It's morning in Obama's America

[grumbler]

They controlled the company.  They had the largest equity stake (35.9%) and controlled a majority of the board seats, plus their guy was CEO.  The sole purpose of the deal was to allow BC and a couple others to cash out.

I want to be clear - there was nothing improper about the deal.  The other major shareholders consented.  It was a legit transaction.  It served the interest of Mitt's firm and the investors he acted as fiduciary for.  But I think one can question whether it was a net benefit for the US economy.

You gotta wonder why the other shareholders would consent to let one shareholder make off with all of their equity as its profits.  Is it because none of them had a big enough stake to care?

[DGuller]

Or, for that matter, why would debt-holders agree to be freerolled like that?

[crazy canuck]

I know what Romney said.  You and I disagree as to whether what he said was stupid.  You seem to think what he said its ok.  That says more about you then anything...

You and I disagree as to what he said based on your posts.

I dont think so.  You and I can both read.  Its just that some people, including you come to his defence and say that his comment can be justified as saying it is a good thing that people can fire service providers if they are not providing a good service blah blah blah.

The problem is he didnt exactly say that.  But you know that so dont go all Grumbles on me.

You are dressing up his comment as saying freedom of choice in a competitive market is a good thing.   He would have been well served if he had said that.  His choice of words was poor and so the people that immediately sprang to his defence by saying that an attack on Romney was an attack on free markets (eg Paul) really missed the point.

[DGuller]

I have to give it to you, CC, Romney wouldn't ever fire you if he hired you to dig a hole.

[The Minsky Moment]

You gotta wonder why the other shareholders would consent to let one shareholder make off with all of their equity as its profits.  Is it because none of them had a big enough stake to care?

The other big shareholder was Hoechst (now Aventis).
Why did they do it?  I don't know.  But this was right around the same time that Hoechst merged with Rhone-Poulenc to create Aventis.  I think the idea was to fold the Dade business into the combined entity and Hoechst probably needed to secure a majority stake to do that.  This was in the late 90s when pharma and medical diagnostics were booming and players were merging left and right.  People thought that everything associated with health care would keep going up forever.

[Admiral Yi]

I dont think so.  You and I can both read.  Its just that some people, including you come to his defence and say that his comment can be justified as saying it is a good thing that people can fire service providers if they are not providing a good service blah blah blah.

The problem is he didnt exactly say that.  But you know that so dont go all Grumbles on me.

You are dressing up his comment as saying freedom of choice in a competitive market is a good thing.   He would have been well served if he had said that.  His choice of words was poor and so the people that immediately sprang to his defence by saying that an attack on Romney was an attack on free markets (eg Paul) really missed the point.

He came pretty close to saying that, except the blah blah blah part.  He said something very close to "I enjoy firing people who provide me services, if I don't like the services."  He sure as fuck didn't come anywhere close to saying "enjoying firing employees is an integral part of the free market."  It's that characterization that makes me (and apparently others) think you're basing your comments off of others' comments, not his statement.

[crazy canuck]

I dont think so.  You and I can both read.  Its just that some people, including you come to his defence and say that his comment can be justified as saying it is a good thing that people can fire service providers if they are not providing a good service blah blah blah.

The problem is he didnt exactly say that.  But you know that so dont go all Grumbles on me.

You are dressing up his comment as saying freedom of choice in a competitive market is a good thing.   He would have been well served if he had said that.  His choice of words was poor and so the people that immediately sprang to his defence by saying that an attack on Romney was an attack on free markets (eg Paul) really missed the point.

He came pretty close to saying that, except the blah blah blah part.  He said something very close to "I enjoy firing people who provide me services, if I don't like the services."  [/b] He sure as fuck didn't come anywhere close to saying "enjoying firing employees is an integral part of the free market."  It's that characterization that makes me (and apparently others) think you're basing your comments off of others' comments, not his statement.

Yeah, you need to add in the bit at the end which is bolded to make your point.  But he didnt say that.  His one line gaffe was " "I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me."  Its later that he mentions the bit about medical coverage and being able to replace it.  Political campaigns have been about sound bites for what - the last 20 years or so.

People who "provide services" can be either employees or third party contractors.  But you dont even have to analyze it that far.  Simply saying I like to be able to fire people.... is a pretty stupid thing to say even for a politician.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, you need to add in the bit at the end which is bolded to make your point.  But he didnt say that.  His one line gaffe was " "I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me."  Its later that he mentions the bit about medical coverage and being able to replace it.  Political campaigns have been about sound bites for what - the last 20 years or so.

People who "provide services" can be either employees or third party contractors.  But you dont even have to analyze it that far.  Simply saying I like to be able to fire people.... is a pretty stupid thing to say even for a politician.

I don't need to add shit.  He fucking said it.

Now, pretty please, tell us at what line he says "enjoying firing people is an integral part of the free market."

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, you need to add in the bit at the end which is bolded to make your point.  But he didnt say that.  His one line gaffe was " "I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me."  Its later that he mentions the bit about medical coverage and being able to replace it.  Political campaigns have been about sound bites for what - the last 20 years or so.

People who "provide services" can be either employees or third party contractors.  But you dont even have to analyze it that far.  Simply saying I like to be able to fire people.... is a pretty stupid thing to say even for a politician.

I don't need to add shit.  He fucking said it.

Now, pretty please, tell us at what line he says "enjoying firing people is an integral part of the free market."

I was reacting to what Paul said...  Please pretty please dont turn into Grumbler.

And if he "fucking said it" Then why is the quote I pulled up the quote set out in all the major news sources I can find as to what was actually said in that sentence?

You want the sentence to be something else.  It isnt.  The part you are looking for came after that sentence.  Which is the Fucking Problem.

[DGuller]

Oh, for fuck's sake, CC.  Just because I really dislike grumbler, and I hate seeing you continue to unconditionally embarass yourself, I'm going to post Romney's actual quote.  I'm not putting you out of your misery because I'm hostile to you, I'm putting you out of your misery because I'm compassionate towards you.

"I want individuals to have their own insurance," Romney said. "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

It took me about 30 seconds to find it in Google.

[mongers]

Oh, for fuck's sake, CC.  Just because I really dislike grumbler, and I hate seeing you continue to unconditionally embarass yourself, I'm going to post Romney's actual quote.  I'm not putting you out of your misery because I'm hostile to you, I'm putting you out of your misery because I'm compassionate towards you.

"I want individuals to have their own insurance," Romney said. "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

It took me about 30 seconds to find it in Google.

Yes, it's here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9004683/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-I-like-to-fire-people-gaffe-draws-fire-from-opponents.html

but it's not exactly as quoted, right after saying "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me" he stumbles quite a bit, because I think he instantly knew what he said could sound bad, especially if it was taken out of context.

[Caliga]

Even if taken out of context, "I like to fire people" is a positive quality in a President.  If a President's advisors/cabinet secretaries do a shit job, he should fire them and get better people.  I don't understand why anyone would view his statement as a negative in any context.

[mongers]

Even if taken out of context, "I like to fire people" is a positive quality in a President.  If a President's advisors/cabinet secretaries do a shit job, he should fire them and get better people.  I don't understand why anyone would view his statement as a negative in any context.

The out of context would be, it's being said by a mergers and acquisitions guy who likes asset stripping* 

In that context it opens up questions about his corporate behaviour, which wouldn't play well in an election year, especially at a time of recession and yet incongruously large CEO remunerations etc.




* according to JR.

[Phillip V]

More Conflict Seen Between Rich And Poor

'Conflict between rich and poor now eclipses racial strain and friction between immigrants and the native-born as the greatest source of tension in American society.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/more-conflict-seen-between-rich-and-poor-survey-finds.html

About two-thirds of Americans now believe there are "strong conflicts" between rich and poor in the United States, a survey by the Pew Research Center found, a sign that the message of income inequality brandished by the Occupy Wall Street movement and pressed by Democrats may be seeping into the national consciousness.

The share was the largest since 1992, and represented about a 50 percent increase from the 2009 survey, when immigration was seen as the greatest source of tension. In that survey, 47 percent of those polled said there were strong conflicts between classes.

[The Minsky Moment]

The out of context would be, it's being said by a mergers and acquisitions guy who likes asset stripping* 

I don't know about that.  I doubt that he gets positive utility just from selling off assets.  That would be weird.  I think what he likes making money and one way to make money is buy companies on the cheap, leverage them and cash out.  As it happens that is how he made much of his money and he did a pretty good job at it.