Replies

There is nothing in that quote which contradicts my (and Adam Smith's) earlier point, in case you missed it, that an individuals’ motives are irrelevant to the operation of a free market. I assume that Bain Capital was motivated only by it's investors’ self interests rather than by “the fortune of others.”

This describes the morality of thieves.

Now, I know you later insert a proviso about "the confines of the legal and regulatory environment" blah blah blah, but the operating norms of companies like Bain drive them to the very edge of the moral, ethical, and legal playing field. This makes it inevitable that there will be "out of bounds" acts. That's why they get such a bad odor about them and are called names like sleazeball., etc.

Most Capitalists would prefer to operate in the middle of the moral, ethical, and legal field. No fouls there.

But there are those who don't. OK, that may be for them to decide.

But to take one of these sleazeballs and nominate him as the Presidential candidate of a major political party is the epitome of stupidity and a recipe for disaster. I could go on, but let's just leave it here. The nomination of Romney will ensure the re-election of Obama and the ultimate ruination of our country.

“But to take one of these sleazeballs and nominate him as the Presidential candidate of a major political party is the epitome of stupidity and a recipe for disaster.”

My objection to Romney as the Republican nominee is that he seems to have few, if any, consistently conservative core political values. However, I have no problem with the way a firm like Bain Capital operates. I'd rather have Bain use investors’ money to bet on start-ups or turn around failing companies than have Obama use taxpayers’ money for those same purposes.