Originally posted by gokenin Let's simply overlook the fact that the company you are siting had 4 mills when Bain came in and the decision to close the mill in Kansas City allowed the other 3 mills to continue to operate to this day. Would it have been better to keep it open and put all 4 mills at risk of closing? Businesses make these kinds of decisions every day does that mean that every business should be forced to keep every plant and job forever regardless of the economic impact to the company ? Just curious
Not sure who the "you" is that may be citing to something, but my point was just that the ad explains out how the fortunes of the super-rich and everyone else are no longer tightly linked, and that is more the problem with the 99%-1% rather than envy, as Romney likes to say. It is not at all clear that Bain saved other mills by what they did to the ones in Kansas and South Carolina. They saddled them with debt, got their money out of it, and left them weakened to face competition.
http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Kansas_City_Steel.pdf Then, though bankruptcy, they got the U.S. government to take on the pensions.
The pros and cons of any one example may have many facets, but the operations of Bain capital could not more squarely put the Occupy debate before the American people. The disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street is exemplified in these transactions where the rich make huge profits and the taxpayers and workers lose.