Sub-Husker Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 I’m not trying to get hyperbolic, but would assign the leech label anyone else who collects income from investments (brokerage accounts, 401ks, savings account etc)? You are correct, but what Mitt Romney did at Bain would have made G. Gordon Gecko chastize greed. I haven’t heard of SONGS, is it the San Onofre facility? Post a link and I’ll take a look. I'll do that tonight, I don't want to do the search from work. Link to comment
HoustonSker Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Concerning Bain, I'm aware of how private equity works. My wife's company was recently bought by KKR. Do I like it? I see the positives and negatives, but I accept it as the way the markets work. So you accept a company like Bain making a $16.5 million profit by buying a company, slashing promised benefits (to the point where the federal government had to step in and make up for a $44 million shortfall), firing 750 people . . . and driving the business to close? In my opinion that's not the way the market is supposed to work. And this would be one of those negatives. In this case, I absolutely don't agree with what Bain did, but let's not take this example and project it to all of Bain's deals or to all of private equity. I'm not saying that this is your intention, but we don't want to assume. For my own understanding, please include the company's name. Private equity serves a valuable role in growing and optimizing businesses, and what I accept is that sometimes the deal is a failure for employees, management, and investors like Bain. On the flip side, sometimes private equity is instrumental in growing start-ups or revamping existing companies to help them operate more effectively. Are their particular rules that you think would help create a better private equity industry? Off the top of my head...maybe set a limit on the amount of debt (% of assets for example) that the private equity company can issue and place on the company's balance sheet. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 They mention a "potential leak", which they would never say unless it already happened. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/unit-shut-down-at-san-onofre-nuclear-plant.html http://www.ocregister.com/news/reactor-338275-san-onofre.html http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19868953 Link to comment
Michiganball Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yes Sub-husker, I think there is a coloration between the strength of the unions and average income as well. Most folks don't look back just a century at what state the working class was in, and I don't mean just manufacturing. It took decades and literally spilled blood to have what we have today(yet some of this is lost in weeks with one signature these days). There was absolutely no incentive to pay anyone a decent wage unless there were rare specialists needed for a certain field. The companies had all absolute power and there was no other place to go(I have to admit some companies have had ownership with enough self respect to have payed a good wage to it's workforce). Anyone watch old films? Ever notice how even an upper middle class could afford servants? That's because income was so unevenly distributed that many had no choice but to work at someone else's home for a pittance. These days they may get a maid service, but they cant afford most of us 24/7. Overall I cant complain as I make a pretty good living as do my friends, but I am concerned at what I'm seeing in regards to the preferential treatment the top 1% and their businesses. I'm pretty much tired of the company owners who say "if I don't get more tax breaks I wont hire any more workers". Well you know what? Fine don't hire more workers this is capitalism and if there is demand for the product you make, the other company will be glad to hire them and meet the demand. The whole trickle down myth is just such rubbish. In the end I think we shoot ourselves in the foot a bit. Many of us invest and expect continuous higher returns. basically this means the new CEO needs to continue increase in profit. Easiest way is to offshore, cut wages/benefits and exploit new markets(this however is fairly finite, unless you have something new in your catalog). Anyway like anything else in the world to much of something is not that good for you. Capitalism is reaching that point it seems. Were on the edge of Monopolies and many Duopolies. I no longer have a choice in what cable internet provider I use, there is only one. Many other items we buy there are no more then two companies that make them. Companies are so big they cant be allowed to fail, yet they absorb any competition or creative upstarts before they get up and running. Maybe this changing system should be called Corporatism, I'm not a fan, I'd like to see 20 American car manufacturers like in the past, see some real competition, because then we have the choice and some power as a consumer. Anyway rant off, take care gents. 1 Link to comment
redblooded Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Yes Sub-husker, I think there is a coloration between the strength of the unions and average income as well. Most folks don't look back just a century at what state the working class was in, and I don't mean just manufacturing. It took decades and literally spilled blood to have what we have today(yet some of this is lost in weeks with one signature these days). There was absolutely no incentive to pay anyone a decent wage unless there were rare specialists needed for a certain field. The companies had all absolute power and there was no other place to go(I have to admit some companies have had ownership with enough self respect to have payed a good wage to it's workforce). Anyone watch old films? Ever notice how even an upper middle class could afford servants? That's because income was so unevenly distributed that many had no choice but to work at someone else's home for a pittance. These days they may get a maid service, but they cant afford most of us 24/7. Overall I cant complain as I make a pretty good living as do my friends, but I am concerned at what I'm seeing in regards to the preferential treatment the top 1% and their businesses. I'm pretty much tired of the company owners who say "if I don't get more tax breaks I wont hire any more workers". Well you know what? Fine don't hire more workers this is capitalism and if there is demand for the product you make, the other company will be glad to hire them and meet the demand. The whole trickle down myth is just such rubbish. In the end I think we shoot ourselves in the foot a bit. Many of us invest and expect continuous higher returns. basically this means the new CEO needs to continue increase in profit. Easiest way is to offshore, cut wages/benefits and exploit new markets(this however is fairly finite, unless you have something new in your catalog). Anyway like anything else in the world to much of something is not that good for you. Capitalism is reaching that point it seems. Were on the edge of Monopolies and many Duopolies. I no longer have a choice in what cable internet provider I use, there is only one. Many other items we buy there are no more then two companies that make them. Companies are so big they cant be allowed to fail, yet they absorb any competition or creative upstarts before they get up and running. Maybe this changing system should be called Corporatism, I'm not a fan, I'd like to see 20 American car manufacturers like in the past, see some real competition, because then we have the choice and some power as a consumer. Anyway rant off, take care gents. This is awesome, just because it is like the realization that maybe too much of something could eventually be a bad thing. http://www.thedailys...-jonathan-macey Watch that daily show, where you will see an Ivy league professor realize what has happened to the US in the last 30 years because of the money thrown at politics now. It isn't instant it takes awhile the full interview to be matter of fact... Were going on 2 generations now where the best mathmatics students have gone not to Nasa or Research but to the financial industries because that's who will pay. The goal is to screw you out of your money... all of it, property, retirement, 401k... legally and they've done it. Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 This is awesome, just because it is like the realization that maybe too much of something could eventually be a bad thing. http://www.thedailys...-jonathan-macey Watch that daily show, where you will see an Ivy league professor realize what has happened to the US in the last 30 years because of the money thrown at politics now. It isn't instant it takes awhile the full interview to be matter of fact... Were going on 2 generations now where the best mathmatics students have gone not to Nasa or Research but to the financial industries because that's who will pay. The goal is to screw you out of your money... all of it, property, retirement, 401k... legally and they've done it. Holy ****, you're right. Scary stuff indeed. Thanks for the find. Link to comment
Recommended Posts