Jump to content

Why Are Companies Leaving the USA


Recommended Posts

I could give you a list as long as your arm of REGULATIONS that cost companies MILLIONS a year in costs.

 

Add to that the HIGHEST Corporate tax rate in the world and you get the idea.

 

LABOR is only a small portion of the problem. The fact is, MOST US based companies would LOVE to stay here, but when 95% of their profits go to taxes and regulations, they aren't going to stay.

 

And the regulations have little to do with environment, but MANY are completely and totally USELESS for any known purpose to do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Are Companies Leaving the USA

 

 

USA white collars are borrowing money, then buying healthy companies,then leveraging their victims with the debt,then begin laying off workers , then off shoring the companies, then laughing all the way to bank , then begin shopping for another USA victim.

 

 

An abused financial practice, the leveraged buyout, is being shown up for what it often is: a source of legalized fraud.

 

Obviously I'll be editorializing against it, but first, I hear commentary using several terms interchangeably and potentially confusing the issue. There are terms that are different but sort of the same, or overlapping, or subsets, or some combination, and if you're getting confused, that's pretty much the point.

 

Allow me to unwind the confusion and define some terms so at a minimum, we can all sound like we know what we're talking about when we get after Romney for enriching himself with scams like Georgetown Steel. There isn't an obvious order for defining these terms, so I'll just do my best to make them clear.

 

Private equity: A private equity fund is basically a company that isn't publicly traded, which means you can't buy shares on the stock market. The investors have to somehow be invited or find out, and they probably need to have affirmative answers to questions like, "can you put in several million?"

 

So usually these are investors who are pretty rich to begin with, as Romney already was when he ran Bain Capital. However, investors can be funds with a large amount of money to invest, including the pension funds of people who actually work for a living.

 

There is nothing inherently nefarious in collecting a bunch of money and looking for businesses to invest in. If a private equity fund can buy a struggling business and turn it around, that's a good thing.

 

So Bain Capital did nothing wrong just by starting up and looking for places to invest. Where there are potential problems is the short-term strategy of private equity. The idea is to turn the business around and sell it within a few years. It's tempting to buy a healthy but underpriced business, and sell off parts, or strip it of equity.

 

Bain Capital: Just to make sure there's no confusion, Bain Capital is a specific company, which happens to be the one Romney ran, whereas private equity and venture capital are types of companies. Perhaps I should then define "venture capital" next.

Venture capital: Venture capital invests in start-ups. They get an ownership stake in exchange for capitalizing the business, and often offer connections or even mentoring to founders who may know how to make their new product, but not how to hire staff, handle accounting, market their product and so on.

 

Like private equity, venture capital has a short term plan, hoping to take the company public or sell it to a bigger company in a few years. Now to add confusion, venture capital is a type of private equity, and private equity companies might engage in venture capital --- so they're not different companies exactly so much as different emphases. Venture capitalists have presumably told potential investors that they intend to fund start-ups, not engage in leveraged buyouts.

 

"Venture capital" has been used interchangeably with "vulture capital", at least I think that's what Rick Perry was doing when he attacked Romney with the term "vulture capital". However, it doesn't have to be the same. Funding start-ups is a very good thing. Mentoring people who can make something but lack capital or business skills is a good thing, not that all venture capitalists are good at it or running one business is like running another. Back in the tech boom, I worked for an internet company run by the venture capitalists who bought it with the intention of building the customer base quickly and going public.

 

They didn't actually understand the internet, as became apparent when one executive who had been with the company at least a year asked another how to access the company's web site in a browser ... we built web sites. I don't think they got their money back on that one.

 

Actually, they make their money on a few successes that pay off big and make up for losses, while they usually lose money as most start-ups fail despite financial backing (funny how Republicans pretend they don't know this when they try to make a scandal out of each failed alternative energy company).

 

Vulture capital: this isn't a technical term, just a pejorative. Certainly applies to what Bain Capital was doing (I know I'm holding you in suspense, but I will explain it), basically making money by taking businesses apart instead of building them. You may have heard this term in regards to people who buy the debt of poor countries who can't pay their debt, buying it from sellers happy to get back pennies on the dollar.

 

Then they use western courts and the leverage of western financial institutions, and maybe good old-fashioned bribery, to force poor countries to forgo development or even food in order to pay the debt to the vulture capitalists. The term can be applied to other behaviors, like applying it to Bain for what it did to the aforementioned Georgetown Steel.

 

What did Bain do? At last, here's where we get to defining a "leveraged buyout".

 

Leveraged buyout:

 

learn more:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/2/6/1058442/-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But your God Trump said he was going to bring back all the companies to the US. Does that include his daughters?? Oh I forget. Its every one else but not theirs

 

Maybe.

 

Why not be a whiney bitch and speculate.

 

You're good at that.

 

The whiney bitch part.

 

I'm sure if he announced that he's cutting taxes for his daughters businesses, you'd be appoplectic.

 

So you're a whiney bitch if you do ... and a whiney bitch when you do.

 

1015245.jpg

 

 

Merry Sex-Mas.

 

 

kj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leveraged buyout: a leveraged buyout is the practice of buying a company on borrowed money with the purchased company serving as collateral. There's nothing inherently wrong with using the purchased asset as collateral. That's what we do with cars and mortgages. Where leveraged buyouts get dodgy is somehow, through some loophole in law, the buyer doesn't carry the debt. The purchased company carries it.

 

 

This means a company that was hanging on or even profitable suddenly has to service this debt, which they can't always do, so they take short-term measures like selling pieces or laying off staff. If that isn't enough, the purchased company goes bankrupt and leaves creditors hanging --- which gets to why I call this "legalized fraud".

When the purchased company goes bankrupt, the private equity firm isn't on the hook for the debt. It would have kept the profits if there were any, but it doesn't have the debt. The creditors are stuck with it --- not that the private equity firm loses money. Here's where a really neat trick is pulled, and how Romney earned the epithet "vulture capitalist".

One reason the purchased company can't service the debt is the private equity firm takes the money. Yes, I mean it that bluntly. Company cash isn't used to build the business, but to pay the private equity partners "management fees" or "dividends".

In the case of Georgetown Steel, Romney's Bain juiced the short term profits by doing things that harmed the company long term, and used those profits to get another loan, which was owed not by Bain but by Georgetown.

Bain then paid itself the money while Georgetown declared bankruptcy and couldn't pay back the loan, and presumably left other creditors in same condition like unpaid employees, unpaid vendors, and governments unable to collect taxes. Yes, it's not just the foolish lender to the private equity company who gets stuck, but creditors who did not voluntarily take that risk.

Also keep in mind that private equity firms have a bunch of investments at any given time, so it's not that they couldn't have used their cash to buy a company outright. They just chose to borrow the money so the lender is at risk, not themselves, even when they're planning to take the money rather than build the business.

Bain is merely the best known user of leveraged buyouts to commit fraud, but hardly the only one. A business columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Eric Weiffering, recently explained how Caxton-Iseman did it to Buffets Inc. Buffets runs Old Country Buffet restaurants, which, at least in Minnesota, have become much less common as the company fell into bankruptcy

Buffets was growing and profitable in all but one of the five years before Caxton-Iseman bought it. In 1999, its last year as a publicly traded company, Buffets earned more than $42 million on sales of $937 million. Its long-term debt totaled a measly $42 million.

 

The Caxton-Iseman investment group chipped in $130 million toward the $643 million purchase price. The remaining proceeds came mostly from asset sales, such as the sale of Buffets headquarters building, and heavy borrowings that are typical of most private equity purchases.

 

So marked the beginning of Buffets' slide. Its net income never again reached pre-buyout levels, thanks in no small part to the $22 million in investment banking fees and estimated $200 million in dividends Caxton-Iseman collected over the years. And even though Buffets had an executive team in place, Caxton-Iseman also negotiated an annual services fee that entitled it to 2 percent of Buffets' earnings before taxes, depreciation, amortization or the mounting interest payments on its debt.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the corporation was burdened by competition and no it did not help with what, all those silly U.S. regs that protected workers and the environment, as well as the big big big tax rate, no it did not, no sirree all the people cried... So the corporation up and left, because, as we all know, the corporation has to protect the ultimate voice, the shareholder.

 

The money yeah that thing on paper, the Wallstreet that's it, that's where it's at, the bottom line. The bottom line is a maneuvering game, got to make it look nice and tidy any CEO's worth their salt should know. They really really should, that's how they make what they make. And the people who sit on the Corporate Board work maybe at most ten hours a month, and likely sit on more than one, maybe two, maybe maybe even say three or even fourteen.

 

Wait what, fourteen boards, making hand over fist for each one, how can that be, who has the time... checking the list checking it twice, more than a few I do suppose.

 

But what about demand, you know in economic theory how demand drives the whole damn thing... I mean if you have demand for product shouldn't you have people who are willing to provide product? Yes, and yes. But you didn't mention profits. It's all about profits. Big ones, giant savory profits.

 

Remembering all this like a dream transpiring in the daylight in real time / they call it supply side no lie. And what about competition here at home / oh that old thing, that's all dried up.

 

So what if we reduce taxes and screw the regs that protect workers and the environment, well, if you do that maybe... just maybe that will incentivize them, but you better make sure it's worth it for them / And not so much for you because when you play that game you are screwed. And we are...until we see just how it works.

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Are Companies Leaving the USA

 

 

USA white collars are borrowing money, then buying healthy companies,then leveraging their victims with the debt,then begin laying off workers , then off shoring the companies, then laughing all the way to bank , then begin shopping for another USA victim.

 

 

An abused financial practice, the leveraged buyout, is being shown up for what it often is: a source of legalized fraud.

 

Obviously I'll be editorializing against it, but first, I hear commentary using several terms interchangeably and potentially confusing the issue. There are terms that are different but sort of the same, or overlapping, or subsets, or some combination, and if you're getting confused, that's pretty much the point.

 

Allow me to unwind the confusion and define some terms so at a minimum, we can all sound like we know what we're talking about when we get after Romney for enriching himself with scams like Georgetown Steel. There isn't an obvious order for defining these terms, so I'll just do my best to make them clear.

 

Private equity: A private equity fund is basically a company that isn't publicly traded, which means you can't buy shares on the stock market. The investors have to somehow be invited or find out, and they probably need to have affirmative answers to questions like, "can you put in several million?"

 

So usually these are investors who are pretty rich to begin with, as Romney already was when he ran Bain Capital. However, investors can be funds with a large amount of money to invest, including the pension funds of people who actually work for a living.

 

There is nothing inherently nefarious in collecting a bunch of money and looking for businesses to invest in. If a private equity fund can buy a struggling business and turn it around, that's a good thing.

 

So Bain Capital did nothing wrong just by starting up and looking for places to invest. Where there are potential problems is the short-term strategy of private equity. The idea is to turn the business around and sell it within a few years. It's tempting to buy a healthy but underpriced business, and sell off parts, or strip it of equity.

 

Bain Capital: Just to make sure there's no confusion, Bain Capital is a specific company, which happens to be the one Romney ran, whereas private equity and venture capital are types of companies. Perhaps I should then define "venture capital" next.

Venture capital: Venture capital invests in start-ups. They get an ownership stake in exchange for capitalizing the business, and often offer connections or even mentoring to founders who may know how to make their new product, but not how to hire staff, handle accounting, market their product and so on.

 

Like private equity, venture capital has a short term plan, hoping to take the company public or sell it to a bigger company in a few years. Now to add confusion, venture capital is a type of private equity, and private equity companies might engage in venture capital --- so they're not different companies exactly so much as different emphases. Venture capitalists have presumably told potential investors that they intend to fund start-ups, not engage in leveraged buyouts.

 

"Venture capital" has been used interchangeably with "vulture capital", at least I think that's what Rick Perry was doing when he attacked Romney with the term "vulture capital". However, it doesn't have to be the same. Funding start-ups is a very good thing. Mentoring people who can make something but lack capital or business skills is a good thing, not that all venture capitalists are good at it or running one business is like running another. Back in the tech boom, I worked for an internet company run by the venture capitalists who bought it with the intention of building the customer base quickly and going public.

 

They didn't actually understand the internet, as became apparent when one executive who had been with the company at least a year asked another how to access the company's web site in a browser ... we built web sites. I don't think they got their money back on that one.

 

Actually, they make their money on a few successes that pay off big and make up for losses, while they usually lose money as most start-ups fail despite financial backing (funny how Republicans pretend they don't know this when they try to make a scandal out of each failed alternative energy company).

 

Vulture capital: this isn't a technical term, just a pejorative. Certainly applies to what Bain Capital was doing (I know I'm holding you in suspense, but I will explain it), basically making money by taking businesses apart instead of building them. You may have heard this term in regards to people who buy the debt of poor countries who can't pay their debt, buying it from sellers happy to get back pennies on the dollar.

 

Then they use western courts and the leverage of western financial institutions, and maybe good old-fashioned bribery, to force poor countries to forgo development or even food in order to pay the debt to the vulture capitalists. The term can be applied to other behaviors, like applying it to Bain for what it did to the aforementioned Georgetown Steel.

 

What did Bain do? At last, here's where we get to defining a "leveraged buyout".

 

Leveraged buyout:

 

learn more:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/2/6/1058442/-

 

bump for keeping the USA employed or else the USA goes broke then what? who pays the bills? the middle class will no longer be able to while the wealthy tax dodgers refuse to pay taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why Are Companies Leaving the USA

 

 

Because of all o' the "professional-managers", in this Country, who INSIST on "good enough".....when it comes to the QUALITY, OF WHAT WE PRODUCE, HERE??!!!

W. Edwards Deming

"Deming made a significant contribution to Japan's reputation for innovative, high-quality products, and for its economic power. He is regarded as having had more impact on Japanese manufacturing and business than any other individual not of Japanese heritage. Despite being honored in Japan in 1951 with the establishment of the Deming Prize, he was only just beginning to win widespread recognition in the U.S. at the time of his death in 1993."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/396d9c44-cf32-4087-babb-b55708b001e4

We need a BOUNTY, in this Country, on "professional-managers" who have NO BACKGROUND, in what they are "managing"!!!!!

head-bash.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like John McCain four years before, Romney desperately needed a vice-presidential pick that would change the game. But where McCain bet on a combustive mix of clueless novelty and suburban sexual tension named Sarah Palin, Romney bet on an idea. "He understands the fiscal challenges facing America: our exploding deficits and crushing debt."

Debt, debt, debt. If the Republican Party had a James Carville, this is what he would have said to win Mitt over, in whatever late-night war room session led to the Ryan pick: "It's the debt, stupid." This is the way to defeat Barack Obama: to recast the race as a jeremiad against debt, something just about everybody who's ever gotten a bill in the mail hates on a primal level.

Last May, in a much-touted speech in Iowa, Romney used language that was literally inflammatory to describe America's federal borrowing. "A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation," he declared. "Every day we fail to act, that fire gets closer to the homes and children we love." Our collective debt is no ordinary problem: According to Mitt, it's going to burn our children alive.

And this is where we get to the hypocrisy at the heart of Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a "turnaround specialist," a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back.

This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.

By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps.

The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place.

That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House.

The unlikeliness of Romney's gambit isn't simply a reflection of his own artlessly unapologetic mindset – it stands as an emblem for the resiliency of the entire sociopathic Wall Street set he represents.

Four years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly destroyed the global economy with their greed, shortsightedness and – most notably – wildly irresponsible use of debt in pursuit of personal profit.

The sight was so disgusting that people everywhere were ready to drop an H-bomb on Lower Manhattan and bayonet the survivors. But today that same insane greed ethos, that same belief in the lunatic pursuit of instant borrowed millions – it's dusted itself off, it's had a shave and a shoeshine, and it's back out there running for president.

Mitt Romney, it turns out, is the perfect frontman for Wall Street's greed revolution. He's not a two-bit, shifty-eyed huckster like Lloyd Blankfein.

He's not a sighing, eye-rolling, arrogant jerkwad like Jamie Dimon. But Mitt believes the same things those guys believe: He's been right with them on the front lines of the financialization revolution, a decades-long campaign in which the old, simple, let's-make-stuff-and-sell-it manufacturing economy was replaced with a new, highly complex, let's-take-stuff-and-trash-it financial economy.

Instead of cars and airplanes, we built swaps, CDOs and other toxic financial products. Instead of building new companies from the ground up, we took out massive bank loans and used them to acquire existing firms, liquidating every asset in sight and leaving the target companies holding the note.

The new borrow-and-conquer economy was morally sanctified by an almost religious faith in the grossly euphemistic concept of "creative destruction," and amounted to a total abdication of collective responsibility by America's rich, whose new thing was making assloads of money in ever-shorter campaigns of economic conquest, sending the proceeds offshore, and shrugging as the great towns and factories their parents and grandparents built were shuttered and boarded up, crushed by a true prairie fire of debt.

 

Mitt Romney – a man whose own father built cars and nurtured communities, and was one of the old-school industrial anachronisms pushed aside by the new generation's wealth grab – has emerged now to sell this make-nothing, take-everything, screw-everyone ethos to the world. He's Gordon Gekko, but a new and improved version, with better PR – and a bigger goal.

A takeover artist all his life, Romney is now trying to take over America itself. And if his own history is any guide, we'll all end up paying for the acquisition.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But your God Trump said he was going to bring back all the companies to the US. Does that include his daughters?? Oh I forget. Its every one else but not theirs

In case you have not noticed, dumbalina, he has not taken office yet.

 

But he has done more in the transition period than soetoro has done in 8 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...