[worry]

First day of RNC speeches was absolutely horrible. Most avoided any mention of Romney, and both Mrs. Romney and -- especially noteworthy -- Chris Christie fell entirely flat.

Also, this happened: http://2012.talkingp...camerawoman.php

[Vengeance]

worrywort, on 29 August 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

First day of RNC speeches was absolutely horrible. Most avoided any mention of Romney, and both Mrs. Romney and -- especially noteworthy -- Chris Christie fell entirely flat.

Also, this happened: http://2012.talkingp...camerawoman.php

I will see you the nuts and raise you booing a speaker

Booing Delegate from Puerto Rico

[Vengeance]

Did CNN show this?


Delegates storm out

[worry]

I dunno, I avoid CNN like the plague. But I do know that Ron Paul supporters throughout the country have been shut out and shut down the past couple years...and I mean at local Republican events across the country, like their votes at town councils or whatever were just cast aside by mainstream Republicans. I can't find any articles right now because all of my search returns are about the convention, but the RNC is scared of them for sure (but has the size and power to make ignoring them plausible, though obviously not without some blowback).

[Vengeance]

worrywort, on 29 August 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

I dunno, I avoid CNN like the plague. But I do know that Ron Paul supporters throughout the country have been shut out and shut down the past couple years...and I mean at local Republican events across the country, like their votes at town councils or whatever were just cast aside by mainstream Republicans. I can't find any articles right now because all of my search returns are about the convention, but the RNC is scared of them for sure (but has the size and power to make ignoring them plausible, though obviously not without some blowback).

I can't stand to watch political TV. It gives me a migraine. I much prefer Reddit and 538. I saw video of a bunch of Ron Paul supports saying that they would vote for Johnson or Obama and not Romney. Ron Paul said that he is undecided if he will ever endorse Romney. I would love to see the GOP split up. It would serve them right for becoming such a rich old white man party.

[Vengeance]

A great article on Bains practices.

Romney and Bain Capital

[worry]

I read an excerpt on the KB Toys gutting and it was incredibly depressing (or inspiring, I suppose, if you prefer money to people)...not sure if I want to read the whole thing, but I probably will anyway. It's masochism week, after all.

[Vengeance]

worrywort, on 29 August 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

I read an excerpt on the KB Toys gutting and it was incredibly depressing (or inspiring, I suppose, if you prefer money to people)...not sure if I want to read the whole thing, but I probably will anyway. It's masochism week, after all.

It is a depressing as shit article. I agree. I always liked KB when I was a kid. Totally explains what happened.

[HoosierDaddy]

Obama is doing an AMA on Reddit. It's going like you'd expect it to.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 29 August 2012 - 09:27 PM

[Anomander]

For those without the Reddit AMA link: I am Barack Obama, President of the United States

[Terez]

Vengeance, on 29 August 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

worrywort, on 29 August 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

I read an excerpt on the KB Toys gutting and it was incredibly depressing (or inspiring, I suppose, if you prefer money to people)...not sure if I want to read the whole thing, but I probably will anyway. It's masochism week, after all.

It is a depressing as shit article. I agree. I always liked KB when I was a kid. Totally explains what happened.

Very little in that article was really new to me, but that's not surprising since I've been reading Taibbi's blog for a while. When I read Griftopia a few days ago I went back to the beginning of his blog archives (in 2009) and started reading, and noticed a few paragraphs lifted almost whole from various blog posts. He's a great writer, but I think he's like me in that he doesn't like saying the same thing over and over again, each time artistically, but in a different way. Also, Bain gets talked about frequently by all the left-leaning financial journalists/bloggers. Taibbi is not the most expert of them, but he's one of the few non-industry people who has been willing to take the subject on, and he does pretty well. [For people like me who would like to wrap their heads around it because we've realized that it's our responsibility to know wtf is going on in the financial world, I recommend reading Taibbi alongside industry veterans and/or lifetime traders. Almost all of the time, he's saying the same things they are (assuming they are not hardcore industry apologists), but his writing style is more 'average dude' than 'Wall Street blowhard' so it's much easier to read and understand. He even does you the favor of linking to his critics most of the time because he likes to respond to criticism.]

I'm still really confused about one thing, though, and perhaps someone here can explain it. What, exactly, makes this kind of deal attractive to a business owner? Taibbi says that Bain avoids hostile takeovers, which is a detail I had been wondering about so I'm glad he brought it up, but how do you get a business owner to consent to paying you management fees to allow you to saddle his already-struggling company with more debt? Also, I've seen Taibbi say before that Bain takes over businesses that aren't even struggling, which is part of why I'd wondered before about hostile takeovers. I was thinking at the time that Taibbi had to be wrong about that, and now I'm leaning even more that way since he didn't detail such a scenario in the article (I'm sure he would have if he could have).

[worry]

Just a guess, but I imagine they simply lie to their faces with loads of false optimism beforehand, when conducting preliminary negotiations and handshake deals with honest businessmen, right up to the point of acquiring the business where they no longer have to tell those lies and can start eating human flesh.

The thing that popped up both yesterday and today (most notably in Paul Ryan's speech) was direct references to the US's credit rating downgrade (though total avoidance of the phrase "debt ceiling") and trying to tack that on Pres. Obama. I thought it was a fluke when I heard it yesterday, but Ryan mentioned it more than once tonight, and I really don't see how this can be a wise tactic.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 30 August 2012 - 04:01 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

Tell the lie loud enough, often enough, and to enough people, they just might believe you. That is the GOP's plan lately and it usually works pretty damn well.

[worry]

Yah, I get that basic reasoning. But the Dems have their convention second. And also there's 2+ months to the election. And multiple debates. And the Republicans (not just the Tea Party) screwing around with the debt ceiling is their biggest public blunder, like it's not even a question that it's entirely their fault on this one.

[worry]

There's literally recordings of Mitch McConnell bragging about keeping the debt ceiling "hostage"...I can't believe they won't get blowback for this blatant high profile lie.

[HoosierDaddy]

First, you'd have to care enough to pay attention to it. Second, you'd have to be not completely ignorant. They count and prey upon ignorance.

[amphibian]

Terez, on 30 August 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

He's a great writer, but I think he's like me in that he doesn't like saying the same thing over and over again, each time artistically, but in a different way.

WHERE IS THE PIECE OF WRITING YOU PROMISED ME, YOU TEASING LITERARY FLOOZY?

Quote

I'm still really confused about one thing, though, and perhaps someone here can explain it. What, exactly, makes this kind of deal attractive to a business owner? Taibbi says that Bain avoids hostile takeovers, which is a detail I had been wondering about so I'm glad he brought it up, but how do you get a business owner to consent to paying you management fees to allow you to saddle his already-struggling company with more debt? Also, I've seen Taibbi say before that Bain takes over businesses that aren't even struggling, which is part of why I'd wondered before about hostile takeovers. I was thinking at the time that Taibbi had to be wrong about that, and now I'm leaning even more that way since he didn't detail such a scenario in the article (I'm sure he would have if he could have).

Taibbi explains some of that by saying the head honchos of the old business get paid out in a big way and are sent on their merry way while the rest of the corporation toodles onwards (and off the cliff).

As for getting the business owners to consent to paying management fees, the hostile takeover essentially means that Bain gives the orders - it's their way or get the boot.

This doesn't explain everything and I would indeed like to see more digging into what the scenarios Taibbi refers to are, but by and large, Bain was really good at doing the "I'll give you lots of money, order you to do it anyways or fire you and get someone else to do it" proposition.

[Terez]

amphibian, on 30 August 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

Terez, on 30 August 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

He's a great writer, but I think he's like me in that he doesn't like saying the same thing over and over again, each time artistically, but in a different way.

WHERE IS THE PIECE OF WRITING YOU PROMISED ME, YOU TEASING LITERARY FLOOZY?

lol, it is still in the works. I am overwhelmed by the awesomeness of WoT.

amphibian, on 30 August 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

Terez, on 30 August 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

I'm still really confused about one thing, though, and perhaps someone here can explain it. What, exactly, makes this kind of deal attractive to a business owner? Taibbi says that Bain avoids hostile takeovers, which is a detail I had been wondering about so I'm glad he brought it up, but how do you get a business owner to consent to paying you management fees to allow you to saddle his already-struggling company with more debt? Also, I've seen Taibbi say before that Bain takes over businesses that aren't even struggling, which is part of why I'd wondered before about hostile takeovers. I was thinking at the time that Taibbi had to be wrong about that, and now I'm leaning even more that way since he didn't detail such a scenario in the article (I'm sure he would have if he could have).

Taibbi explains some of that by saying the head honchos of the old business get paid out in a big way and are sent on their merry way while the rest of the corporation toodles onwards (and off the cliff).

Yeah, that was the only explanation I could think of, but I found it unsatisfactory for various reasons. How long can they really expect those bonuses? And don't they go down with the ship?

amphibian, on 30 August 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

As for getting the business owners to consent to paying management fees, the hostile takeover essentially means that Bain gives the orders - it's their way or get the boot.

But it's not a hostile takeover, though. They get the consent of management to take over the business. But yeah, the 'what's in it for them' question is one I really would like to hear more about; it's not like Taibbi to leave a big hole in his essay like that, not in a print piece.

[Terez]

I looked into it and came up with an explanation that seems to make some amount of sense: the money that is borrowed has to at least partially go to the business itself. In other words, they don't just borrow the money to buy the business and then stick the business with the loan payments. That money goes to improving the business, and then eventually the private equity guys get out of the business altogether. (Or perhaps keep a minority stake in it if it's doing well.)

http://www.inc.com/e...r-business.html

So there's a huge gap in this story, a part of the deal that isn't explained very well at all (and I still don't properly understand).

[Vengeance]

Terez, on 30 August 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Vengeance, on 29 August 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

worrywort, on 29 August 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

I read an excerpt on the KB Toys gutting and it was incredibly depressing (or inspiring, I suppose, if you prefer money to people)...not sure if I want to read the whole thing, but I probably will anyway. It's masochism week, after all.

It is a depressing as shit article. I agree. I always liked KB when I was a kid. Totally explains what happened.

Very little in that article was really new to me, but that's not surprising since I've been reading Taibbi's blog for a while. When I read Griftopia a few days ago I went back to the beginning of his blog archives (in 2009) and started reading, and noticed a few paragraphs lifted almost whole from various blog posts. He's a great writer, but I think he's like me in that he doesn't like saying the same thing over and over again, each time artistically, but in a different way. Also, Bain gets talked about frequently by all the left-leaning financial journalists/bloggers. Taibbi is not the most expert of them, but he's one of the few non-industry people who has been willing to take the subject on, and he does pretty well. [For people like me who would like to wrap their heads around it because we've realized that it's our responsibility to know wtf is going on in the financial world, I recommend reading Taibbi alongside industry veterans and/or lifetime traders. Almost all of the time, he's saying the same things they are (assuming they are not hardcore industry apologists), but his writing style is more 'average dude' than 'Wall Street blowhard' so it's much easier to read and understand. He even does you the favor of linking to his critics most of the time because he likes to respond to criticism.]

I'm still really confused about one thing, though, and perhaps someone here can explain it. What, exactly, makes this kind of deal attractive to a business owner? Taibbi says that Bain avoids hostile takeovers, which is a detail I had been wondering about so I'm glad he brought it up, but how do you get a business owner to consent to paying you management fees to allow you to saddle his already-struggling company with more debt? Also, I've seen Taibbi say before that Bain takes over businesses that aren't even struggling, which is part of why I'd wondered before about hostile takeovers. I was thinking at the time that Taibbi had to be wrong about that, and now I'm leaning even more that way since he didn't detail such a scenario in the article (I'm sure he would have if he could have).

In order to avoid the hostile take over they need to find a Management team in place that is willing to be paid out. Then the Leverage artist comes in and says listen we will offer you all of this money (to the current management team) and keep you guys on (as opposed to a hostile where they fire the management team) but we are going to be your consultants. Now the Management teams is so happy that they aren't going to get fired and that instead they are going to get paid out that they aren't able to see what is down the pipe line. So they go for the deal. Greed.