Stupid: Republicans Forget how Capitalism Works / WTF it even IS

“Capitalism Comes Under Fire in Republican Primary Campaign”, says the National Journal – and sadly – they’re right.

The Democrats started it, and now Republican rivals are piling on. Mitt Romney is suddenly playing defense about his career as a venture capitalist–and in a Republican primary campaign, of all things.

The attacks on Romney’s Bain Capital career from fellow Republicans may be coming too late in the game to knock him off his path toward the nomination. They may also be ineffective in a party that lionizes capitalism and the business sector that propels it.

Republican candidates for the presidential nomination are doing themselves, their party and their country a disservice in their attempts to derail future President Mitt Romneys path to the nomination. Jon HuntsmanRick Perry and especially Newt Gingrich (who has flip flopped on his pledge to not run negative ads) and his PACs have all hammered Romney on his very reputable work at Bain Capital, a large investment firm.

The issue of criticism is that Romney was a destroyer of lives because his company, Bain, fired people when it  invested in them. Well no shit it did. A legitimate criticism would be if Bane gutted and crushed companies, stomping on the little guy while padding their fat wallets and using the money to snort coke off of strippers ass cracks. That is exactly the claim (minus the last part), of course, being made by 1 expected culprit (MoveOn.org) and one not so expected culprit: Newt Gingrich.

The Wall Street Journal delves into the numbers of the Bain record and things come out pretty exact to how Romney has described when asked about it:

Mr. Romney has told potential voters how at Bain he helped launch or rebuild companies such as Staples Inc., Domino’s Pizza Inc. and Sports Authority Inc., creating more than 100,000 jobs.

His rivals have sought to turn his Bain tenure against him. Rick Perry has run an ad saying Mr. Romney “made millions buying companies and laying off workers.” Newt Gingrich has said Mr. Romney should “give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain.”

Mr. Gingrich laced into Mr. Romney at this weekend’s debates, and a group associated with the former House Speaker plans to release a 28-minute documentary blistering Mr. Romney’s Bain tenure. Meanwhile, on ABC on Sunday, Obama strategist David Axelrod criticized Mr. Romney as “a corporate raider.”

Mr. Romney describes job losses and bankruptcies as an inevitable byproduct of the capitalist system, and has said that in some cases, eliminating some jobs may save the rest of the company. In response to Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney said: “Doesn’t he understand how the economy works? In the real economy, some businesses succeed and some fail.”

Asked in an interview about Bain’s bankruptcy and failure rate, Mr. Romney said that in buyout deals, “our orientation was by and large to acquire businesses that were out of favor and in some cases in trouble.” He added that Bain wasn’t the type of firm that stripped companies and fired workers, but instead, “our approach was to try to build a business. We were not always successful.”

I give MoveOn a pass cuz that’s their job: to smear Republicans as evil money hungry heartless crooks. But WTF is Gingrich’s excuse for this bullshit?

This is a stupid and losing issue for all who attempt it because what you’re essentially doing is attacking Mitt Romney for having the audacity to believe in and take a chance on investing his money into struggling companies and doing a kickass job at it (Bain has a 3 to 1 record of succeeding in rescuing said struggling companies).

James Pethokoukis reminds the GOP field how capitalism works:

Of course, Romney and Bain weren’t in the game to create jobs. They were in it to make money for their investors and themselves. Then again, the same would go for Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Warren Buffett, and just about every other successful entrepreneur and investor you could name. But that is the miracle of free-market capitalism. The pursuit of profits by creating value benefits the rest of society through higher incomes, more jobs, and better products and services. This isn’t “destructive creation”—like, say, crippling U.S. fossil fuel production before “clean energy” sources are viable—but “creative destruction” where innovation and efficiency sweep away the old and replace it with a more productive and wealthier society.

This is one my favorite examples is one that Pethokoukis also shares as one of his:

Through this constant roiling of the status quo, creative destruction provides a powerful force for making societies wealthier. It does so by making scarce resources more productive. The telephone industry employed 421,000 switchboard operators in 1970, when Americans made 9.8 billion long-distance calls. With advances in switching technology over the next three decades, the telecommunications sector could reduce the number of operators to 156,000 but still ring up 106 billion calls. An average operator handled only 64 calls a day in 1970. By 2000, that figure had increased to 1,861, a staggering gain in productivity. If they had to handle today’s volume of calls with 1970s technology, the telephone companies would need more than 4.5 million operators, or 3 percent of the labor force. Without the productivity gains, a long-distance call would cost six times as much.

Pethokoukis notes: “Romney’s career as a free-market capitalist? No apologies necessary.” – which is fun because “No Apologies” is also the name of Romneys book.

REMINDER: Crony Capitalism = Bad. Traditional American Capitalism = The best system on the planet.

Like I said – Shame on Huntsman and Perry for jumping on this issue too, but Gingrich is the most damaged in putting all his chips on this “stupid” attack line:

And finally, there is Sheldon Adelson, longtime friend of Gingrich an major donor to Republican causes. Did he intend his $5 million for the super PAC to be used to attack capitalism? Somehow I get the sense this was not what he had in mind.

The entire effort has the potential to put the final nail in Gingrich’s presidential campaign coffin and cement his reputation as the most reckless man in politics As Tim Pawlenty, a Romney supporter, said today on the topic of Bain, “It’s an old issue, and first of all, it’s the Democrats’ issue, it’s the issue that Barack Obama comes out after Mitt on. The Democrats have brought this out for years. For Newt or other Republicans to be attacking private enterprise in this way, I think, is really just embracing the Democrats’ message. It’s, unfortunately, not what Republicans should be doing.” But Gingrich is above his party. Remember, he’s Churchillian! (You may recall when there was push back on his first anti-Bain attack, Gingrich retreated, saying he should not have phrased his criticisms in that way.)

This is the Gingrich effect writ large: Creating havoc, blemishing careers and giving the Democrats plenty of laughs. Gingrich is likely to do poorly tomorrow as will Perry (making two rotten outings in a row for both of them). There is no appetite in the GOP for these candidates or their brand of anti-capitalistic pandering. The historian from Freddie Mac and the crony capitalist from Austin do not, we clearly see, embrace the Tea Party ethos. The referendum on this entire gambit should be swift. Whether it ultimately helps Romney or not, Gingrich is a reminder of the very worst in American politics.

Fun bonus? The New York Times reports that Newt Gingrich both invested in and worked on an advisory board for Forstmann Little — a competitor of Bain in the leveraged-buyout industry. So in other words: It’s okay for Newt but not for Romney. Nice. Fortune Mag reports the same:

Upon leaving Congress in 1999, the former Speaker joined private equity firm Forstmann Little & Co. as a member of its advisory board.

It is unclear how long Gingrich served on the advisory board, or how much he was paid. The campaign has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Forstmann Little was one of the world’s original leveraged buyout firms, although its founder — the late Teddy Forsmann — often railed against what he saw as over-leveraging by rival firms (presumably including Bain). It effectively began winding down operations in 2005, following a legal dispute with the State of Connecticut over failed investments in a pair of large communications companies. Forstmann Little lost the case at trial, but wasn’t required to pay any significant restitution (both deals were done within two years of Gingrich being named to the advisory board).

During Saturday night’s GOP primary debate in New Hampshire, Gingrich said: ”I’m not nearly as enamored of a Wall Street model where you can flip companies, you can go in and have leveraged buyouts, you can basically take out all the money, leaving behind the workers.”

In NY Mag, Jonathan Chait says that it is a “myth” that Romney is a job creator, which is a poorly stated version of the reality. The truth is that Romney was responsible for creating thousands of jobs – a lot more than had to be done away with to save a company, for sure – however, guaranteeing any number of added jobs was not the business he was in because that is not what capitalism is or does.

On the other hand, bringing ourselves face-to-face with the very real victims of Romney’s business career explodes his fairy tale of having been a “job creator.” He was in the business of creating wealth, not jobs. Capitalism increases a society’s standard of living, but it does not increase its rate of employment. If your goal is simply to give every willing worker a job, then socialism is the system you want.

Since we want to increase our standard of living, we want capitalism. That wealth benefits the whole society over the long run, but in the short run it can destroy lives and communities — which, of course, is one justification for the role of government in siphoning off a portion of the limitless wealth generated by the Mitt Romneys of the world in order to alleviate social dislocation. But the thrust of Romney’s platform is that people like himself give too much already, and those left behind get too much. His self-presentation as a “job creator” is an attempt to paint over that ugly reality. Republicans must be furious that Gingrich, of all people, is helping expose it.

And finally: Jim Geraghty on how the virtues of firing people when the circumstances require it:

So, here we are, at the day first primary, and the main objection to Mitt Romney from Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry is that he fired a bunch of people? More than his liberal-softie sounding rhetoric in 1994 and 2002? More than his crusade to liberate us from the individual mandate of Obamacare in order to leave the states free to enact their own individual mandates? More than the fact that he’s won exactly one general election in his life, in a year that the left-of-center vote was divided?

Objections to private-sector layoffs from the party that wants to shrink government? How do we think all of those employees of the federal bureaucracy will get of the payroll? Mass alien abductions?

When you think about it, isn’t it possible that the layoffs enacted when Romney was at Bain constitute one of the boldest moves of his career? One of the times he’s been willing to do something unpopular because he thought it was right, and in the long-term interest of the institution he was managing, instead of following the polls and telling people what they wanted to hear?

Much of the focus came upon Romney’s comment that he likes being able to fire people who provide services to him, if he’s not happy with the quality of the service.

You know, the way you can’t with the Department of Motor Vehicles, or the way you can’t (or at least not without Herculean determination) with a crappy teacher at a public school. The way you can’t fire a tenured professor at a state university, whether or not he gives good value for his salary and benefits to those who pay his salary (the students and the taxpayers). The way we can’t take our business to some other government, without leaving the country.


Jedi Temple vs Library in Dublin

This is the Long Room in the library at Trinity College in Dublin, which I visited for the first time last week and spent the first few minutes I was in there racking my brains where I had seen them before. Then it hit me.

Instead of Jedi law and instruction, the shelves held some of the library’s five million books dating back hundreds of years. It is the largest reference library in Ireland and was packed with students studying for their exams.

The Dark Knight Rises as an allegory for the 2012 Election

All this talk of Mitt Romney (whose primary win in New Hampshire tomorrow and then in South Carolina and then in Florida will secure his nomination for president) and his previous work at the investment firm Bain Capital has made me think of a metaphor…

Mitt Romney = Bane.
The toughest match the Dark Knight has ever had to face.

Barack Obama = the Dark Knight
Once thought of as a hero, now thought to be a monster, he must return to fight for his ideals.

Commissioner Gordon = The Tea Party 
Traditionalist called by a sense of duty to engage in a battle to preserve what is radically decaying before his eyes.

 Catwoman = Occupy Wall Street
An otherwise uninvolved player, motivated by and attracted to chaos whose sense of entitlement brings her/them to class warfare and a life of law breaking they feel is morally justified cuz rich people have stuff and they don’t. She’s angry because she’s ignorant – mainly in her misunderstanding of economics, thinking of it as a pie with a finite amount of slices.

How does it all end?…

Take it either way:

Romney/Bane succeeds in doing what other more experienced contenders previously failed at and breaks the people’s hero?

Or

Obama/Batman gets broken by a strong challenger but ultimately wins in the end?

We’ll find out in about 10 months…

GOP New Hampshire Debate

Live blogging the event….

Ron Paul notes that Santorum is a “big government conservative”. He is. (click for a long list of evidence).

Santorum is doing well. He is making me doubt the things i’ve bashed him for:

Lobbyist? He says he approached a local coal company to lobby for them specifically to defeat Cap & Trade.

Voted Most Corrupt? He says that’s a charge sent by a liberal organization every election cycle just to smear conservatives.

hmm… there could be truth to both of those. Got me wondering…

Yahoo! has this question:

UPDATE: they fixed it…

Moderator asks okay question that rests on stupid premise: “only 2 of you have served [in the military] – do you think that makes you better suited to be President?”. This is so stupid. Didn’t work for George Bush Sr – didn’t work for Bob Dole – didn’t work for John Kerry – didn’t work for John McCain and although G. Dubya won twice, it wasnt at all thanks to his Air Force Texas and Alabama Air National Guard service. this issue is a dud.

Ron Paul refines his “chickenhawk” argument against Gingrich so it sounds more sane: says that if you got multiple deferments when you had the chance to serve then you shouldn’t order anyone into war. that makes total sense but is a big difference from the chickenhawk argument which smears everyone who did not elect to join the military as having actively hid from it. That is stupid. Paul is doing really well tonight. I wish he ran this good a campaign in 2008 and/or performed this well in the 08 debates.

Newt says it is “inaccurate and false” that he asked for deferments. I don’t care cuz I’m more annoyed that he said “inaccurate AND false”. They mean the same thing, dude…

[commercial break]

Do states have the right to ban contraception? what in the what? — oh shit – Romney is voicing my exact reaction and chiding Stephonopolous for asking it. The question was based on a court case but still asked oddly. — NOW Stepho cuts to the chase and asks whether the Constitution has a “right to privacy”.

Ron Paul on the right of privacy in the Constitution: it pertains to your personal belongings and the state meddling with them with warrentless searches and whatnot.

Question from Yahoo asker: Since you’re against same sex marriage, what do you want gay people to do with their partners?

Gingrich: Favors hospital visitation rights, will and similar sensible laws. just quibbles over the word “marriage”

Huntsman: “Civil Unions are fair and I support them”. Doing well until he uses the old trope by saying he doesnt believe his marriage is affected by gay couples or same sex marriage or civil unions or idk what he;s referring to there but either way its stupid because no one has ever said gay relations of any kind affect their marriage. dumb thing to say.

Santorum: Let the states decide – but then stops himself and says there should be a singular Federal law so people arent married in one state and not married in another. derp? Then says “this is a state issue not a federal issue” – double-derp? Moderator asks what happens to same sex marriages if Santorum passes a law saying marriage is one man one woman – Santorum doesnt answer. just repeats that if the law passes it passes.

Romney: says its a “wonderful thing” for people to commit to each other long term but they don’t need to call it “marriage” and receive approval from the state that way and I bite my nails because I like Mitt and that is almost the right answer but only if he follows it up with “BUT, lets give le gayz more legal rights” like what Newt said. Thankfully he did go on and is talking about those rights right now as I type this: basically favors civil unions, legal partnerships, etc and just wants to preserve the word marriage. I don’t care about the word marriage but I dont have a problem with this traditionalist-but-non-hater position. whew! glad he got it right and remained the only candidate to avoid saying things that I would be embarrassed by if I were to publicly support.

Gingrich comes back and asks (openly, not to any individual) whether the Catholic church (he is a convert to Catholicism) should be forced out of the adoption business because they dont adopt out to same sex couples. gets applause.

Romney agree’s and notes that that is exactly what happened in Massachusetts by a court order he disagrees with.

Stepho beats the dead horse of Ron Paul running as a 3rd party candidate even though he says he doesnt want to and has never expressed interest in doing so. Paul gives the same answer as always: he’s not doing it and has no plans to do it but won’t promise not to do it.

Ron Paul says he’s doing well in the polls and says with a warm smile that he’s getting “closer to Mitt every day”. People laugh. its a nice/friendly moment.

Perry is asked if everyone on the stage should rule out a 3rd party bid. Perry doesnt answer and instead says anyone on the stage is better than Obama and then goes back to same sex marriage and says he wants a Constitutional amendment to define marriage.

Romney and Huntsman on when to leave Afghanistan: Huntsman says leave right away and dont invest another penny in that boondoggle. Romney says get em out soon but no hard date cuz you’ve got to asses the details as President first.

Perry says to send troops back into Iraq… when pressed: Perry says we need to because Iran will move in “literally at the speed of light”. Holy shit, those are fast Iranians…

[commercial]

Romney says that there are things Government can do to help the job market – like fix bridges n shit, but fundamentally government does not create jobs, it can only encourage the private sector.

I miss these two:

Romney: bring down taxes to be competitive with other nations and give relief to people who need it most and mostly hurt by the Obama economy, the middle class. Reduce rates. Reduce the amount of exemptions. Simplify the tax code and broaden the base — God damn you Republicans who don’t love this guy are stupid. He’s SO your best candidate in decades…

blah blah boring stuff – im checking twitter for a few minutes…

Huntsman vs Romney on China: Huntsman pulls the “i know Chinese” card and says a sentence to Romney in Mandarin and doesn’t explain what it means. SO. fucking. Douchey….

Huntsman says Romney wants a trade war with China. Romney says “nigga, the fuck you talkin bout?” (paraphrase) and does a thing with his hands saying he doesnt want a trade war but “we sell China *this much* [higher raised hand] – they sell us *this* much [much lower hand gesture] – who do you think doesnt want the trade war?” – bam.

[commercial break]

oh. that’s the end.

Well that was one of the best ones they’ve had. Everyone did very well.

Post debate commentary by ABC panel: Donna Brazil, former Gore campaign manager said that it was a good night for Democrats because no one attacked Mitt Romney. When everyone on the panel gave a hearty “wtf?” to that comment she explained that the weakest candidate is the one that no one attacks and that was Mitt Romney so Democrats are happy. Everyone reacted in unison with a “nooo. you don’t mean that” in the tone of when you say “aawww, c’mon” when an elderly great aunt says something controversial but you want to brush it off and ignore it instead of deal with it.

UPDATE: here’s an out-of-context recap, but the clips are not at all in chronological order.

Parents get matching tattoos to support son (it’s more heartwarming than it sounds)

Camille Boivin and Philippe Aumond are a Canadian couple who drove 9 hours to get matching tattoos. Sounds stupid. Oh, but they did it to honor their 5 year old son… sounds even dumber if you ask me… Oh – but there’s more…

Their son Jacob has a cellphone in his lunchbox. Geez. at only 5? Don’t you think that’s a bit excessive? Well, it’s used for calling phone every day to calculate and program his insulin pump so it delivers the exact amount he needs based on his food intake. Jacob thought it was a cool gadget at first until he realized he was the only one at school who had it and that made him different and weird.

Jacob has to wear the pump at all times. Round the clock. His pancreas stopped functioning and needs the pump to deliver five insulin injections a day to survive.

His parents say they didn’t want Jacob to feel he was different from others so, in solidarity, they got matching tattoos. Of Jacobs pump. that say “forever linked together,” meaning to the pump and to each other. Heart melting yet?

 

Jacob was thrilled to get his pump in August 2010. He saw it as a personal machine that works for him, Boivin said. Then he wondered whether he was the only boy in the world to wear one.

“It broke my heart,” Boivin recalled. She told him all children have their differences, some wear glasses, others have braces or wheelchairs. There was one other adolescent in their region with a pump, but no one his age that reflected his situation.

While Boivin and Aumond couldn’t get real insulin pumps, they figured an ink version would help assuage their son’s solitude.

It had to be esthetic and look like the real thing, Boivin said, so the couple searched on the Internet for an artist and found Bruno Oeuvray in Joliette.

“Jacob was thrilled. It was magical to see his eyes,” Boivin said, her voice wavering with emotion. “Even today I have tears in my eyes.”

Aumond’s tattoo has barbed wire string where the catheter would be attached to the pump, a visual reminder of painful injections and “having to pierce the skin several times of day for a drop of blood” that the condition imposes on patients. Boivin’s tattoo catheter trails to her back where it transforms into an almond-tree branch with pink flowers.

“It’s a symbol of hope for a cure one day,” Boivin said of the almond blooms.

Is carbonated water good or bad for you?

My cousin Steven drinks a lot of mineral water and since I spent Christmas and New Years with him and his family I tried some and I have to admit that I don’t get it. Why do people want bubbles in their water? So you can burp more? Then I got to wondering about the health effects: does bubbly water clean your insides out maybe? Or is the gas you’re drinking bad for you? It IS carbon dioxide, after all. The stuff we’re supposed to be exhaling and hurts our bodies when we inhale it directly through car exhaust or cigarettes (redundant?).

So I did some googling and found out that mineral water is good for you, cuz – duh- minerals, and is a good way for your body to absorb them if you can’t or don’t get them from other food sources. Okay. So that’s a go on naturally occurring fizzy spring-water – but what about artificially carbonated water? If the minerals are the only good thing about mineral-water then that doesnt make fizzy water good or bad for you.

So the question: Does carbonation make water, any tiny bit more unhealthy or dangerous?

How’s this for inventing a new drink: first, you discover an odd gas produced as a by-product of brewing beer. Next you pop some mice inside a bell jar containing the gas and observe that they all die. In a fit of inspiration you add the gas to some water and notice that it fizzes. Discovering that this sinister gas is, in fact, carbon dioxide – the very substance we make effortlessly when we breathe – you then try and persuade the world to drink the stuff. It sounds crazy but both Joseph Priestley and Jacob Schweppe thought it perfectly reasonable when they introduced 18th-century society to the joys of fizzy water.

The answer appears to be…. no:

There have even been studies looking at the effect of carbonated drinks on the stomach and gut. Among the many that showed there was no harm done was an American study on competitive cyclists. Even when exercising like lunatics and producing maximum amounts of CO2, consuming a little more of the gas via fizzy water made no difference to the bikers. And all of this is without even resorting to animal studies, such as the one from Poultry Science showing that fizzy drinks helped cockerels cope better with heat stress.

Unsurprisingly, given the hefty turnover of carbon dioxide our bodies deal with effortlessly each day, there remains no serious reason to think that carbonation makes water dangerous. Swapping a glass of plain old tap water for the bottled variety adds nothing save a little bit of sparkle.

Sasha Grey’s nudity reminds you to spay and neuter your pets (PETA)

PETA has always been good at producing provocative ads and commercials to get their message out, often sparking outrage or critical commentary that feeds the attention they’re trying to get, and since a lot of them fall under the category of “clever but stupid”, I sometimes can’t help but take the bait myself. So it’s not without knowledge of what I’m doing that I comment on this ad by the animal rights organization featuring adult film star Sasha Grey (catch her quick because she’s only got a Hollywood shelf life of another few months to a year before this post is outdated and no one knows who she is*).

“Too much sex can be a bad thing” – take it from someone who has it for a living. Wait, what? I mean, that’s obviously the joke, somehow, but…how exactly? Sasha Grey doesn’t actually think that too much intercourse is bad, obviously, so… like… what? I feel like this could have been clever if done properly but this just lazily uses a nude woman to make an animals-humping-and-producing-unwanted-babies point. Has Sasha had her tubes tied? Because otherwise there’s no “There” there. So…like… make your pet incapable of reproducing because a naked porn star told you so. um…ok?

Come on, PETA… this is not a bad concept, but you’ve gotta try a little with the execution.


*Which I’m not trying to be mean in saying, btw – she seems nice and smart and I don’t see horrible failure in her future – just a return to mostly-unknown status given the arc her career is taking. commentary more on the industry than on her.

SHOCK: Tobacco company misrepresented danger from cigarettes

Such a trustworthy source of truth and transparency could have possibly…. mislead us????

“When we conducted our own analysis by studying additives per cigarette – following Philip Morris’ original protocol — we found that 15 carcinogenic chemicals increased by 20 percent or more,” he said.

Additionally, in the independent study, the researchers discovered the reason behind Philip Morris’ failure to identify many toxic effects in animal studies: its studies were too small.

“The experiment was too small in terms of the number of rats analyzed to statistically detect important changes in biological effects,” Glantz said. “Philip Morris underpowered its own studies.”

The results of “Project MIX” were first published as four papers in a 2002 edition of Food and Chemical Toxicology, a journal whose editor and many members of its editorial board had financial ties to the tobacco industry. While Philip Morris was trying to get the papers published, the company scientist who led Project Mix sent an email to a colleague describing the peer review process as “an inside job.”

In the new study, the researchers used documents made public as a result of litigation against the tobacco industry. The documents are available to the public through UCSF’s Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.