Journal Community

Thiruvengadam, others like Greg and of interest to Jim O,

You said you prefer science to guide ethics.  Fine, let me ask you a concrete topical question.  How would science had given Romney or Bain, or even the government, say under Obama, a better ethic and guidance that would have saved jobs?

Fair disclosure, in the business community I came to be known as a corporate restructuring specialist who at one time held a worldwide reputation in the steel industry.  I don't know the specifics of Bain's takeover but I do know that at the time there was a mass worldwide realignment of the steel industry going on owing both to new technology and labor costs resulting from a parallel realignment of certain skills throughout the world and newer very low cost iron ore production (Brazil, Australia). 

I personally led the financing of a 400 million dollar operation of my company's money (no equity although we had an equity arm) to save the Mexican steel industry but nonetheless at a cost of some 20,000 to 25,000 jobs. To do the job we had on staff two of the best steel engineers in the world, including a former VP and head of production and technology of Bethlehem Steel.  Without that investment and labor cuts another equivalent number of jobs would have been lost.  Interestingly the firing was done by the government (and I had refused to consider any financing unless the government gave a sign of its seriousness to address the industry's problems), which urgently wanted to privatize aware of the immensely negative PR of government companies having to fire people in order to stay afloat.  Even more interesting, the government then sold the now profitable largest Mexican steel mill and coal mines at a fraction of their "value" and the new owners invested many hundreds of millions to build a new coal fired power plant to supply electricity to the southwestern corner of the US.  Private equity has a way of finding new niches but the investments and risks can be huge.

Again, I don't know what Bain's acquisition entailed, whether it produced flat or non-flat products, for instance, but any investment in existing steel, and I emphasize existing because of the old technology and labor costs involved in the US at that time, was at best heroic and more likely a foolish investment unless it formed part of a larger strategy. Still, we would not have touched steel in the US at that time with a ten foot pole except if it involved a completely new plant with new technology and a clean labor slate.  I've been away for a while but I would venture to say that today's US steel is largely in new specialized mini-mills or plants with new technology except for the largest reengineered multi-billion dollar units on a coast, with reasonable labor costs and significant economies of scale. Otherwise the action is in other countries like Japan, Korea and Brazil (in Brazil in the mid-1980s my team helped in the financial restructuring of a 14 billion dollar operation that had been hemorrhaging two billion dollars a year and which required a realignment of government policy) in large plants built on the coast with leading edge and constantly changing technology.  

So, how would science have provided a better ethic to Romney and Bain and even the government when it was science itself that was largely responsible for the loss of jobs?

Greg, so because Romney is running but Immelt is not it is okay to talk about Romney's role in that equity deal your guys all agree happened two years after he left Bain but not okay to talk about Immelt? Is that the new science determined ethic?

It is okay for Presidential candidates and their minions to lie about other candidates but not even talk about truths when they involve mere citizens like Obama buddy Jeffrey Immelt, who as head of GE got a very hush under the radar bailout and then went on to head Obama's job council?

Ha, the slippery slope, is it? If we get Obama we can expect more government money channeled to some of the very rich to create jobs? Hey, that's great! Now I understand why Obama has no use for venture or "equity" capital. He will instead do more Solyndras and when they are in trouble, like GE and Solyndra were, give them more money hoping they survive; one did, the other didn't but in each case no extra private risk capital was involved.

Now we are making progress Greg, at least I am beginning to understand how that scientific cost/benefit thingy of yours works.

This all sounds like I am being sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek but the sad truth is that it is all true. The solid evidence is all out there for all who care to see.