Talk:Mitt Romney: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:50, 18 November 2012

Ad vulture capitalist

See here. Really? All we can say about that guy is throw out that he is a vulture capitalist? And the only article we link to actually takes great pains to explain why he isn't a vulture capitalist?

I don't like that guy, but anyone stumbling upon this article would naturally conclude that the whole wiki is heavily biased and unsupported by evidence. We can certainly do better. Show, don't tell - show where he is wrong, ideally by linking and/or quoting from articles that criticize him, instead of just blankly stating a personal opinion. If someone says he is a vulture capitalist (particularly Austrians), say who and link to where. If there's anything else to criticize, even better. Pestergaines (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2012 (MSK)

I don't view vulture capitalism as bad, any more than I view vultures as bad. Someone has to eat the dead animals; otherwise they just sit around doing no one any good. As Wikipedia notes, "Vultures seldom attack healthy animals, but may kill the wounded or sick. . . . These birds are of great value as scavengers, especially in hot regions." Romney scavenged companies that were unhealthy and needed to die, thereby creating wealth for himself, his employees, and all others who benefited from those assets being put to more productive uses. "Vulture capitalist" needn't be a term of opprobrium.

A healthy person needn't worry about getting attacked by vultures, any more than a healthy company need worry about an investor liquidating the company. Even vulture capitalists do not destroy for the sake of destroying; if it were more profitable to keep the company going, they would do so, perhaps by selling it to someone whose specialty is keeping companies going rather than taking them apart. The vulture capitalist, like the creditor, slumlord, and short seller, is one of those groups in our economy that people dislike, despite the beneficial services (including, especially in the case of the short seller, market signals) that they provide.

There is a circle of life in which ending the life of the terminally ill sometimes benefits others. The vulture converts dead bodies into droppings that become fertilizer for plants that may feed other animals. In the words of Cato's Letter No. 56, "Much less can it be any service to society, to keep alive by art or force a melancholy, miserable, and useless member, grown perhaps burdensome too by age and infirmities." There seems to be a superstition in our society against death, whether of a living being or a company, to the point that people believe in pointlessly dragging agony out as long as possible, at whatever expense. That's probably one of the reasons Romney lost. Nathan Larson (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2012 (MSK)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 :I don't view [[vulture capitalism]] as bad, any more than I view vultures as bad. Someone has to eat the dead animals; otherwise they just sit around doing no one any good. As Wikipedia notes, "Vultures seldom attack healthy animals, but may kill the wounded or sick. . . . These birds are of great value as scavengers, especially in hot regions." Romney scavenged companies that were unhealthy and needed to die, thereby creating [[wealth]] for himself, his employees, and all others who benefited from those assets being put to more productive uses. "Vulture capitalist" needn't be a term of opprobrium.
-:A healthy person needn't worry about getting attacked by vultures, any more than a healthy company need worry about an investor liquidating the company. Even vulture capitalists do not destroy for the sake of destroying; if it were more profitable to keep the company going, they would do so, perhaps by selling it someone whose specialty is keeping companies going rather than taking them apart. The vulture capitalist, like the [[creditor]], [[slumlord]], and [[short seller]], is one of those groups in our economy that people dislike, despite the beneficial services (including, especially in the case of the short seller, market signals) that they provide.
+:A healthy person needn't worry about getting attacked by vultures, any more than a healthy company need worry about an investor liquidating the company. Even vulture capitalists do not destroy for the sake of destroying; if it were more profitable to keep the company going, they would do so, perhaps by selling it to someone whose specialty is keeping companies going rather than taking them apart. The vulture capitalist, like the [[creditor]], [[slumlord]], and [[short seller]], is one of those groups in our economy that people dislike, despite the beneficial services (including, especially in the case of the short seller, market signals) that they provide.
 :There is a circle of life in which ending the life of the terminally ill sometimes benefits others. The vulture converts dead bodies into droppings that become fertilizer for plants that may feed other animals. In the words of [[wikisource:Cato's Letter No. 56|Cato's Letter No. 56]], "Much less can it be any service to society, to keep alive by art or force a melancholy, miserable, and useless member, grown perhaps burdensome too by age and infirmities." There seems to be a superstition in our society against death, whether of a living being or a company, to the point that people believe in pointlessly dragging agony out as long as possible, at whatever expense. That's probably one of the reasons Romney lost. [[User:Nathan Larson|Nathan Larson]] ([[User talk:Nathan Larson|talk]]) 05:43, 18 November 2012 (MSK)