Romney is really dropping the ball on this one, it would be so easy for him to carve all the far left loons a new ass hole on Bain, but he just doesnt seem aggressive enough to do anything about it. Some data compiled for NVCA that you'd likely have heard if Romney were a Democrat: 21 percent of 2010 GDP came from VC-backed companies 11 percent of 2010 private sector employees worked for VC-backed companies 17,000+ IT companies have been VC-funded 4,800+ healthcare companies have been VC-funded 900+ clean technology companies have been VC-funded 90 percent of software jobs were created by companies funded by VC 74 percent of biotechnology jobs were created by companies funded by VC 72 percent of semiconductor/electronics jobs were created by companies funded by VC 54 percent of computer jobs were created by companies funded by VC 48 percent of telecommunications jobs were created by companies funded by VC 88 percent of the sales from the semiconductor/electronics industry comes from companies funded by VC 80 percent of the sales from the biotechnology industry comes from companies funded by VC 46 percent of the sales from the computer industry comes from companies funded by VC 40 percent of the sales from the software industry comes from companies funded by VC 39 percent of the sales from the IT services industry comes from companies funded by VC. In their attempt to demonize Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the Obama-loving media have been misinforming Americans that venture capitalists are robber barons and corporate raiders preying on failing companies to suck every penny out of them with total disregard for employees. What these ignorant and/or dishonest members of the press are hiding from the electorate is that venture capital-backed companies were responsible for 21 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in 2010 while creating 11 percent of the nation's private sector jobs. If Barack Obama once worked for a venture capital firm, rather than such entities being labeled as the scourge of the earth, media would have told the citizenry that VC has been a powerful economic force in this nation for a very long time with the first organizations devoted to such investment having been founded in 1946. Early companies seeded with VC money were Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), Fairchild Semiconductor, and the precursor to Minute Maid which was later purchased by Coca Cola. In a subsequent decade, two leaders in their respective industries were funded by VC firms: Apple and Genentech. The successful public offerings of both in the early 1980s was responsible for an explosion in such private investing. According to the most recent Venture Impact, a bi-annual report created for the National Venture Capital Association, the following household names were founded with VC funds: Amazon, Apple, Boston Scientific, Cephalon, Cisco, Costco, eBay, Facebook, FedEx, First Solar, Genentech, Genzyme, Google, Home Depot, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Staples, Starbucks, Tesla, and Twitter. Think you would have heard that if Obama had worked for a VC firm? Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...acked-companies-generate-21-gdp#ixzz1kIH143cV
I think Romney is trying to keep his powder dry through the primary. It may be a mistake but that is my take on his campaign.
Venture capital firms serve a very tangible economic purpose. No one disputes this fact. No one. Corporate raiders are an ugly distant cousin. They serve little economic purpose other than for themselves and themselves alone at the expense of anyone who either gets in their way or in their sights. Can you make this distinction? If so, then your thread is pointless. The underlying question is whether Romney was engaged in corporate raiding, and the evidence thus far suggests that Gingrich's SuperPac overstated it. I would, in fact, be interested to see an objective assessment from an independent observer. Why the strawman, Max? Why not just address the issue in good faith? Why the need to make a Gingrich-style overstatement to support an underlying narrative?
Get used to that, there are a few Necons in libertarian drag on this site. They want small government, because it has been government that has issued things like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they have a problem with this. One should be allowed to discriminate if they choose to, according to these "interesting" people.
What does this even mean? Are you trying to say that folks who believe in small government are not libertarian, but neo-conservative? And, incidentally, people SHOULD be allowed to discriminate in private if they so choose. That is their right. In public, however, they should absolutely not be allowed to do so. We all discriminate. All of us. When we choose our friends, our spouse, etc., we are discriminating against people. It is human nature for us to move towards people like ourselves. When we pick out new cars, or houses, or clothes, we discriminate against colors, fabrics, US/Japanese made cars, etc. Choice IS discrimination, by definition. We have selected one thing or person over another at the expense of the other thing. So fucking what?
"As Mitt Romneyâs years running Bain Capital come under attack by his political rivals, the Boston firm is often being called a venture capital firm. It clearly is not one. Bain, which says it has about $66 billion under management, mainly does buyouts. True, it has a venture capital arm, Bain Capital Ventures, but it is a small piece of the pie, currently deploying a $525 million fund. Like other private equity firms such as TA Associates, Bain Capital began by doing some venture-style deals after Romney co-founded the firm in 1984. One that is often cited is its minority investment in office-supply superstore Staples. But it graduated to bigger deals in which it takes a majority stake and often uses leverage to boost potential returns. The Wall Street Journal recently took a look at the firmâs performance while Romney was at the helm, finding a mixed record. The difference between venture capital and the larger private equity world has always been murky at the edges and even some of the best-known venture firms, such as Sequoia Capital, do big deals that are more properly called growth equity, which typically involve taking a substantial stake in an established company with an investment aimed at fueling rapid growth. The distinction took on new meaning in recent years as the venture industry sought to escape increased regulation of the financial industry after the 2008 crisis. Touting data about how they were a job-creation engine, VCs successfully avoided having to register under the Dodd-Frank Act. This had the side benefit of requiring the Securities and Exchange Commission to come up with a definition of venture capital to determine who could qualify for the exemption. The SEC completed its task last year, issuing a final rule that devoted some 70 pages to discussing and defining venture capital. A key attribute of a qualifying venture firm is that it does not borrow or otherwise use leverage, except for limited short-term borrowing. The SEC gave venture firms some leeway, permitting them to hold up to 20% of their capital in non-qualifying investments, but that doesnât cover a private equity giant like Bain Capital. Calling Bain Capital a venture capital firm is hardly the worst sin in todayâs overheated political theater, but it is imprecise and not helpful. It remains to be seen whether the public buys the picture being painted by Romneyâs opponents of a rapacious destroyer who handed out pink slips while selling companies for parts. But donât call it venture capital." http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2012/01/10/repeat-after-me-bain-capital-is-not-a-vc-firm/
Max, I'm sorry man. We all know that private equity is a code word for being a racist. It's so transparent man. You can't hide it. I use to think RCG was crazy. But after he sent me the book on racist code words which contain all 6 million words that are code for being a racist, everything has become much more clear for me around here. I had no idea how many racists there were on ET. I find these "secret" words in almost every post on ET and it's now obvious to me that RCG is right, ET is a shell for Stormfront.
Here's some truth from the left, Bill Moyers, who is quite unhappy with the Obama Administration. I found his interview with David Stockman quite interesting who explains in detail how we in no way, shape or form are practicing free market capitalism. Worth watching! Stockman would probably be considered a radical leftist by today's republican party. http://billmoyers.com/segment/david-stockman-on-crony-capitalism/