“To reject, morally, the type of LBOs that Bain was noted for is not a rejection of Capitalism, but may be a rejection, on moral as opposed to legal terms, of what one may chose to do with Capitalism.”
You are getting on a slippery slope here.You are defining community organizer capitalism that has objectives other than pure profit if you are going to inject “morality” into the equation. Whose morality? Is there one objective form of morality.The terms greed, loot,corporate raider, LBO,vulture is subjective manipulative political imagery. Most companies are started or acquired with debt,Bain used a combination of capital and debt to acquire. There is absolutely nothing wrong with LBOs unless the acquisition is exclusively to tap the pension fund.None of Bain’s deals were to raid the pension funds but to acquire faltering companies at a distressed price with a view to restructuring them, holding them and selling them later for a profit.Or should we characterize an equity firm offering a price to but their firm as evil “corporate raiders”.One man’s profit is defined as another man’s greed. Vultures are people buying distressed properties at their fair market value which in many cases is distressed. Should they pay more than FMV to avoid the tag vulture. Should small or large investors smugly be characterized as vultures for buying properties that are distressed with a view to asking any tenants to leave so they can improve them and sell them later for a profit?
Take that further...should they reduce their risk, say, with the use of coercion, intimidation, insider information (which is everywhere BTW)? Should they use legal ledgerdemain?
I, for one, don't have a problem with aggressiveness when buying companies. To be successful, one must be aggressive...and there's the rub. Raiders sometimes step over the law...way over (ask Ivan Boesky). And they take actions that put others (their opponents) at a great financial disadvantage.
Some hard core "capitalists" find this business too morally ambiguous...it requires them to do things they are uncomfortable with...they find their consciences cannot stand the burden of their actions. That's why the few "dealmakers" who are successful at it are VERY successful. They are seldom guided or burdened by conscience.
And that is what America will want to know about Romney. What was his role in this career? Where did his conscience draw the line?.
I was not trying to question exactly what Romney and/or Bain did/have done in any particular case; on moral or any other grounds.
I was accepting that that type of position - a moral question - is maybe what Newt thought he was doing, and he may have had some particular Bain deal/deals in mind.
And, without justifying Newts position, or not, I accept that it is possible to make moral value judgments (would you invest in illegal drugs just because it was “profitable”; or would you fund an abortion clinic, just because it was lucrative; and some people, for moral reasons will not invest in the legal gambling industry - on moral grounds, in spite of how profitable it can be).
Capitalism may be all about “profit” or ROI, but human beings are (or ought at least ought to be) moral creatures whose life and value judgments are not always just about the economics of our choices. We spend money and refuse to spend money, not just because it is, or is not, the best deal, but because of our values, which can include what we consider our morals as well.
I was not trying to suggest that the government should enter this question, as socialists would - deciding (regulating pro/con) any “moral” question about anything that we do/is done with our money. No. But, as individuals and within our own liberty we can, we may, and sometimes we do.
I am not disputing the superiority of Capitalism, in terms of the pure economic factors in a decision. But “pure” economics is not the only value system that guides the choices human beings make.