Probably not. Gingrich's criticism didn't seem to play well in New Hampshire. But it would also seem to need more discussion before making any definite conclusions. For example, Gingrich said that Bain put in 30 million and took out 180 million. That needs more "meat on the bones" in terms of discussion in order to determine if that is a fair characterization of what happened with that transaction.
So, as a bit of speculation, here's what I thought of: let's compare Bain with a hypothetical used car lot. Let's say that this hypothetical car lot will buy clunkers and restore them to marketability. Let's also say that some of the clunkers were really better than they seemed and the customers were happy with their purchase. On the other hand, others broke down soon after purchase and the customers were mad about it. In such a hypothetical as this, is it a good defense to say that's the way the cookie crumbles? Not to say that there should be any interference by the government, just questioning whether it is good business practice to sell stuff at inflated prices which could have a high risk of being junk.
A better defense would be to "let the buyer beware". The cars were not in top condition to begin with. They had to be refurbished in order to be put back onto the market. As long as the buyer knew this in advance, the risk was on him. If the deal went bad, then it is okay to say that's how the old cookie crumbled. As long as there was no deception, no fraud, and everything was on the up and up.
You don't want to make the case that used cars cannot be refurbished and sold. A salvage operation is a valuable and useful enterprise. But you do want to make the case that there shouldn't be any fraud. As long as everybody knows what the deal is, then freedom dictates that they be allowed to do this type of business without some busybody's interference.
Romney's best defense in the Bain case could be that it was an honest business transaction. Bain found companies in bad shape and put them back into salable condition. It appears to be a salvage operation. In salvage operations, there can be no long term warranty because there's too much risk. What happened after the sale is really not their responsibility, as long as the buyer understands that there can be no warranty. It is up to the buyer to do their own due diligence before the sale and not cry foul afterwards when it was their own mistake.
So far as I know, nobody is crying fraud. It is only a matter of who's responsibility it was for the company to have failed. Did Bain take more value out of the company, or did Bain put more value back in than they took out? If they put more in than they took out, then the fault didn't lie with them for the bankruptcy. The fault lie with the buyers if they couldn't continue adding to the value of the company, or if they paid too much. In those two cases, which includes no fraud, then it is fair to say that this is how the old cookie crumbles sometimes.
The question of fraud is the point that has not been established, one way or another. If they added more value, the failure of the company afterwards needs further explanation, for it may not have been anything that Bain did that caused it, since it could have happened after they had disposed of the company.
Or Bain may not have been a salvage operation. It needs more discussion. Gingrich may be wrong, or he may not be. There's not enough information. One thing is sure, just saying the situation cannot be questioned because- "that's capitalism"- is not good enough.
Update:
Morning Jay: How Romney Won New Hampshire | The Weekly Standard
Gingrich has alienated voters in New Hampshire, according to his numbers. That may be a rush to judgment. Question: Did Limbaugh have anything to do with that?
Also:
Tactical voters' went for Romney in Granite State
key quote:
But he's going to have competition, which is good for him and for the Republican Party, and victory is not assured. He still has to earn it.
No comments:
Post a Comment