« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Do Tea Party Conservatives Hate Capitalism?

No, But You?d Be Surprised How Little They Trust It.

Over at National Review, Jay Nordlinger is fuming and indignant. By William F. Buckley standards, his article Conservatives vs. Capitalism nearly requires a set of html rant tags. And on Jay’s behalf, I don’t necessarily believe anger is automatically bad.

Nordlinger considers himself to be a Conservative. He believes strongly in free enterprise. He sees his favored candidate, Mitt Romney, being lambasted for aggressively participating in a harsh form of free enterprise. This lambasting is by other Republicans, who ostensibly all claim to represent Conservatism. It pees in his Cheerios; as he expounds below.

The last two presidential election cycles have revealed a stinking hypocrisy in conservatives: They profess their love of capitalism and entrepreneurship, but when offered a real capitalist and entrepreneur, they go, “Eek, a mouse!” And they tear him down in proud social-democrat fashion. In the off season, they sound like Friedrich Hayek. When the game is on, they sound like Huey Long, Bella Abzug, or Bob Shrum.

Perhaps he had Governor Perry in mind with the comparison to Bob Shrum. Perry describes Mitt Romney’s work at Bain Capital below.

“I will suggest they’re just vultures,” he said of firms that “loot” other companies. “They’re vultures that are sitting out there on the tree limb, waiting for a company to get sick. And then they swoop in, they eat the carcass, they leave with that and they leave the skeleton.”

Ka-Pow! Schmack! LBO that, Vile Mittman!

It all sounds like populist gibberish. Whatever is Repair_Man_Jack to do? All of the GOP candidates he’s willing to vote for have gone crazier than Ron Paul and started playing bongo drums in an OWS Encampment? Unlike the candidates in the gladiatorial arena, I get to take a step back and examine this a bit. Having done so, I reach the following conclusions.

The GOP candidates attacking Bain Capital are not strictly anti-capitalism. They are implying that it exploits people, but would all agree to a man that this result is a negative externality. The people playing bongos at the DNC; or any other OWS encampment, see capitalism in the same vain as Karl Marx before them. The exploitation they attribute to capitalism is a deliberate result of the system and it must therefore be hobbled or destroyed.

Many GOP Candidates, driven by desperation, opportunity and a certain level of personal conviction are taking a position on Capitalism that has been a force in so-called “Compassionate Conservatism” for a long time. We often decry this moderation and blame it for GOP Congressional overspending. However, it does come from a legitimate ideological fountainhead and deserves addressing. Cardinal Ratzinger (prior to his election as PM) wrote the following about how he saw the free market economies of the 1980’s evolving.

It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the common good depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions. Conversely, it has also become obvious that the decline of such discipline can actually cause the laws of the market to collapse.

(HT: David Goldman, Asia Times)

More and more it looks like 2012 may turn into a values election instead of just “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!” Even the economy, producer of the aforementioned “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!,” is only a reflection of the society in which that operating system functions. Operate a market system among pirates, ne’er-do-wells, and dope-slingers and you’ll get really efficient markets for Nazi-Crank and sexual slavery.

I’m thinking a lot of new Tea-Party GOP voters internalize this ethos. It doesn’t cause them to hate free markets, the way a well-indoctrinated Leftist would. However, it causes them to think twice before they ever actually trust one. This is particularly true of Jacksonian voters amongst the low-income white working class.

In conclusion, a lot of Republican voters, particularly those who aren’t currently subscribed to Investor’s Business Daily or National Review, have ambivalent feelings towards capitalism. They understand the principle, but question the current people in charge of the execution. They don’t consider these question trivial and don’t consider themselves anywhere near as duplicitous as Huey Long or as deracinated as Bella Abzug.

Therefore, Mitt Romney has some ‘splaining to do if he wants to put the Bain Capital issue to bed well enough to get the Tea Party and the Social Conservatives out to the polls on his behalf. If the best Mr. Romney can come up with is “Villains ye were and LBO targets your employers remain!,” he has just either forfeited the nomination or worse. “I like firing people” could become this year’s version of “I supported the War in Iraq before I was against it.”

COMMENTS

  • porkandcheese

    Capitalists believe everyone should pay their fair share, or so I’ve been told. “Government has no business picking winners and loser.”

    But that’s exactly what it does when private equity firms like Bain can exploit tax breaks to stiff their acquisitions with their bills and run off with a bunch of cash while hardworking Americans go on the unemployment rolls. Or when GE can get out of paying taxes while they force taxpayers to subsidize green initiatives… green energy subsidies Romney fully supported as Gov. of MA. There isn’t an inch of daylight between Obama and Romney on the issues, yet one is a “fascist” and the other is a “conservative.” Give me a break.

    • haners

      “Exploit tax breaks”

      It’s amazing, you True Conservatives are almost touching the OWSers.

      Aside from religion and guns, I’m not hearing much difference from you and the Socialists in your rhetoric.

      • porkandcheese

        It’s to make sure we aren’t audited. We certainly don’t hire lobbyists to get us tax breaks. The deductions we claim are legitimate business expenses like buying lunch for employees from the local sandwich shop during a job or taking a taxi with a suitcase full of equipment. Nothing fancy, I can assure you.

        • unclefred

          We retain our accountants not just to be sure we aren’t audited, but also to mitigate as much of our tax burden as is consistent with our growth goals.

          Taxes, pure and simple, are nothing more than a burden that the government imposes on us as we strive to generate profits and grow. So within that vision we structure our business spending so that we can maximize the dollars we have for growth.

          Our view is we intend to pay every dime in taxes that we owe and NOT one dime more.

          • docaja

            are business taxes the price we pay for access to goods and services, such as roads, law enforcement and courts, that contribute to our ability to do business?

          • aesthete

            They’re the price “we” pay for whatever the heck the legislature imposing them deems appropriate. This includes schools that don’t teach anything of value, keeping zombie corporations alive, propping up an entitled lower class (at the expense of the working poor, naturally), futile wars, that and all manner of nonsense.

            If business taxes, or any other tax, were paying solely for those things that you identify, they would be much less taxing (and probably less arbitrary, as well).

  • http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/ libertarianneocon

    It’s amazing how so many of the “right” are acting just like people on the “left” when Newt and Perry started criticizing Romney for his actions at Bain. Why exactly should any criticism of Bain be off limits? As long as they aren’t promoting any laws to limit freedom to operate, what exactly is the big deal? Romney keeps talking about his private sector experience so what’s wrong in actually taking a close look at it? Perry got in trouble for what was written on a rock on a hunting ground he didnt even own!

    The establishment is behaving extremely poorly this election and is not only trying to cram a candidate down our throats but is starting to make any actual criticism of that candidate un-conservative! Even this this is a guy who raised taxes, socialized medicine and permanently banned “assault” weapons!

    • haners

      Political correctness is pandering to populist memes of evil capitalist vultures. Political correctness is the idea that no one can lose their jobs regardless of their competence or the changing marketplace.

      What is political correct about defending the successes of a man whose company gave us Staples, Sports Authority, and saved Dunkin Donuts and Dominos from certain bankruptcy?

      • http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/ libertarianneocon

        I dont see how any subject related to a candidate can be verboten in an election when we have already discussed the name written on a rock in Perry’s compound, exactly when did Newt give his first wife divorce papers and how much did he exactly make from consulting for public companies.

        Also, Bain is not a venture capital company it is a private equity company. The model is somewhat different especially when they take over existing firms. They leverage up the company’s balance sheet with debt and then give themselves massive dividends. As soon as there is a downturn, that company is in trouble. I’m not saying that this should be illegal but it does say something about someone when they engage in that model.

        • JSobieski

          Multiple wrongs don’t make the Nth wrong right.

          The rock in Perry’s compound was a stupid issue, and many of us said so.

          The Newt divorce/hosptial room story was false and many of us said so.

          Questions people should ask but wont:

          Did other companies try to outbid Bain? Why or why not?

          If Bain hadn’t come along, what would have happened to those jobs and those companis?

          Why did the owners sell to Bain in the first place if Bain was such a bottom feeder?

          • http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/ libertarianneocon

            “Why did the owners sell to Bain in the first place if Bain was such a bottom feeder?”

            Uh money. So the original owners get a lump sum payment for their equity in the business and dont have to deal with the headaches anymore. It might have been below market price but at least it was something. I have seen this happen firsthand.

            Bain then find debt investors to put cash in the company and then take the cash to give themselves dividends. It all works until something unexpected happens.

          • JSobieski

            Maybe the employees who lost their jobs should have taken a more proactive approach to preserving those jobs to avoid the sale?

            The mindset of assume my job will always be there, demand raises each and every year, sick days that one is entitled to, etc. is a flawed mindset in a competitive economy.

            It is a defined contribution world out there. If people are determined to have a defined benefit attittude, they are going to be disappointed and hurt.

          • izoneguy

            Bain looked for opportunity. Fair enough.
            But would many of those “opportunities” even exist if the US business
            climate was healthy? Between government, market & union forces – many
            business owners saw Bain coming with cash and went – SURE – it was like getting a bailout. Bain was the private bailout.
            I wonder how these bailed out Bain companies could have done with less government regulation and labor union pressures?
            Between the Labor Dept., OSHA, EPA – the government is the force that has destroyed companies. Bain was able to shield some of these companies from the government.

            Do we think Romney could dis-mantle the government enough to help the business community? Will he do it? My gut says no but we know what the alternative will be with Obama. Even if Romney did nothing for 4 years – that would be better than a proactive Marxist.

          • http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/ libertarianneocon

            I think this thread has gone off the rails here as has the discussion about Bain. It is not about pinning ultimate blame on anyone. It is about whether people have a right to look at what Bain has done as a firm when Romney was controlling it or not. Many in the GOP establishment media have vilified Perry and Newt by calling them Occupy Wall Streeters for bringing up some of the unattactive aspects of Bain’s business model.

            I would say, when you are electing a President, any and all decisions made by that candidate is fair game, as it should. There should be no zones forbidden due to political correctness (from the left or the right). If we wanted to be politically correct, we’d be Democrats.

          • JSobieski

            I am saying that candidate arguments that are contrary to commonly held principles are a bad idea, and hurt the entire team.

            This argument is all about understanding what a free market is, and why they are desirable even though people get laid off.

            If someone wants to run on an R ticket running on a platform of higher taxes, higher spending, and increased regulation—I am not advocating that they stop, and I arguing that they aren’t really Republicans.

          • JSobieski

            Owners were grateful for a free market because they could find a buyer for their businesses.

            Owners dislike a market when the competition crushes their business.

            Employees like a market because it drives up wages in bad times.

            Employees dislike markets when their employers are foced to lay them off.

          • http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/ libertarianneocon

            “If someone wants to run on an R ticket running on a platform of higher taxes, higher spending, and increased regulation?I am not advocating that they stop, and I arguing that they aren?t really Republicans.”

            Who are you talking about? Newt and Perry are for lower taxes and less regulation than Mr. Romneycare. Also, Romney raised taxes quite a bit. Being a practicing capitalist doesnt make you any more pro-freedom or else Soros and Bloomberg would be libertarian.

          • JSobieski

            My point is that free market capitalism is a foundational principle in the Republican Party.

            That principle is not really (or shouldn’t really) be up for debate. If one feels othewise, they tend to call themselves democrats.

            Put another way, if someone is a Giant’s fan and they hate the Cowboys, then they shouldn’t join a Romo Fan Club.

          • http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/ libertarianneocon

            “My point is that free market capitalism is a foundational principle in the Republican Party.

            That principle is not really (or shouldn?t really) be up for debate. If one feels othewise, they tend to call themselves democrats.”

            Who is arguing that free markets should be less free? Nobody. What is in question in character. Technically drug dealers are capitalists too, that doesn’t mean I want them to be the GOP nominee.

            And just a historical technical point. The GOP, when it was started, actually promoted government intervention in the economy through investment in public works like railroads to open up the West. Democrats were more the small government party back then. Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, was one of the most free market Presidents ever. I think it all changed around 1896 with William Jennings Bryan. Just saying.

          • Common_Cents

            on keeping the company largely intact.

            I sold my very profitable company to a fortune 200 a few yrs ago. Common sense says if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. 1 yr later, they proceded to dismantle it, firing all our broker/reps, firing much of our regional sales people, taking out top management. All for the sake of saving a buck. Well, the DNA lifeblood of the company was sucked dry and the business dropped in half in a couple years.

            People do stupid things.

          • snowshooze

            The don’t need permission or a blessing to become the owner.
            If it is common stock, and if it is available, anyone can buy it.
            If you hold enough of it… you control it.

    • sulmak

      for infidelity of trying to outlaw sex.

    • Adjoran

      Bring it.

      But no one has yet said, “With ABC Corp., they should have done this and that, and then it would have survived.” Because they have no clue.

      Instead, spouting OWS slogans is the name of the game for Newt and Perry.

      Tell Perry that “vulture capitalists” typically use hostile takeovers by buying stock of public companies or the debt of privately held ones. Bain is more of a “White Knight” who offers their services on certain conditions – ownership of a stake if successful, first call on remaining assets if not. That’s oversimplified and every contract is different, but it is the management or stockholders of failing companies who need the help and voluntarily agree to the terms.

      78% of the companies Bain acquired in this way were turned around and made profitable without bankruptcy – 60 while Romney was in charge. Were some people laid off and locations closed? You betcha.

      22% went into bankruptcy and had assets sold off. Most came out, much leaner, but survived. Six did not and Bain lost their entire stake in those.

      The alternative for ALL of these was failing, bankruptcy with little hope of coming out alive. ALL jobs would be lost.

      But that’s better that some rich corporation making money off the deal, right?

      Incidentally, the largest investors in Bain: hospital and retirement trusts.

      I have no respect for filthy hippies, or those who sound like them.

      • johnt

        Where in any pro-capitalist literature does it say that failing companies may not be acquired and revamped? If failure is a price of the system, or can be, obviously preventing it is as well, the flip side.
        Better an acquistion than a closed door bankruptcy.

      • http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/ libertarianneocon

        Adjoran, filthy hippies? Really? So now you can’t even criticize a business model without being called a hippy? That is what I meant when I referred to political correctness. On the left it usually means you are called a racist (as I have been called for saying Planned Parenthood shouldnt get federal funding).

        You have a very naive view of what happens in private equity. I know a little better as I have worked as an investor on Wall Street for over a decade. Going to these private equity guys is kind of like going to the mafia. Sure they will help you short term but they will bleed the company dry if they can. And the problem I have is not that some of their ventures succeeded and some failed, that is business and capitalism. The problem I have is when they have made millions in businesses that failed. Like Bernie Madoff.

        • aesthete

          because he was good tackler, and started calling for a “more compassionate” form of football, an observer would not be wrong to note that you’re criticizing one of the main aspects of the game.

          Firing people who aren’t producing value in the position where they’re employed is as necessary to capitalism as tackling is to professional football. Generally, involuntary unemployment is short-term, albeit painful — but it is necessary. Considering that conservatives have been arguing for a reduction in government spending, against bailouts, and against unions, unemployment in the short term is something they’re going to have to get more comfortable with.

          • http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/ libertarianneocon

            I dont think anyone is criticizing layoffs by themselves. Often you need them to save a business or just to let go of people are are underperforming. The critique of Bain is different as their private equity business model sometimes had more to do with financial engineering than with actually operating a business.

  • languedoctor

    …would be electing a big government Republican. At least with Obama, you can count on divided government. A little paralysis isn’t a bad thing when it comes to spending. An undisciplined Republican could be an absolute disaster, on the other hand.

    I think this diary does a nice job of trying to recover a principled basis for what I still perceive as shameless and opportunistic attacks (against a candidate who isn’t even my first choice).

    I get really nervous with any Republican who doesn’t understand concepts like creative destruction. Speaking for myself, I’ll drop this if Newt and Perry drop it. If they don’t, I’m to have to find someone else to vote for in a couple weeks, when the circus heads to Florida.

    • unclefred

      You forget the impact of the president’s appointment power. NONE of the Republicans running would make the kind of SCOTUS appointments we’ve seen from Obama.

      • languedoctor

        I just think that a spending-happy Republican would do every bit as much damage, if not more.

        With our current long-term debt situation, we really have no margin for error, IMO.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      They’ve driven me to defending the Good Mitt.

      Why couldn’t Newt stick to attacking the Bad Mitt? As someone else said, “the grandfather of ObamaCare?” Did an alien invade the 90s Newt, or was the Contract with America simply the result of a lucky alignment of Conservatism and Newt’s perceived path to political advancement?

      ((sigh))

      • Adjoran

        is his typical corporate tendency to go along willingly with any stupid “green” scam to keep the enviro-wackos out of the way. Newt is even worse with that stuff, so he couldn’t have done it, but Perry or Santorum could have.

        Instead, they act like Obama Democrats. We already have a guy who thinks capitalism is evil.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    1) There should be no such thing as too big to fail. Break them up (or go with Huntsman’s plan to create a support fund for companies that might be too big to fail). Otherwise, let them fail.

    2) Tea Party conservatives disagree from ChamCons (Chamber of Commerce “conservatives) on the issue of jobs.

    ChamCons want the cheapest labor possible and damn the American jobs.

    Tea Party conservatives still think that American exceptionalism includes jobs as well.

    I’m not knocking what Bain did, but there is an attitude difference out there that the GOP establishment doesn’t seem to get.

    • aesthete

      then they can get jobs without government help (i.e., tariffs). America ceases to be exceptional when it demands that government tilt the free market in their favor, cheating someone else of their livelihood and cheating other Americans out of being able to spend their money as they see fit.

      • jakeofalltrades

        I do support tariffs within the confines of GATT, as retaliation for tariffs and dumping elsewhere, because the WTO is the only way the world has to systematically reduce them over time.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        For Perry and Newt to resort to this kind of attack is one of character and does disqualify them from getting my endorsement just now. I am proud of Santorum for his defense of Newt and Huntsman for backing off. Before this Bain issue, I was for Perry and Newt. Now, I lean to Mitt over Santorum and Huntsman as my 2nd and 3rd choices.

        In life, we have to settle between imperfect choices. More later in a column before Noon tomorrow that will also address a recent George Will assertion that the GOP can “win” even if Obama is re-elected, if my legal work allows…

        • jakeofalltrades

          What a convincing position you’ve staked out, there!

          • JSobieski

            Romney is and should continue to be raked over the coals on Romneycare.

            The issue being discussed is Bain.

            The point is that by attacking Bain in this way, Newt/Perry are showing that the differences between them and Romney may be more of degree than anything else.

            I endorse the criticisms of Romneycare.
            I endorse the defense of Romney with respect ot Bain.

            All of this stuff just shows that are candidates have serious flaws and that there is no pure candidate out there.

          • jakeofalltrades

            That means socializing industries is more acceptable to him than criticizing them.

          • forperry

            More strawmen fallacies should be pointed out by our fellow conservatives. Democrats do not have a lock on that tactic.

          • jakeofalltrades

            then you have less of a problem with socializing industries than criticizing them. There is no straw man.

          • JSobieski

            in the way that Newt and Perry purport to be.

            Some (such as GC) find this to be a character issue sufficient to change their support.

            I don’t go that far, but it does make me less enthusiastic for Perry and Newt because it blurs the lines between them and Romney.

          • jakeofalltrades

            I would not have preferred this. But then, I would have preferred Jim DeMint or Paul Ryan.

          • forperry

            NT

          • jakeofalltrades

            n///t

          • forperry

            Except for the fact that you spend entirely too much time online/software architecture, etc. We should all strive for a more balanced life. Strive harder, Sir.

          • jakeofalltrades

            I can spend election years doing whatever I want. Why don’t you spend less time online, mkay?

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            …you should have the ability to change your nickname if you want to. If you want to but can’t, drop us a line via a response or the Contact link and I’ll take care of it for you.

            If you don’t care, no huhu. :)

          • Not For Perry Any Longer

            You are a gentleman AND a scholar. I figured out the name change. Now, I will go about my day and not tarry here to the point of loitering. Thanks again.

      • civildebate

        people will use the gov’t and unions to avoid being abused by a corporate dominated system that only wants freedom for the movement of capital and not labor.

        It should be just as easy to move to another country to work as it is for a company to offshore or outsource work to those same countries.

        • JSobieski

          Nobody forces anyone to accept a job.

          Modern unions are a great example of the entitlement mentality. They demand lots of defined benefits, while making it very difficult for a company to be profitable enough to provide those benefits.

          Unions always want to create zombie corporations—businesses that barely hang on to life. The problem is that in a global economy, such businesses will eventually die due to lack of investment.

          The average UAW worker with 10 years seniority is paid far more than their true market value. That is better deal (for them) than freedom—it is privilege at the expense of others.

          • civildebate

            The primary reason unions exist is to correct for a lack of labor mobility.

            Your take on unions wanting zombie corporations is no different from someone on the other side saying corporations want zombie/slave workers. Workers that are paid just enough to survive until they can comeback to work.

            I know you’re generalizing but can you point to evidence that unions are against business re-investment of profits? The UAW is are really bad example because they now own 65% of Chrysler and 17.5% of GM and it’s in their best re-invest profits in the company to create higher salaries, better benefits, and more workers. In fact, it’s in every union’s best interest to grow the company and it’s workforce.

          • JSobieski

            Corporations however are forced by law to retain people they don’t want.

            It is an assymetrical relationship here in the US.

            The best system would be freedom for both sides:
            (1) Employee continues to have the ability to leave at will and seek out better opportunities
            (2) Employer has the ability to seek other options as well

            Historically unionization leads to bad outcomes, and ultimately layoffs and restructuring. By definition, you can’t pay above market rates for below market flexibility and make a profit in the long run.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            then yes, you are being told who to work for. And worse yet, they are able to tax you (dues collection) as if they were a defacto governing entity. I’ll be pissed if I don’t see a GOP Congress go for a National Right To Work Law soon.

          • JSobieski

            The regulatory compliance issues alone are quite a headache, and time costs money.

  • WA_Cowboy

    When profit takes the place of God

    conservatives are reluctant to trust capitalism..

    • dansvan

      (That’s Arkansas speak for “right on Cowboy; you hit the nail precisely on the head”).

    • avgjo

      Well spoken.

    • aesthete

      This statement sounds nice, but is upon scrutiny meaningless without further explanation.

      • WA_Cowboy

        nt

        • WA_Cowboy

          I’ll try to write a diary here in the next few days to expand on where I’m going/coming from. Can’t do the topic justice in a comment.

  • haners

    With Rick Perry, they threw out their stance against illegal immigration
    With Gingrich, they threw out their opposition to Fannie Mae Freddie Mac and other government-private initiatives that brew corruption.

    It’s been one bandwagon after the other. There’s no principle and no prudence. Now many are even willing to throw capitalism under the bus in order to pump of their DOA candidates. That’s not what conservatism is about.

    • jakeofalltrades

      Seriously. If that makes sense in your head, maybe you should keep it there.

      • dpmapper

        No contradiction. If Gingrich and Perry started some anti-Mormon bigotry would you call anyone who denounced it pro-Romney?

        • federalfarmer1

          Nordlinger is right, Newt absolutely wrong to use this issue. The only way this criticism makes sense is if the liquidated businesses could clearly survive on their own, but bain liquidated them anyway to squeeze a small short term gain out of them. Even then, I don’t see much wrong with it. The real world doesn’t work like a Frank capra movie.

          I still don’t like romney, but his bain success is the one thing I do like about him. Ugh, what a terrible election.

  • Hooah_Mac

    I do keep coming back to the idea that criticizing a person’s conduct in the arena of capitalism does not equal criticizing capitalism – in fact I think it is the opposite.

    Proposing government solutions to this behavior is anti-conservative, but calling someone a bad actor for the way they operated can be conservative.

    It doesn’t help that the information out there on the legitimacy of Bain’s actions is so contradictory. Buying failing companies and pruning them to turn them into successful companies is not a bad thing.

    I guess the question is – Did Romney enrich himself at others expense? If so, it is legitimate in a capitalist society, but that doesn’t make it right or praiseworthy.

    • aesthete

      If I have it right, this is the way that Bain works:

      1) They either offer to buy failing companies, or are asked by company management itself, to step in and fix what’s broken in a company.

      2) Bain attempts to do this to the best of its ability.

      If this is correct, and the business owners are aware of Bain’s record, then there’s not much to argue about here. It is akin to hiring someone to help you re-arrange your personal finances when you’re up to your eyeballs in debt: it will always be painful and require shedding some assets or bad habits, but the person you’re paying is not hurting you just because you’re in pain: he or she is actually giving you a hand.

      If there’s been malfeasance, then that’s different. However, I see nothing but innuendo on that front. Bain is a public corporation, and has had many business dealings: if they were acting improperly, then there’s no evidence of that — and as a conservative, I’m not inclined to see malfeasance as being behind the success of a corporation, just because said corporation was successful.

      • 6eorge Jetson

        I was laid off in 2009, and although it was painful and caused me much angst, I completely understood the underlying economics. The company I worked for stunk up the joint, and where before the swan dive there was a need to improve the systems, after the swan dive, are you kidding? The existing systems, stretched by prior growth, were more than sufficient to support the activity generated by the few remaining accounts.

        I consoled an executive assistant that suffered the same fate as me with the thought that she wouldn’t walk into a local McDonald’s and expect to be hired at her level of pay. The McDonald’s just doesn’t need it.

        We both have found work elsewhere and are happy to be productive members of two firms that actually can use our help.

    • dpmapper

      If I buy land from you because I secretly think it has oil, and then strike oil, did I enrich myself at your expense? Probably, but perfectly right and praiseworthy.

      Not that I’m saying there aren’t legal but immoral things in capitalism, but there’s got to be a better standard for judging.

      • aesthete

        IMO, excessive usury and prostitution count as things which are immoral but permissible in a capitalistic system. I don’t see anything immoral about the purchase and attempted improvement of an insolvent company, and neither would anyone else on this board if the issue were presented in that way without references to any of the leading Republican Presidential candidates.

      • Hooah_Mac

        I would disagree that your example was right and praiseworthy. It is legal, and within the bounds of acceptable behavior, but that still doesn’t make it praiseworthy.

        If we are judging Romney based on the legitimacy of his actions in a capitalist system, then we are wrong. If we are judging his actions based on being a good neighbor, and he wasn’t, then the criticism is within bounds, whether he was or wasn’t a good neighbor in any particular person’s view.

        Capitalism requires enlightened self-interest – which means that invariably I will make decisions that are probably better for me than for you, but we all end up better as a result. Did Romney’s actions make the whole system better? The real issue in this is what tax advantages, etc that may have made these actions more advantageous to Bain than to the companies involved, and whether that made for a market skew.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          There is a world of difference between acceptable and praiseworthy. It reminds me of how people smear over the difference between tolerating something and liking it.

      • WA_Cowboy

        and this is what Perry seems to be getting at.

        Profit without morality is just as bad as no profit. What kind of things are people willing to do to make a buck? These things might be legal, might be good for shareholders, etc, but are they all really good?

        Bain capital made a living off of restructuring companies — certainly no problem there, as mentioned above, it actually is helping them. But at what point does profit-seeking trump the greater good?

        the bottom line is that capitalism is a great way to grow an economy, but profit is not God or King. If I’m getting rich at my fellow man’s expense, and it’s because of his misfortune or mistakes it may make me a good capitalist, but it doesn’t make me a good person.

        • aesthete

          for Staples, Dunkin’ Donuts, et al to collapse under the weight of their unfortunate decisions? Bad decisions happen, both in the market and in real life — as does misfortune. I see nothing wrong with helping people out of self-caused predicaments and receiving compensation in exchange, either morally or from a legal standpoint. If you do, you’re going to have to explain how making money as a doctor, a life coach, or any of a series of previously positive and life-affirming positions isn’t similarly immoral.

          • WA_Cowboy

            was simply raising the question because many times us free-market capitalists think that the free market and only the free market will solve all of our nation’s problems.

            If there’s something I’m speaking against it is the profit at all costs mindset that so infects and affects our society today. it doesn’t matter who you hurt as long as you make money.

            Not saying that Bain is guilty of any of it — or that they aren’t. only the people who worked for Bain know the kind of decisions they made and the factors that drove them.

            The point is that there’s more to life than making money. Even free market capitalists need to be reminded of that from time to time.

        • cbartlett

          Good capitalist does not necessarily mean good person. Just as legal doesn’t necessarily mean moral. I just wish Perry would get off this subject. There are SO many more objectionable things about Romney that are more important (esp. RomneyCare etc) to emphasize. Perry needs to talk about his positive plans for changing the way things are being done. The contrast with the others will be evident.

        • 6eorge Jetson

          Voluntary. Both sides believing they are better off. And thus sustainable.

          Where a company is failing financially, it’s getting the hard message that it isn’t delivering the value that it is taking. As a moral person, do you not think that you should provide value for the compensation that you take?

          At the aggregate firm level, failing companies can continue to operate by either finding a way to deliver the value that it charges (e.g. restructuring) or by taking someone else’s resources (e.g. subsidies).

          If we allow the invisible hand to work, more will find that equilibrium, both at the firm and employee level.

      • arizonajohnson

        Rather than relying solely on the NYT article, I suggest reading a few Harvard Business Review case studies on Bain & Co. and Bain Capital (Lessons from Private-Equity Masters). To identify Bain Capital as anything even close to an corporate equity raider is far from reality.

        Notwithstanding, some of the investments did not work out as planned, Bain Capital invested millions in certain companies in hopes of a profitable return as a result of business growth. When growth isn’t possible, Bain Capital has a fiduciary duty to its investors to mitigate losses. In a few cases it required liquidation. I see no moral dilemma in doing so.

        I think Paul and Santorum are smart to come out in opposition of attacking the activities of Bain Capital. I believe Perry should do likewise. Let Gingrich and Huntsman take this position. By doing so, Perry may live another day and survive as the sole conservative alternative to Romney and Paul come Florida and beyond.

    • Adjoran

      No specifics, no alternatives offered – because none of them has the first clue whether Bain’s actions in each case were the best or not. They simply have no qualifications or experience to make that judgment, any more than they could render an opinion on String Theory. Like Obama, they are out of their depth.

      What they ARE doing is throwing wild charges and insults that sound exactly like OWS socialist sloganeering.

      For leftists, it is better that companies close their doors and EVERYONE lose their jobs than the thought that some rich guy or big company might make money off of saving them. Why do so many on our side sound like that?

    • civildebate

      That’s how laissez faire capitalism morphs into a religion. If an economic system can’t withstand reasoned critiques then we should reconsider its merits.

      • JSobieski

        Kind of like the principle of being pro-life.

        Otherwise, party identity is just the letters R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n

        • jakeofalltrades

          Which is why no one is attacking capitalism; they are attacking business practices. If Perry starts proposing anti-capitalist legislation I will drop him if there is a better candidate.

          • JSobieski

            The key issue comes down to this:

            You are willing to presume that Bain acted in an unethical manner because on a couple of occassions, it bought a company and made money by breaking it into pieces. This caused people to lose their jobs.

            Is the basis of the anti-Bain complaint, or is there more?

          • jakeofalltrades

            I think using it to prove your job-creation credentials is a hard sell, and the other candidates should attack it if they’re smart.

          • JSobieski

            or from an ideologically neutral way.

            The words “profits” and “vulture” should probably not appear in those attacks.

          • jakeofalltrades

        • civildebate

          Capitalism still needs to be tested, refined, and critiqued. There are many schools of thought on this (Chicago, Austrian, Adam Smith, Gilded age capitalism, wall street capitalism, penny capitalism, corporate capitalism etc.) and none of them deserve to be exempt from criticism and rigorous testing of their claims, models, and assumptions.

          • JSobieski

            in that order of priority, nothing can be tested. At some point, you have to reach a fundamental building block principle on which to build.

      • aesthete

        and largely is not. Pointing out that critiques of capitalism tend to be void of substance, tested and and found wanting, or silly is far from making out of capitalism a religion — especially since the axioms of free market capitalism tend to be grounded in more logic and rigorous thinking than the mostly emotional appeals coming from mixed market enthusiasts.

        • civildebate

          That’s not true. Every advanced country in the world operates a mixed economy due to the logic and rigorous thinking of it. Hell, it’s written into the constitution in parts (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 gives the gov’t a monopoly on postal services for instance).

          Mixed economies work well in every advanced country in the world with no exceptions and libertarian free markets work in libertarian fantasies.

          The fact is that we figure out new things about markets all the time, just check the list of Nobel prize winners every year. A lot of the axioms that people believe in are more faith than science. Even Alan Greenspan (an Ayn Rand disciple) admitted that he was flat out wrong about several of his axioms on the efficiency of markets and their ability to police fraud.

  • Samsara

    “I belong to no organized political party. I’m a Republican.”

  • jakeofalltrades

    heh

    It takes more than a buzzword to turn off our brains.

  • kipling

    The problem most average Americans see is that Wall Street talks a good game about capitalism but then attempts to use the government and other factors to manipulate the market forces to which they claim to adhere. Big Business is not for competition, or free markets, or even labor at market value. Big business is for the bottom line even if that means discarding the principles of capitalism.

    We don’t trust them because they have been caught gaming the system too many times. Romney and Bain will rightly or wrongly be painted with that brush. Romney will be characterized as a robber baron who destroys the work of others for fun and profit. The characterization may be wrong but it will be the template.

    • aesthete

      Unfortunate, but true. (Well, what you describe in the first paragraph is unfortunate: I don’t give two figs about Romney’s political fortunes.)

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      “People of the same trade seldom meet together … but the conversation ends in … some contrivance to raise prices … [Government] ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less render them necessary.”

      I don’t really blame the businessmen, I blame us for allowing our government to have the power it should never have of rewarding rent seekers.

    • civildebate

      The average American doesn’t care if our economy is Austrian School capitalism, Chicago School Capitalism, a Social Market economy, Mixed etc. they just want the best outcomes.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        Do we have to give him one just to remain “electable?”

        • jakeofalltrades

        • civildebate

          No, you’d probably just lie to yourself and think that what he really wants is a free market BJ.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            It’s not as if you could fight city hall when they did.

          • jakeofalltrades

            of teeth.

  • ethos

    Has just reached critical levels.

    Political approach regarding the economy should be a clear cut ideal; capitalism works, leave it be. Until it isn’t clear cut anymore because emotions or an incongruent ideal gets in the way. In which case crisis ensues and one’s identity is on the line. I wonder how much of our identity as a party we’ll sacrifice in sorting this one out…

    • unsk

      For those painting the people attacking Romney, these attacks are about Romney, not Capitalism.

      Romney may have reaped the benefits of Capitalism but wants to deny those benefits to the rest of us. Criticizing Romeny’s business practices are fair game. Just because what Romney did was probably legal, doesn’t make it right. Romney has supported the illegal and unethical practices of the TBTF in similar business situations which casts doubt on his own practices.

      The Crony Socialists and Crony Capitalists are out of control, which is destroying the business environment in this country. Few politicians are willing to stand up to them and the worst possible situation would be to elect another crony insider corporatist as President. Ronmey is one of the worst; he is the ultimate Crony. He does not support a free market; he supports a rigged market for the connected and the powerful. Why would anyone who supports the free market vote for him?

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Youve’ made me think about this differently. In some ways, the argument for unrestrained capitalism is similar to the argument for drug legalization, human nature being what it is. There are a lot of people who don’t trust the people at the top to do the right thing when there are no (or few) laws in place. We are trained that way from day one in public school, after all!

    Economics is one of the most challenging fields. For most people, the deepest they get into it is their own personal bottom line. Anyone who has ever been laid off (which is a very, very large percentage of Americans right now) doesn’t thank the glories of the free market system when they lose their job. They blame the guy at the top who made the decision. In most cases, they question his morals instead of thanking him.

    I also think of my parents, who are lifelong Dems and union members. They voted for Obama last time around but they’re disgusted with him right now and will vote for an alternative if given one they can stand. But they don’t trust “the man” and I don’t see them ever voting for someone like Romney. The money in their retirement fund has disappeared over the past several years and, not understanding how it all works, they blame people like him and the “system” that supports him. They see “Wall Street” (whatever that is) as the problem (because Rachel Maddow tells them that every day). (Grrrrr!!!)

    • sigmasix

      You are absolutely correct. This video will have a profound influence in small town USA across the nation. The Bain Capital/Mitt Romney connection is a bad idea for the Republican Party and should be stopped before we lose.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtV7vKDbU3A

    • civildebate

      Getting laid off isn’t a requirement in capitalism. In other countries like Japan and Germany companies tend to cut working hours and retain staff instead of laying people off and rehiring after the recession ends. This actually reduces gov’t costs all around because less people are out of work and on unemployment. The company saves because they don’t have to waste money rehiring and retraining later on.

      Hell, in Japan dividends, shareholder profits, and executive pay are cut BEFORE any workers lose their jobs.

      There’s no reason to believe the “American Way” is the only way Capitalism can operate.

  • jeffersonjohn

    Is there a difference between Bain Capital buying enough of a business to rape it, pull out the assets and let it go out of business without losing any of Bain’s money and (except perhaps the initial investment) the MAFIA approach to capitalism which produces the same result? Either way, the little people depending on the business for employment pay the price.

    • aesthete

      This is probably the stupidest comparison that has thus far been made in this sorry debacle on RS.

      Don’t worry, though: I’m sure they’re saying far stupider things on FreeRepublic.

  • romeg

    of Mitt’s critics either not liking or not trusting Free-Market capitalism. Each of the other Republican candidates engaging in criticism of him is doing so for their own reasons and using their own particular spin, for example, Newt is bitterly angry over the brutish attacks he endured from Mitt’s superpac in Iowa so, for him, all’s fair in war and politics.

    Mitt’s attacks on Newt, including making him the center of all that is evil in the universe because his firm was paid $1.6 Million in fees was, in the opinion of a great many conservatives, just as scurrilous and unprincipled as Newt’s attacks on Mitt because he “…like[s] to fire people…”.

    Freddie Mac spent the money. It is THEY who should have to be held to account for what they spent and how they spent it and what they got for the money. $1.6 mil is a fraction of what Mr. Raines received in bonuses.

    Governor Perry, OTOH, keeps playing this Compassionate Conservative ploy as if he didn’t get that memo from Rush pointing out that Conservatism IS compassionate by its very nature.

    But, looking at the criticism of his conduct at Bain, let’s ask ourselves a question: Just what is it that makes it possible for the management of a firm such as Bain to take control of a company and downsize it, laying off hundreds or even thousands of employees in what some would instantly characterize as heartless, cruel and cavalier and still sleep at night?

    They can do so because of their knowledge that those being laid off are experiencing a temporary dislocation, not permanent exile from the workforce and, in the interim, will be covered by unemployment benefits, transfer payments from other taxpayers, buttressed by the argument that by engaging in a bit of ‘creative destruction’ they are creating a stronger and more viable entity that will benefit more people over a longer term that will more than offset the short-term perceived harm. But they, nonetheless, rely upon a feature of our economy that many Conservatives find objectionable because it prolongs the dislocated worker’s misery and stifles his or her incentive to find work. And if the take-over target fails, well, them’s the breaks.

    There is a great debate going on right now regarding unemployment benefits and the perpetual extension thereof and this will surely come up once we have settled on (as opposed to ‘for’) our nominee. He’d damn well better be prepared to defend his past and future actions.

    This is just a tiny fraction of the background against which this campaign is going to play out. What doesn’t kill the eventual nominee’s chances at getting the nomination will only make him a stronger candidate.

    Those that want to stone the critics or short-circuit the process display far less faith in our system of choosing our leaders and the economic system we champion than those very critics. After all, it is a form of free-market capitalism in which they are engaging in the first place.

  • unsk

    Romney is a Crony Capitalist at best and a Crony Socialist in all likelihood.

    To call him a capitalist is just crap.

    This new line of commentary that Tea Partiers hate Capitalism is just B.S.

    Any fool can see Romney is no friend of small business Capitalism and the free enterprise system. His entire political career just screams Progressive Cronyism.

    Like many Progressives ( Michael Moore, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi) he was all too willing to reap the benefits of the free market when it suits him, but he has consistently tried to deny the benefits of the free market for the rest of us. As far as his conduct at Bain Capital, we really don’t know what decisions or choices he made , but we do know he chose a business that exploits the vulnerabilities of others.

    There is no contradiction about a pro-Capitalist free marketer asking questions about the ethics of Romney’s conduct. There are many business practices that are legal but not ethical. For those trying to run a business in the face of a smothering, oppressive regulatory bureaucracy, it does not help when some “capitalists” exploit unethically the public causing all other entrepreneurs to look bad. It only gives more ammunition to those who want to regulate more.

    But it appears the story does not end there. Ronney has a close relationship to the nefarious fat cats of Wall Street who have illegally gamed the system for Trillions to their own benefit, and Willard has continued to support their behavior. That is just unconscionable. Crony Capitalism is bankrupting this Country.

    Like all Progressives, Willard will say anything to get elected. His current tilt to faux conservatism is just another Progressive ploy. With nearly the entire bought and paid for Republican Establishment pulling every trick in the book to get him nominated, I have no problem with any line of attack against this traitorous Progressive.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Get a life.

  • jonbg

    The issue is not Mitt’s capitalism. It’s his unscrupulous business practices. Of course, he’s going to try to hide behind the old line, “that’s just capitalism” to hide any discussion of his business practices.

    If Mitt Romney is the great businessman he and his supporters proclaim he is, then why do they always try to shut down any discussion of his business record?

    We already know that Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected. When you look at his business record, you find that Mitt Romney was willing to do whatever it took to make money.

    Most Americans work hard and play by the rules.

    Mitt Romney works hard at not playing by the rules.

  • 1stRichard

    From a Tea Party conservative, I somewhat disagree with some so called conservative economic policies, my opinion comes from decades of manufacturing, managing from the bottom up as a millwright and historical teachings. I think free and open markets are based on wealth, not notes, loans or debt and are the distortions in our GDP. I consider wealth as being something from a supply, dug or grown from the ground, value is added in processing and transportation then exchanged for a demand, supply and demand. In practical application, it is much more complicated and a more fitting description capitalism. The less you partake in the chain of supply and demand the less genuine wealth is created, and services as such provided by the government destroy wealth. I have noticed over the years that our economics has shifted from creation of genuine wealth to Wall Street banking, almost half our economic activity is now invested in Wall Street and growing at a faster pace the ever before. In my opinion Wall Street should crash and burn not effecting Main Street but has become too big to fail. Our foundation is an innate propensity of self worth coupled with the desire of innovation, individual responsibility, especially the responsibility of individual ownership in the chain of supply and demand, and not banking on Wall Street. Originally, if you could not afford something, you saved, worked for it or looked for individual sponsors, you relied on real wealth and kept away from bank loans but now it is go to the bank for a loan or wagered on speculation as a quick fix. Just as social conservatives place liberty over freedom you should find most economic conservatives place fiscal policies over monetary policies. Therein, your anti-capitalism capitalism direction is wrong. I just noticed Ron Paul use ?monetary policies? and in my opinion seems to be going in the wrong direction as well, heck what a mess.

    • aesthete

      If someone wants to exchange $10 to hear me sing, and they still think that exchange was a good one after they heard me sing? Then value was created by both participants. Intellectual property, experiences, security, peace of mind, and other intangibles have value for just the same reason that material objects do: people value them, and are willing to work to get them. Why, then, shouldn’t intangibles be part of the capitalist system?

      • JSobieski

        good advice, medical services, psychological counseling, etc. can be extremely valuable.

        Limiting wealth to what is produced in factories is a very Stalinist/Musolini kind of valuation.

      • 1stRichard

        Those other intangibles are services and are paid with tangible goods. You cannot be dependent on a services only economy, goods and services need to be balanced. You want to be paid for your dream song then you had best find someone that has the extra capital to pay for it. How would your dream world work if I was to pay for your song by singing you another song, how would that work?

        • JSobieski

          In terms of balance, that balance changes and has been changing.

          We used to live in a world that was 99% food and shelter.

          Then goods.

          Now services.

          The key to saving manufacturing is to reform environmental laws and tax laws.

          • 1stRichard

            It is much more complicated, you must make all the pieces fit and I have been doing it all the way down to the smallest nut and bolt literally for more then four decades. Environmental laws and tax laws are a much smaller part then you may think, as I said it starts with a supply and ends with a demand. The basic premise has not changed over the years and only the name has changed from hunter-gatherer to goods producing. Saving manufacturing starts with each individual and not as you summarize as collective sum as it is with unions or socialism.

          • JSobieski

            The reason why more people try for the quick cash of a Bain rather than building stuff is that there are more obstacles to building stuff.

            While there are a lot of financial regs out there, they pale in comparison to the local, county, state, and federal laws you encounter when you actually make stuff.

          • 1stRichard

            Say we do reform environmental and tax laws, build that shiny new factory, now what? Where are you going to find all that skilled labor? A friend that recently immigrated from Russian remarked on unions, why do they limit and divide us, this is Communism. Unions have become a problem. All the insurance needed nowadays is a problem and so are lawsuits. OSHA regulations are a huge expense, not to say safety is bad but tying to regulate common sense is too much. You should see the paper work needed on some chemicals, this has gotten so burdensome. Then there are all those permits and licenses that are piled on top of the environmental and tax laws, not part of. Can we at least agree that this is a complex mess that goes beyond environmental and tax laws?

            Excuse me for not replying immediately, I had some business with some Paulbots making some trouble here in the Tea Party to take care of.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Neat.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        .. the ones that feared photography.

        • Adjoran

          … paragraphs.

          Seriously, I can’t read the screed, but I get the gist that he has no clue what he is talking about.

          If he’d space it better, we could correct it point by point.

      • 1stRichard

        But then, why is canned air or bottled water is so profitable?

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          … from thin air.

          It’s why economics textbooks talk about goods AND SERVICES.

          • 1stRichard

            Is that a service or goods? If we include too much Service Providing then big government becomes capitalism? Yes, it is goods AND services so where should we draw the line in this distortion? Should government spending be included in our national GDP, they do provide a service?

  • Adjoran

    went overwhelmingly for Romney.

    Those who “strongly oppose” the Tea Party went for Huntsman. Romney won every other category handily.

    Interestingly, Paul’s share of every single category from “Strongly Support” to “Strongly Oppose” the Tea Party was within a couple of points one way or the other, within margin of error, which I found odd. 22%-26% range, tight pattern!

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …due to admixture of Indies [40% of voters] and D’s [not excluded].

  • jabailo

    The Tea Party had its one shining moment when it could have said Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death and refused to expand the debt ceiling. It gave in. So, it’s not the heir to the Founding Fathers.

    Somewhere along the way, Conservative has come to equal..Curmudgeon. The Tea Party/Perry brand of what they call Conservative is a bunch of old grouches who think the whole world which doesn’t look or act exactly like them, should fall off the earth.

    What’s so Conservative about wanting some kind of mass Social Engineering to make everything all standardized the way they like it?

    To me, Mitt Romney is the only real conservative in the field because he is not offering to make radical changes to America, he only wants to apply rules as they are written. That to me, means not “do overs” for Too Big To Fail organizations. He brought down the detritus as a raider, not it’s time for the Visigoths to storm Rome and get rid of all the failed ideologues, Transit Advocates, Urban Elitists and the whole range of costly flotsam and jetsam that Obama hauled in with him.

    • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

      The so-called ‘debt ceiling’ you cite was made up so the media could create hysteria and make Obama look like a persecuted saint. The real issue was Obama failing to submit a budget his entire first 2 years when he could have gotten anything passed. Anything. When he finally submitted one sometime in 2011 the US Senate voted it down 97-0. Not a single democrat even voted for it. So the Beltway establishment-consisting of both parties– now has a new weapon. Instead of passing a budget they have a series of emergencies. The emergencies–more of which are planned–foretell the end of the world and will be blamed on the Tea Party by democrats and establishment Republicans. It seems some of the Tea Party have gone establishment anyway which should be good news for your guy Romney.

    • rbdwiggins

      of cognitive thought hidden somewhere among all of those coded words…

  • fabio

    The only free markets are in war zones. There hasn’t been an unregulated or untaxed market in the United States in over a century.

    Once the commerce clause became the catch-all for any imagined power in addition to those that were enumerated, this nation became a technocracy — and technocracies despise economic freedom, realizing that they are a greater danger to their power than any of the political freedoms.

    We can keep talking about capitalism, but it should be in a historical context or when discussing the “free markets” of Qandahar.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Are you glad that no free markets exist, or does this bother you, somehow?

  • renny

    eat our own.

    I am not a Mitt supporter, but if you do not get blinded by the trees and lost in the forest:

    Mill has both gov. and private exec. experience;

    he admits Ronneycare is not working and obamacare needs repealing;

    he has mostly aimed his campaign barbs at o and not fellow Reps;

    he professes real love and respect for America and has not supported the class warfare and redistributionist ideals of liberals;

    he has run a well funded and proficient campaign and received important endorsements;

    he isn’t some cons. messiah, but in the immortal words of the Rolling Stones: “You can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.”

    • tonotisto

      He holds it up as a great achievement and refuses to apologize.

      He says it is different from Obama’s becausei it is a State mandate to force you into the system, instead of a Federal mandate.

      FYI. Mitt is the first to “eat our own”.

      He is the King of negative attacks and the first to do so in every campaign (one of the reasons that the other candidadates didn’t like him in “08 and here again in “12).

  • rbdwiggins

    instinctively understand, consciously or not, that capitalism and crony capitalism are nearly synonymous, separated only by conscience.

    These words were meant to convey stern warning regarding the fragility of our new Constitution:

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ? John Adams, October 11, 1798

    The same can be said for free-enterprise, and reflects the current state of our free-market economy.

    Besides, capitalism is a Marxist label.