Venture Capitalism, in a nutshell

[Synthaholic]

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...

If I asked "Do you conservatives believe in limited government?" would you be speaking for all conservatives if you answered "Sure we do"?

 

[Synthaholic]

Willard Romney was not a VC, anyways. He was a corporate raider.

 

[California Girl]

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...

If I asked "Do you conservatives believe in limited government?" would you be speaking for all conservatives if you answered "Sure we do"?

Thing is, I wouldn't say that. I am more likely to respond by saying something like "that is a core principle of American Conservativism" (because it is not necessarily true outside the US). Or, I might respond by saying "I do. And I would think many conservatives would agree" but I don't use "we" as a general rule.

 

[California Girl]

Willard Romney was not a VC, anyways. He was a corporate raider.

I have not found that to be true. You may hold that opinion - but it remains an opinion.

 

[Truthmatters]

He made money off of peoples misery.

 

[California Girl]

He made money off of peoples misery.

Lair.

 

[Synthaholic]

Willard Romney was not a VC, anyways. He was a corporate raider.

I have not found that to be true. You may hold that opinion - but it remains an opinion.

The main function of a VC is to invest money in promising new ideas, new startups, new...wait for it....ventures.

Mittens and Bain didn't do that. At least, that was not their main focus. Their main focus was finding distressed companies with assets, raiding those companies, and selling off those assets.

Sometimes it turned out to be good for the workers, but most times it did not.

 

[California Girl]

Willard Romney was not a VC, anyways. He was a corporate raider.

I have not found that to be true. You may hold that opinion - but it remains an opinion.

The main function of a VC is to invest money in promising new ideas, new startups, new...wait for it....ventures.

Mittens and Bain didn't do that. At least, that was not their main focus. Their main focus was finding distressed companies with assets, raiding those companies, and selling off those assets.

Sometimes it turned out to be good for the workers, but most times it did not.

I'm aware of what VCs do. I started this fucking thread with it. And I did mention 'start ups' etc.

Bains absolutely did do that. But VCs also invest in certain companies that are failing - if they believe they have a business model that can save that business. And that is exactly what they did. And a lot of the time, they did that successfully. Sometimes, they were not successful - that's why it's called 'risk'. VCs take 'risks'.

But many of those failing businesses turned around because of the business models provided by Bains. When that didn't work, workers lost their jobs. That is sad, but it is business.

 

[Synthaholic]

I have not found that to be true. You may hold that opinion - but it remains an opinion.

The main function of a VC is to invest money in promising new ideas, new startups, new...wait for it....ventures.

Mittens and Bain didn't do that. At least, that was not their main focus. Their main focus was finding distressed companies with assets, raiding those companies, and selling off those assets.

Sometimes it turned out to be good for the workers, but most times it did not.

I'm aware of what VCs do. I started this fucking thread with it. And I did mention 'start ups' etc.

Bains absolutely did do that. But VCs also invest in certain companies that are failing - if they believe they have a business model that can save that business. And that is exactly what they did. And a lot of the time, they did that successfully. Sometimes, they were not successful - that's why it's called 'risk'. VCs take 'risks'.

But many of those failing businesses turned around because of the business models provided by Bains. When that didn't work, workers lost their jobs. That is sad, but it is business.

Again, not their main focus. Indicated by the fact that it's an arm of Bain Capital, called Bain Capital Ventures.

Bain Capital has around $66 Billion under their asset management.

Bain Capital Ventures has only around $1.5 Billion in assets under management.


VC is/was a small segment of their business.

 

[California Girl]

The main function of a VC is to invest money in promising new ideas, new startups, new...wait for it....ventures.

Mittens and Bain didn't do that. At least, that was not their main focus. Their main focus was finding distressed companies with assets, raiding those companies, and selling off those assets.

Sometimes it turned out to be good for the workers, but most times it did not.

I'm aware of what VCs do. I started this fucking thread with it. And I did mention 'start ups' etc.

Bains absolutely did do that. But VCs also invest in certain companies that are failing - if they believe they have a business model that can save that business. And that is exactly what they did. And a lot of the time, they did that successfully. Sometimes, they were not successful - that's why it's called 'risk'. VCs take 'risks'.

But many of those failing businesses turned around because of the business models provided by Bains. When that didn't work, workers lost their jobs. That is sad, but it is business.

Again, not their main focus. Indicated by the fact that it's an arm of Bain Capital, called Bain Capital Ventures.

Bain Capital has around $66 Billion under their asset management.

Bain Capital Ventures has only around $1.5 Billion in assets under management.


VC is/was a small segment of their business.

I appreciate the links.... but I already have them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[The main function of a VC is to invest money in promising new ideas, new startups, new...wait for it....ventures.

Mittens and Bain didn't do that. .

Whether its new and promising or old and dying or anything else people are allowed to buy and sell things on a peaceful voluntary basis in a free society.

Do goofy liberals pretend to want a law against buying and selling when both the buyer and seller think they will better off????

You must see why we are sure that liberals merely lack the IQ to understand capitalism? What other explanation is possible?

 

[Synthaholic]

[The main function of a VC is to invest money in promising new ideas, new startups, new...wait for it....ventures.

Mittens and Bain didn't do that. .

Whether its new and promising or old and dying or anything else people are allowed to buy and sell things on a peaceful voluntary basis in a free society.

Yes, they are.

Do goofy liberals pretend to want a law against buying and selling when both the buyer and seller think they will better off????[

This has to do with Mittens being a job creator....how?

You must see why we are sure that liberals merely lack the IQ to understand capitalism? What other explanation is possible?

This has to do with Mittens being a job creator....how?

 

[midcan5]

I get the criticism. There are a lot of valid examples of rapacious buyout investors. But all in all, I'd say yes it does.

Broadly, economic growth is a function of productivity. Productivity rises when companies are more efficient. If companies are more efficient, they are more profitable. Companies like Bain make companies more efficient and profitable.

Productivity has risen since forever with only the few benefiting. Let's see some proof Bain accomplished what you say, so far I have seen nothing but the opposite. And whenever someone says we are going to make your company more efficient hold you nose for the crap comes quickly. Been there, seen it, lived it, survived it, etc etc.

You're right that productivity has risen "forever." That's why America is the richest country on earth. But if only a few benefit, then the 99% would still be living like they were in 1810.

And you know how people lived in 1810? Can we have a comparison based on facts or are you going to still sidestep and dance around proof?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Congratulations!

Your post is the most ironic post in the history of the interwebz...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Could you bring it down to retard level?

Even if she does, you still won't be able to grasp it, Rati.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're right that productivity has risen "forever." That's why America is the richest country on earth. But if only a few benefit, then the 99% would still be living like they were in 1810.

of course thats completely insane and perfectly liberal since, thanks to capitalist distribution, our poor live better today than the rich did 75 years ago. 44 million Americans flew in jets over the holidays!!!!
Ford, Gates, Jobs got rich by making stuff everyone could buy!!!

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Snip:

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

Thanks for the post. Don't forget to cite your sources.

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America

 

[Toro]

Productivity has risen since forever with only the few benefiting. Let's see some proof Bain accomplished what you say, so far I have seen nothing but the opposite. And whenever someone says we are going to make your company more efficient hold you nose for the crap comes quickly. Been there, seen it, lived it, survived it, etc etc.

You're right that productivity has risen "forever." That's why America is the richest country on earth. But if only a few benefit, then the 99% would still be living like they were in 1810.

And you know how people lived in 1810? Can we have a comparison based on facts or are you going to still sidestep and dance around proof?

I mean, really. C'mon. You can't be serious.

So, how many poor people had TV's in 1810? How many of them were vaccinated? How many had Internet access? How many of them had cars? Want to bet that the poor have more of those today than they did 200 years ago? I'll even give you 2:1 odds!

 

[Amelia]

 

[Ravi]

Productivity has risen at the expense of the middle class. It isn't a coincidence that the middle class has shrunk and wages are stagnant along side the rise in productivity.

LOL, it almost sounds like communism.

So you are being asked to choose....running the government like a business or running the government as for the people (like it was meant to be run).