Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Obama, GM, and Bain Capital

Comparing the GM bailout and Bain Capital is usefull and ludicrous. First of all both did the same thing, both present infusions of cash usually and a dramatic restructuring of the company. Both normally cause layoffs in order for the company to remain viable for the future. Both have risk. Both seem to be a mixture of success and failure.

It is ludicrous though because of where the cash came from. Bain has cash as a company and took investments from willing investors who believed leadership could make a profit, they chose to take the risk. Obama's money came from take payers who are forced to give money to the government and do not understand or choose to risk their money and do not stand to make a profit (nor did they.) Layoffs and hurt came to GM but not to the unions and union bosses who Obama took great pain to time when and who could sell stock before the price fell. Employees and factory workers took the fall. Democrat allies, not so much. Some of Bain's moves ended in both people losing jobs and losses. Some is the price that willing investor's pay. GM is looking to lose about $23B of taxpayer's dollars.

I know that Obama is going to attack Romney's business credentials. People will love it when he points out that people lost jobs and people will love it when he points out that Romney made money. That is the success and failure of Bain and people think negatively of both. Insane. Also notice how Obama will say, "I saved x number of jobs at GM." First of all, overall jobs went down, second of all you didn't save them, you paid for them with tax payer dollars. Give me $23 billion and I'll create thousands of jobs, and make a really large and beautiful park or thousands of new schools or something. Obama like to claim his results are better than the worst possible scenario, forgetting the same goes for Bain, who steps in on companies going bankrupt. What is the best possible scenario if the company followed what Mitt proposed? Would we be seeing the same results without the $23 billion loss to taxpayers? If there was a $23 billion loss, it would be investors who willingly put their money at risk, not me, who abhors giving any money to a government to poor at managing money.