Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
Canoas wrote:
@throatslasher
You do realise romney would pretty much be your worst nightmare, right? Just google how he got rich..
LOL. Jealous much? He's a venture capitalist. Who cares. Companies get big, they become unstable, on the verge of collapse. A venture capitalist comes in and pieces the company out. Who cares, the company might have folded anyways. Who cares if he shipped jobs overseas. That just proves that he's a smart businessman, as it's way too expensive to manufacture in the US (unions, taxes, etc). Who cares that he hid money offshores? That just shows that he's smart enough to know how to avoid ridiculous taxes.
Answer me this question. If you had millions of dollars and you went to see your accountant, would you ask him how MUCH you can pay in taxes, or how LITTLE?
Don't hate romney becasue he became rich using tactics you consider 'unethical.' Behind every successful businessman, there are a lot of little people in their wake they stepped on, and a lot of rules they sidestepped. It's just a fact of business.
You know nothing about business, the economy, obama's record, or Romney's platform. Have you read his budget? His 80+ point plan for getting america back on track? Didn't think so. I don't agree with everything he says, but American needs to be run like a business, not a european welfare state.
BOW DOWN
BOW DOWN
BOW DOWN
Fox Rage
<Member>
<Member>
throatslasher wrote:
American needs to be run like a business, not a european welfare state.
I don't know as much about USA's politics as I know about Canada's (expecially Quebec's) politic, but even I know this.
+rep me and you'll get good karma, wich means you won't be reincarnated into a rock! Isn't that awesome?
JEFFY40HANDS wrote:
But yes this idea has been discussed more than Pam Anderson's tits in a plastic surgeons office.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@throatslasher
He makes money by destroying companies without improving the world one single ****. A dude who cleans the streets for a living has done more for society than Romney has. I don't care because I'm not from the USA, but you should. He's the kind of person who doesn't have the slightest concern for the welfare of the people.
I believe in socialism. The more money a person gains the more he should be taxed. And America is being run like a business, don't even doubt that for a second. That's why the richest 1% hold 99% of the wealth. That's exactly how a company works, the CEO gets rich at other people's expenses.
Maybe every successful businessman tramples others, but that's not the only way to get rich, or the best way. There's a huge difference in mindset from people who actually improve the world and get rich by doing so and those, like Romney, who just want to get rich by exploiting other people.
Usually people who actually do something, who create an actual product, get rich and end up giving back to the society. If I ever get rich, you can be sure as hell it won't be through exploiting flaws in the system and leaving other people living in misery. What I can't be sure though is that I wouldn't hire some pros to clean people akin to Romney.
I've always assumed a neutral position towards human life: A human's life is sacred.. until proved otherwise.
Also, what do you know about me to accuse me of knowing nothing about business? It seems to me you're the one who doesn't know how a proper business should be run. Destroying functional companies is not business, building those companies is.
He makes money by destroying companies without improving the world one single ****. A dude who cleans the streets for a living has done more for society than Romney has. I don't care because I'm not from the USA, but you should. He's the kind of person who doesn't have the slightest concern for the welfare of the people.
I believe in socialism. The more money a person gains the more he should be taxed. And America is being run like a business, don't even doubt that for a second. That's why the richest 1% hold 99% of the wealth. That's exactly how a company works, the CEO gets rich at other people's expenses.
Maybe every successful businessman tramples others, but that's not the only way to get rich, or the best way. There's a huge difference in mindset from people who actually improve the world and get rich by doing so and those, like Romney, who just want to get rich by exploiting other people.
Usually people who actually do something, who create an actual product, get rich and end up giving back to the society. If I ever get rich, you can be sure as hell it won't be through exploiting flaws in the system and leaving other people living in misery. What I can't be sure though is that I wouldn't hire some pros to clean people akin to Romney.
I've always assumed a neutral position towards human life: A human's life is sacred.. until proved otherwise.
Also, what do you know about me to accuse me of knowing nothing about business? It seems to me you're the one who doesn't know how a proper business should be run. Destroying functional companies is not business, building those companies is.
I grow more and more fond of this throatslasher guy for every post he makes.
@Canoas, why would one destroy a "functional business"?
If a business is functional it gives the max potential of profit, if said profit is hindered by say american taxes and he exports workforce to say mexico for more profit then he made the business a more functional business.
If he took down a business and let the customer group go to another business with cheaper or better production then he made more "functional business".
I do not know about romney's case but if i know american politics you can't find any valid info on how he got rich through the interwebz.
@Canoas, why would one destroy a "functional business"?
If a business is functional it gives the max potential of profit, if said profit is hindered by say american taxes and he exports workforce to say mexico for more profit then he made the business a more functional business.
If he took down a business and let the customer group go to another business with cheaper or better production then he made more "functional business".
I do not know about romney's case but if i know american politics you can't find any valid info on how he got rich through the interwebz.
Ty MM and Blood for the sigs :3 | Rammus is comming back - heard it here first!
"Carrying"-guide | My reviewservice
"Carrying"-guide | My reviewservice
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@Pølsemanden
Imagine a working hypothetical company. It profits 100 gold coins a day and has 100k gold coins stored for pensions. You have the money to buy 51% of this company's stocks.
So, you have 3 options:
1. Do nothing.
2. Buy the company and eventually get what your money back with the profits.
3. Buy the company, pay all the funds to yourself, sell the company to someone else. Repeat this process with other companies.
If you want to make honest money you would choose no. 2. If you want to make quick cash while destroying the few functional companies left in civilized countries you choose no. 3.
Guess what Romney chose?
Imagine a working hypothetical company. It profits 100 gold coins a day and has 100k gold coins stored for pensions. You have the money to buy 51% of this company's stocks.
So, you have 3 options:
1. Do nothing.
2. Buy the company and eventually get what your money back with the profits.
3. Buy the company, pay all the funds to yourself, sell the company to someone else. Repeat this process with other companies.
If you want to make honest money you would choose no. 2. If you want to make quick cash while destroying the few functional companies left in civilized countries you choose no. 3.
Guess what Romney chose?
Canoas wrote:
@Pølsemanden
Imagine a working hypothetical company. It profits 100 gold coins a day and has 100k gold coins stored for pensions. You have the money to buy 51% of this company's stocks.
So, you have 3 options:
1. Do nothing.
2. Buy the company and eventually get what your money back with the profits.
3. Buy the company, pay all the funds to yourself, sell the company to someone else. Repeat this process with other companies.
If you want to make honest money you would choose no. 2. If you want to make quick cash while destroying the few functional companies left in civilized countries you choose no. 3.
Guess what Romney chose?
I don't see how "paying" 100% of funds from a company you only own 51% for is possible.
Who would buy a company without any funds?
Ty MM and Blood for the sigs :3 | Rammus is comming back - heard it here first!
"Carrying"-guide | My reviewservice
"Carrying"-guide | My reviewservice
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
because when you own 51% you are the majority shareholder, basically the CEO. After you're done with stealing the pensions or whatever the company has of interest you can sell the shares again, even if they'll be worth way less, and make a huge profit. You can also completely run the company to the ground if you wish and just sell everything.
Obviously it's not this simple but that's the idea.
Obviously it's not this simple but that's the idea.
You need to log in before commenting.
<Altruistic Artist>