Quote:
Originally Posted by jj2me
I saw in another thread where you bemoaned posts in the declarative. This is an example. So it's all politics, is it?
But after rcentros gave perfectly fine and polite rebuttals to your declarative that "there's nothing wrong with them," that it's all politics, now you're sighing with impatience?
Sometimes PE can be useful. Sometimes. The other times? Financialization with little risk, squeeze money however they can, the health and longevity of the takeover business and their employees be damned. They don't just target sick companies, but are starting to target healthy companies, because they can still take their oversize profits. They take their fees from their investors, and then from the company via management fees (bringing in high-priced outside "experts" who know nothing of the business other than the books), almost always forcing debt on them for more profit taking.
Grocery chain example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...b8f_story.html
Toys 'R Us: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press...-of-bankruptcy
How PE makes their profits, regardless: https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/s...57738088235009
https://cepr.shorthandstories.com/pr...age/index.html
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessrevi...-of-their-own/
How PE lobbied for the carried interest loophole:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/b...lobbyists.html
Mitt Romney and Bain:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...apital-183291/
PE behind medical "surprise billing" (because they saw that if they buy up doctors and facitilies, they can create instances of surprise billing to make outsize profits):
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/u...ent-unity.html |
Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, made the point that regardless of which side of the political spectrum you are talking about, when only one side carries a narrative, be suspicious, but if both side carries the story, then it's likely true. It's a pretty good rule of thumb.