Romney stayed longer at Bain

Alice1234
Posts: 5
Joined: 2012-07-03
User is offlineOffline
Romney stayed longer at Bain


Romney stayed longer at Bain
Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

Contradictions concerning the length of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital add to the uncertainty and questions about his finances. Bain is the primary source of Romney’s wealth, which is estimated to be more than $25o million. But how his wealth has been invested, especially in a variety of Bain partnerships and other investment vehicles, remains difficult to decipher because of a lack of transparency.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The fact is you

EXC wrote:

The fact is you support the conditions that lead to economic misery, child abuse and neglect. You live in a world of self-delusion where all poverty is caused by rich people like Romney stealing it and then hording it because they are selfish. Then you make yourself into some kind of compassionate hero because you are so generous with other people's money. The obvious fact to anyone living in the real world is that people are poor because they don't have anything to sell, not because of some evil conspiracy of the 1%.

But your answer is to steal from anyone who has achieved success, regardless of how they achieved it. Obviously it is driven by your own jealousy of success. Your politics is nothing more than victimization and then using this as an excuse to steal. The politics of a loser, you can't achieve success on your own so you must steal it from anyone that has. But just like with religion, you don't even really believe your own propaganda. It's just an exercise in self-aggrandizing and narcissism.

Adios loser.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/B001T8D0PY/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343069613&sr=1-4&k...

Or you can just go to Wiki and view the references for the article on economic inequality.  Make up your own mind but don't gripe at me about there is no data until you have read all the research -

General references

Books
Papers

External links

This paper describes the relationship between poverty and inequality and discusses some of the evidence found. Written by Fernando Bonilla.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4634
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 There are certainly very

 There are certainly very wealthy people who use laws to make money, look at the Solyndra scam, and also several companies that use lobbying to create government regulations that prevent competition. I agree 100% that such laws and regulations should be repealed immediately. However, that does not reflect on every wealthy person. Specifically, this thread is about Romney and as far as I know he never abused government regulations or government subsidies to grow his investments. If he has, that would be a potentially devastating issue to attack him on. 

IMO, those whose business success is solely due to their political ties are despicable people who ought to have all of their funding cut immediately. Unfortunately, too many of the ignorant believe that government regulations are designed to help the "little guy" as if politicians give a shit about the little guy. 

 

That being said, I would love someone to explain to me why income inequality is a bad thing as long as neither party is using government to take from the other. Many critics of inequality just implicitly assume that inequality is bad in and of itself. They pay little to no attention to why there is inequality. All inequality is not equal. Inequality that comes because one party has better political connections than another is bad, inequality that comes because one person produces more than the another is good. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:That

Beyond Saving wrote:

That being said, I would love someone to explain to me why income inequality is a bad thing as long as neither party is using government to take from the other. Many critics of inequality just implicitly assume that inequality is bad in and of itself. They pay little to no attention to why there is inequality. All inequality is not equal. Inequality that comes because one party has better political connections than another is bad, inequality that comes because one person produces more than the another is good. 

 

Read the research.  Someone who has done research and written peer reviewed articles on it is probably much more coherent than I am. 

Briefly, can you tell me why baseball teams that have more income equality are more likely to win the pennant than teams that have "stars" who make a lot more than the rest of the team?  Same diff.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4634
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Read the

cj wrote:
 

Read the research.  Someone who has done research and written peer reviewed articles on it is probably much more coherent than I am. 

I have, I read this shit all the time, it is kind of a hobby of mine and as I pointed out, I have observed that those who automatically decry inequality do not differentiate for how the inequality came to exist. They point towards inequality that occurred through force and equivocate it with inequality that occurs through persuasion. 

 

cj wrote:
 

Briefly, can you tell me why baseball teams that have more income equality are more likely to win the pennant than teams that have "stars" who make a lot more than the rest of the team?  Same diff.

Because the baseball teams with the lowest gini coefficients also happen to be the teams with the highest salaries. For example, the New York Yankees consistently have the highest team salary but also consistently one of the lowest gini coefficients. They also have three of the top five highest salaried players in the league, but even the poorest players make a lot more than their counterparts. So while income inequality within the team is low, the NYY substantially increase the income inequality of the league in general.

It is very well documented that higher total team salaries is strongly correlated with winning the world series. http://voices.yahoo.com/do-higher-baseball-salaries-translate-championships-472253.html

Given the great disparity in the amounts that different teams have it is logical that a team with limited resources and chooses to pay for a single superstar will have a very large gini coefficient, but they are not losing because they hired a superstar, they are losing because they did not have enough funds to hire a full team of A list players. Papers and books I have read by the proponents of the theory that inequality within a team harms the teams odds of winning fail to take the substantial differences between total team salaries into account as such their data means precisely shit. 

When you look at sports where teams have more close salaries, such as the NFL, teams with high paid superstars are more likely to make the playoffs. It isn't an accident that the short list of the best (and highest paid) QB's in the league is also the shortlist of teams most likely to get to the playoffs. There is the reality that it is a team sport and one player on their own can't necessarily carry the whole team (unless his name is Peyton Manning). It is a decision that every other business has to make when hiring employees, do you pay top dollar for one position and thereby be forced to pay less (and get a worse player) for another position? It is a delicate balance to work out and needs to be decided on a case by case basis. Sometimes you get lucky and get a superstar cheap, Tom Brady was extremely underpaid when he started winning as QB for the Patriots, sometimes superstars are extremely overpaid *cough* Donovan Mcnabb. Plus the reality that your superstar might be injured.

Yet in sports, the trend remains that the best players get paid substantially more than the worst and income inequality increases as the sport as a whole becomes more profitable and decreases when the sport as a whole becomes less profitable. Just like income inequality works for the workforce in general. A company that is extremely profitable can afford to pay huge salaries to key employees to get the best of the best. As profitability fades cuts need to be made, sometimes you have to ditch the superstar, sometimes you reduce the salaries everywhere else, the correct answer depends on the specific situation. 

Sometimes, you can be the New York Yankees and pay for a bunch of superstars plus pay everyone else a great wage, it is always fun to have your cake and eat it too. But like baseball, not every team can afford the NYY salary, not every company can afford to pay top dollar for every employee. Those who can't afford it have to spend it wisely. Sometimes that involves finding employees who are undervalued by the market (like sabermetrics in baseball) and managing without a superstar, sometimes it means hiring a superstar that can make up for the weaknesses in the rest of the team (hiring Peyton Manning). Who is best positioned to make that determination? I say the person who owns the business as they will be the ones who profit or lose the most from the outcome of the decision. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So we'll just take

EXC wrote:
So we'll just take it on faith that you arr blah blah blah

^EXC pretending that I've never explained how and why he is wrong at least a thousand times, for at least the thousandth time. lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.