked.

Assaults on the private-equity industry really are attacks on economic freedom, because the private-equity process is nothing more and nothing less than free-market capitalism at work. Shame on all the people, particularly those who claim to be friendly to capitalism, who attack Mitt Romney because of his association with the U.S. private-equity industry.

Jonathan Macey: How Private Equity Works - WSJ.com

I am glad I re looked at the thread, I was just heading over there for that, thx.

 

[Supposn]

Given some of the hyperbole and lunacy that's been put forward on USMB about Mitt Romney's background as a venture capitalist, I thought I'd try and give y'all a non-partisan, rational overview of what venture capitalism is, it's benefits, and the downside. ....................................................................................../QUOTE]

California Girl, all people, (and although corporations are NOT, entrepreneurs ARE people), function within the environments they find themselves within.

[I’d describe myself as a populist, I wouldn’t object if others describe me as a liberal or a leftist] but I don’t fault Romney or anyone else for being a “venture capitalist”.

I do not fault investors, or CEO’s or U.S. consumers for our industries and jobs migrating beyond USA’s borders. USA’s global trade deficit is the fault of our elected federal office holders and we, the voters that elected them.

Refer to topics:
“Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit”,
posted @ 08:10 PM, August 30, 2009
last posted @ 06:56 PM, Dec 27, 2011
And
“Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs
posted @ 10:25 AM, November 30, 2011
last posted @ 01:26 PM, December 23, 2011

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[California Girl]

Given some of the hyperbole and lunacy that's been put forward on USMB about Mitt Romney's background as a venture capitalist, I thought I'd try and give y'all a non-partisan, rational overview of what venture capitalism is, it's benefits, and the downside. ......................................................................................

California Girl, all people, (and although corporations are NOT, entrepreneurs ARE people), function within the environments they find themselves within.

[I’d describe myself as a populist, I wouldn’t object if others describe me as a liberal or a leftist] but I don’t fault Romney or anyone else for being a “venture capitalist”.

I do not fault investors, or CEO’s or U.S. consumers for our industries and jobs migrating beyond USA’s borders. USA’s global trade deficit is the fault of our elected federal office holders and we, the voters that elected them.

Refer to topics:
“Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit”,
posted @ 08:10 PM, August 30, 2009
last posted @ 06:56 PM, Dec 27, 2011
And
“Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs
posted @ 10:25 AM, November 30, 2011
last posted @ 01:26 PM, December 23, 2011

Respectfully, Supposn

That opening paragraph that you quote from me.... does not mention 'liberals' or 'the left'. The bullshit is not all from the left, it appears that many 'conservatives' don't know much about VCs either. That's not a criticism. There is no reason why anyone should know.... unless, like me (and a few others on the board) you happen to have some experience of it.

My OP was meant to inform, not complain or mock those who don't know. I was trying to be helpful and explain it in very basic terms so that people had some vague idea about it.