Buying a company, taking out a loan to pay himself 350 million dollars (or close to it) and then filing for bankruptcy on the loans he took out to pay himself but suffering no liability because of legal loopholes.
And the best part is, the collateral posted for that loan? The company he bought out.
Using someone else's money is a cornerstone of global business economics. So while technically it's fraud, it's actually how business has been getting done for a very long time. It's actually very rare for people to put up much of their own money to support a business. Can't get rich that way!
From what little I understand of the business world, I am getting this impression too. I think companys and individuals can and will do whatever they can to milk money out of the system, and I think the government looks the otherway because it often leads to GDP growth, and such greed is the fundimental engine of capitalism.
This doesn't add to GDP. It's econ 101 that capitalism doesn't work without capital goods, operating capital, etc. This is why it's called capital-ism not monocle-top-hat-ism. When a big company gets taken over and shrunk to return to profitability, the result is a decrease in GDP.
He 'saved' a bunch of companys, yeah some failed but a 80% successrate is indeed increasing the operating capital that would not have existed had he not intervened.
So yeah, despite his butchery I believe he did help the economy, at the expense of workers and to great profit to himself.
'When a big company gets taken over and shrunk to return to profitability, the result is a decrease in GDP.'
From what people have stated, if he didnt shrink them they would have collapsed anyway, thus a small decrease trumps a big decrease.
Honestly, I know people will want to argue Mit is an evil capitalist, to be fair, I think hes a capitalist. He didn't start businesses@(apparently), but he intervened in many, essentially making a profit.
But yeh he seems to have screwed people over, but I don't think he had a negative effect on the economy, quite the opposite. I thinkt thats what opponants to him want to think, despite being proponants of capitalism which relies on layoffs and buying and selling of stock, venture capital and investors.
Not to mention, the company he owned(I assmume he owned a invesment company or was involved in one?) would have been making enormous profits in this time.
*If I said GDP, I meant without him the GDP wouldn't have been better than with him and people like him, not that it would yield a net increase from his actions. If I said otherwise it was a mistake.
I know alot of this is ifs and maybes, but I think the core of what i'm saying is he didn't have a negative or A-Capitalistic portfolio, he simply invested in companys to make the most profit, and cut labor where it was required to make the company profitable again, which is good for the economy and growth.
Does anyone have any detailed info on his business actions? I'd really like to read up on this guy and see exactly what were talking about, so I can make a better judgement as to the if's and maybes here.
Note: I'm not looking for propaganda on how he tore apart companys and is generally a bad guy, I know this, I agree to this more than anyone here probably, I despise how business hurts the workers first and the top last or not at all. I'm looking for detailed information on what companys he owned, how well they were/are doing and what his involvement was in them.
I just don't know what to say. I really don't.
What the fuck?! What...the fuck?! What..the..fu-u-*cries*
Oh god, just when I thought Santorum could not get any more out there, he does this. I don't think he actually wants the presidency after all :/
As for Santorum........................................
it has to be bullshit. Has to.
Author
Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over (Read 771859 times)