So many questions, Neeka...so few answers....First, I see the guy that wrote that piece is the one that made up and gives the Pinocchio's for the WaPo...
en.wikipedia.org
But this is what is confusing to all of us out here in hinterland...at least to me....
Kessler makes this final concluding statement....
>>>>>Romney certainly has a good story to tell about knowing how to manage a business, spotting opportunities and understanding high finance. But if he is to continue to make claims about job creation, the Romney campaign needs to provide a real accounting of how many jobs were gained or lost through Bain Capital investments while the firm managed these companies — and while Romney was chief executive. Any jobs counted after either of those data points simply do not pass the laugh test.<<<<<
Kessler seems to be saying that ONLY the time the money was invested and until the CEO that was there, then left, was the time to count how many employees or new jobs were created there.
That doesn't make sense to me. I KNOW it takes YEARS for the investments in a young company or any company for that matter, to come to fruition. There are turnaround managers that come in, fire all or most the employees that are there, then change the structure of the company. Today, some of those companies did stay in business, and are thriving, AND have created new jobs.....
Look at how much criticism the Left still dishes out to GWB for the Iraq war....and how little criticism the media gives Obama for following many of the same policies that GWB put into place....
By the same token: WHY isn't anyone on the Repub side OR in the media talking about how many jobs were lost and not replaced, when the Government took over the car companies.....and when the Obama government made decisions to cause the oil rigs to leave our shores and go to other places in the world...how many jobs were lost then....
By trying to hit Mitt or any other candidate with a question of "an exact number of employees were added, or lost in a few month or in a few years time frame is pointless and silly"....IMO anyway. What is really important is is there a net gain of employees AND/OR a net gain of money for the stockholders of the company.
We forget about technology eliminating jobs that people used to do. This guy should watch "How it works" sometimes just to see how many companies have been eliminated or changed because the wants/needs of the customers have changed.
AND
Statements like this are bothersome to me....
>>>>>Bain may have provided management expertise or money when others would not, but a company such as Staples — one of the biggest contributors to Romney's job figures — was largely the brainchild of entrepreneur Tom Stemberg. Stemberg presumably should get most of the credit for inventing a killer new business category. (Left unsaid, of course, is all the jobs that might have been lost at small stationery stores unable to compete with the low prices of Staples, Office Depot and so forth.)<<<<<
HOW MANY entrepreneurs actually stay in the business they began???? Most of these folks had a great idea, but can't manage a business of any size at all. Nor do they want to.
I can think of two (2) right now....Bill Gates, and the late Steve Jobs. MOST ALL of the rest who start companies, get to a certain stage, then sell them leaving them with Millions. Most of these folks go off to play with their money. The employees of the former entrepreneurial company are either let go, or quit eventually, because they "Don't like the direction the new company is headed....." So that new company starts hiring new people that DO like the direction the company is headed. Some make it, some don't. The whole tech dot.com boom in the 1990's was rife with this kind of thing.
Then this:
>>>>>Moreover, should Romney even get any credit for jobs at Domino's, as his campaign claims? The deal in which Bain Capital bought Domino's closed on Dec. 21, 1998, according to a Domino's news release that referred to "Milt Romney." Less than two months later Romney had left Bain to run the Salt Lake Olympics, meaning he had barely any role in running the company once it became part of the Bain investment portfolio.<<<<<
Again, IMO, he appears to be saying all the time, effort and yes, money, the company put in with a company like Bain to help that company learn to be profitable is only a two months deal????? Companies like the Boeing company are still dealing with the effects of the management of ten or more years ago...ESPECIALLY if these companies have Unions and the companies can't get rid of the employees who are no longer needed....
To me, that's like saying: A watchmaker designs/makes a new watch for the company for which he works. He leaves in two months. The company implements his design into an actual new watch, markets it, and sells Bazillions of them. The company hires hundreds of people to manufacture this new wonderful watch. Does the watchmaker who left after his new designed watch get NO credit at all for saving the company from ruin, and causing the company to hire hundreds of new employees to keep up with the demand of the new watch?
All in all, instead of turning the afterburners in on himself, Newt could have done a MUCH better job of telling people how capitalism really works. He could have invited Mitt to do the same thing.....That is a win win....What we have now, is a shoot-in-the-foot guy, and a scattered party....and there was NO need for either one. We are all on the same team.....
I said we've sent money to Newt, but I for one am highly disappointed he chose this as a good route to go....I say:
ANYONE BUT OBAMA and AMERICA FIRST!!
|
