DC Tom Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Really folks.... Profit and loss, black and red, is acknowledged daily by the markets. A decision made today can have a deleterious impact, and tank what was a profit yesterday, by lunchtime. There are business-persons on this board right? I know we have an historian-in-residence at Oxford (Tom), an Executive Chef at the French Laundry (Chef Jim), and international traveler and independently wealthy film connoisseur(LABillzFan) but I was hoping that business folks could interject. “You’re used to running a big corporation. When you make a decision in the morning, you either earn a profit that day or you don’t. You can’t run a government that way. It would drive you crazy. You wouldn’t last a year. You’d have a heart attack because of the frustration.” -Lee Iacocca (1988) Um, no. And I have run a business, not nearly as successfully as many others on this board. And I've worked closely with or for others who have. Executives don't make decisions that daily impact P&L. That's as retarded as blaming today's gas prices on Obama's energy speech yesterday. The world simply doesn't work that way. That's what makes the current crop of Democrats so odius: good ideas completely unhindered by any sense of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 If you're talking in generalities, like your quote from Iacocca, then yes, a decision you make this morning can affect what you've gained in the past and what you will gain in the future. But if you think the average business owner wakes up, goes to work at 9 a.m and makes a decision that he hopes will deliver him the profits he needs to sustain his company, by 5 p.m. no less, then yes, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read here. I'll take the former. And I'll wager that Iacocca has more political and business experience than us both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 If you're talking in generalities, like your quote from Iacocca, then yes, a decision you make this morning can affect what you've gained in the past and what you will gain in the future. But if you think the average business owner wakes up, goes to work at 9 a.m and makes a decision that he hopes will deliver him the profits he needs to sustain his company, by 5 p.m. no less, then yes, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And friends... that's saying something!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Um, no. And I have run a business, not nearly as successfully as many others on this board. And I've worked closely with or for others who have. Executives don't make decisions that daily impact P&L. That's as retarded as blaming today's gas prices on Obama's energy speech yesterday. The world simply doesn't work that way. That's what makes the current crop of Democrats so odius: good ideas completely unhindered by any sense of reality. I'll say that they can and they do. Daily. I'll agree to disagree though. No stevestojan. Maybe you should come back when you have two brain cells to rub together. This may have some direction/basis in reality if Romney had no experience other than as a CEO. But as it stands, you don't acknowledge that he led an Olympic Games that was $800M in the hole from corruption and graft when he got there and which ended up making $300M in an era when almost EVERY Olympic endeavor has lost money hand over fist and any city and nation that bids for it looks upon it as a tourism advertising effort. You write your crap as if Romeny didn't have to deal with construction, budget, contracts / litigation, and security/terrorism issues a few months after 9/11. He then was elected governor of a state, and brought it back to fiscal sanity, wrapped up the Big Dig, responded to major flooding in 2005 when we in the northeast had 20 straight days of rain including dam breaks that threatened a 20,000-population city, he did the best he could with an 85% Democrat state legislature... and the place didn't turn into a Mormon Theocracy. Businessperson or not, Romney has had success at every increased-responsibility challenge he's ever faced. The Peter Principle hasn't hit him yet. Pres. Obama, on the other hand, has largely proven to be out of his depth. How has being an academic helped him? If he actually had a stevestojan-sliver of experience in the Real World where you actually have to produce a product, have to own fiscal responsibility and the realities that irresponsibility causes, and not just blame other people for every !@#$ing problem... this country might be able to go somewhere. I don't get your statement about having multiple places where he's lived/worked/owns a house. This is 2011. Obama used his moving around as an argument in his favor vis. that he could relate to different groups of people (Hawai'i, Indonesia, Kansas, Illinois, D.C.). How doesn't this apply to Romney as a positive, other than you & the Left saying the case is different for anyone with an R after their name? This point alone proves that you're a !@#$ing idiot who's just throwing stevestojan out there and basically created a RomneyBad thread so you could link a smarmy video. You haven't once made a point, that when construed in the light most favorable to you, could be considered substantive. Shut your trap. Edited February 24, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'll say that they can and they do. Daily. I'll agree to disagree though. Let me rephrase that: Executives don't make decisions DAILY that impact P&L that day (which, before you deny it, is what you said). Doesn't matter if you're a CEO, a general, the Pope, Osama Bin Laden...doesn't happen, unless you're running a small cash point-of-sale business like a hair salon - and even then, it's structurally almost impossible. At least, any halfway decent one doesn't. My wife's former boss does...but he's a crook, a thief, a liar, and a knucklehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) I would argue that being a Venture capitalist is probably the best private sector experience you could possibly have to be president. What does a Venture capitalist do? Well, they apply capital and take some sort of ownership on either a start up or struggling company. Just for a little tidbit of information, close to 10% of all private sector jobs come through private equity/venture capitalism. What would a venture capitalist attempt to do in a typical failing company? Identify waste,then eliminate it,identify best sources of demand, then innovate products, streamline them, increase efficiency, market products , execute sales, maximize profits, reward and retain competent employees. Mitt Romney was widely regarded as one of best in the business. There is a reason why he was called upon to help the Olympics, and it certainly wasn't because he was the son of daddy warbucks. He not only was an extremely successful venture capitalist, but he did turn what was about to be a very embarrassing Olympics for our country into a success. There was scandal, inefficiency and the Olympics was grossly overbudget. Under his leadership, it all turned around. His experience as a venture capitalist helped make that happen. So how could his experience as a venture capitalist help as President of the U.S? Well, we are a country that is struggling with job creation, **** load of waste in government, lack of innovaton and a tremendous debt program. His experience in venture capitalism and executive experience as governor of a blue state, which mean that he had to work across the aisle a good bit would be very well suited to address some of these issues. Very good points and written by someone who obviously knows business. Lets contrast that to President Obama. His experience was that he was on the faculty of Harvard, community organizer, state senator and served a little over half a term as Senator in which he never produced a meaningful piece of legislation and had one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. I would say that is an accurate description, wouldn't you agree? You possibly over-stated them. Let's be real here, honestly, who is the more qualified person to address the economy and our debt? Seriously. Not only was Obama woefully qualified to be president, but his body of work proves that. I'm just trying to put things into perspective here. And in regards to if he ran the governor as a true conservative, I could give two ***** about that. This conservative litmust test crap is a bunch of BS. I don't care if he ran the government as a true conservative. I was relating that point back to the "locus" point. Edited February 24, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 You haven't once made a point, that when construed in the light most favorable to you, could be considered substantive. Shut your trap. Are you going to flip out again like last time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 You haven't once made a point, that when construed in the light most favorable to you, could be considered substantive. Shut your trap. The standard reply from someone who's lost the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Are you going to flip out again like last time? Toooooo, late. (grabs bag of orville redenbacher's) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Let me rephrase that: Executives don't make decisions DAILY that impact P&L that day (which, before you deny it, is what you said). Doesn't matter if you're a CEO, a general, the Pope, Osama Bin Laden...doesn't happen, unless you're running a small cash point-of-sale business like a hair salon - and even then, it's structurally almost impossible. At least, any halfway decent one doesn't. My wife's former boss does...but he's a crook, a thief, a liar, and a knucklehead. So what do you think of Iacocca's point? You may have run (and turned around) businesses comparable to Ford and Chrysler like he has. In that case, I may defer to you. Otherwise... So if a CEO decides to make a business-related announcement about a matter, that won't affect profits and losses that day? Think this through... The standard reply from someone who's lost the argument. You never made an argument to make a comparison. You threw around some insults and then talked about how Obama traveled a bunch as if that belies the point about Romney. Again, you never made an argument to make a comparison. Incidentally, I agree with you. Obama traveled a bunch and liberals construed that as cool and "worldly." So the !@#$ what? Lube up and give it another whirl. Are you going to flip out again like last time? You buying drinks? Toooooo, late. (grabs bag of orville redenbacher's) All aboard mother!@#$ers! Edited February 24, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 1. Thomas Jefferson 2. Franklin Roosevelt 3. Teddy Roosevelt 4. James Madison 5. Woodrow Wilson ... I'll give you Jefferson, Madison and Wilson, but neither Roosevelt was a faculty member, trustee or board member of any college or university. How they could rate as academics by any measure is vague reasoning. However, Washington, Monroe, Fillmore, Buchanan, Tyler, Harrison, Cleveland(him again), Reagan and Hayes were all chancellors or trustees or otherwise helping to head august bodies of higher learning. Of course, Garfield, Taft, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton and your sugar daddy BO actually had a teaching position at a college or university. Jefferson was a businessman - albeit not a very profitable one. Madison was the first President to push us into a war with another country. Wilson pushed the country into WWI and was a racist to boot. Yea academics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 So what do you think of Iacocca's point? You may have run (and turned around) businesses comparable to Ford and Chrysler like he has. In that case, I may defer to you. Otherwise... So if a CEO decides to make a business-related announcement about a matter, that won't affect profits and losses that day? Think this through... You never made an argument to make a comparison. You threw around some insults and then talked about how Obama traveled a bunch as if that belies the point about Romney. Again, you never made an argument to make a comparison. Incidentally, I agree with you. Obama traveled a bunch and liberals construed that as cool and "worldly." So the !@#$ what? Lube up and give it another whirl. You buying drinks? So all decisions are announcements now? Think this through ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 So all decisions are announcements now? Think this through ... And P&L are tabulated daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 And P&L are tabulated daily. I thought you, Magox, and a few others had already addressed that point rather sufficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Jefferson was a businessman - albeit not a very profitable one. Madison was the first President to push us into a war with another country. Wilson pushed the country into WWI and was a racist to boot. Yea academics! Madison contributed greatly to the structural foundation of this country. The Bill of Rights owes a debt of gratitude to him as does the philosophical underpinnings of the entire Constitution. Jefferson was 20 times the academic than anything else. Wilson was a racist, but so was Henry Ford yet I drive a Cobra. ;-) And maybe "Birth of a Nation" was the original satire? We'll never know. Anyways, Wilson was also a visionary. Yea, the League of Nations was a flop, but he conceptualized an international group that could address problems diplomatically and pressure rogue nations through the use of sympathetic nation states. Pretty awesome stuff. So all decisions are announcements now? Think this through ... What? Who said that? However an "announcement" is a "decision." And that type of decision would affect profit and loss THAT DAY. How about you stay up? If you can't just use smilies as your sole means of response and, at least, appear engaged. Think that through... Edited February 24, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 However an "announcement" is a "decision." And that type of decision would affect profit and loss THAT DAY. How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I would argue that being a Venture capitalist is probably the best private sector experience you could possibly have to be president. What does a Venture capitalist do? Well, they apply capital and take some sort of ownership on either a start up or struggling company. Just for a little tidbit of information, close to 10% of all private sector jobs come through private equity/venture capitalism. What would a venture capitalist attempt to do in a typical failing company? Identify waste,then eliminate it,identify best sources of demand, then innovate products or services to suffice that demand, streamline them, increase efficiency, market products , execute sales, maximize profits, reward and retain competent employees. Mitt Romney was widely regarded as one of best in the business. There is a reason why he was called upon to help the Olympics, and it certainly wasn't because he was the son of daddy warbucks. He not only was an extremely successful venture capitalist, but he did turn what was about to be a very embarrassing Olympics for our country into a success. There was scandal, inefficiency and the Olympics was grossly overbudget. Under his leadership, it all turned around. His experience as a venture capitalist helped make that happen. So how could his experience as a venture capitalist help as President of the U.S? Well, we are a country that is struggling with job creation, **** load of waste in government, lack of innovaton and a tremendous debt program. His experience in venture capitalism and executive experience as governor of a blue state, which mean that he had to work across the aisle a good bit would be very well suited to address some of these issues. Lets contrast that to President Obama. His experience was that he was on the faculty of Harvard, community organizer, state senator and served a little over half a term as Senator in which he never produced a meaningful piece of legislation and had one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. I would say that is an accurate description, wouldn't you agree? Let's be real here, honestly, who is the more qualified person to address the economy and our debt? Seriously. Not only was Obama woefully qualified to be president, but his body of work proves that. I'm just trying to put things into perspective here. And in regards to if he ran the governor as a true conservative, I could give two ***** about that. This conservative litmust test crap is a bunch of BS. But...but...but....he's rich! How? Well kind of like when I made the decision to take a dump this morning and of course made the announcement of said dump in my staff meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Toooooo, late. (grabs bag of orville redenbacher's) Make enough for both of us. I'm sitting this one out too. The "dander getter upper" has struck again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Madison contributed greatly to the structural foundation of this country. The Bill of Rights owes a debt of gratitude to him as does the philosophical underpinnings of the entire Constitution. Jefferson was 20 times the academic than anything else. Wilson was a racist, but so was Henry Ford but I drive a Cobra. And maybe "Birth of a Nation" was the original satire? We'll never know. Anyways, Wilson was also a visionary. Yea, the League of Nations was a flop, but he conceptualized an international group that could address problems diplomatically and pressure rogue nations through the use of sympathetic nation states. Pretty awesome stuff. What? Who said that? However an "announcement" is a "decision." And that type of decision would affect profit and loss THAT DAY. How about you stay up? If you can't just use smilies as your sole means of response and, at least, appear engaged. Think that through... Just going by what you'd wrote earlier in the OP and were discussing in several subsequent posts. Ok so in business, you make a decision at 9 am, and by close of business you've either turned a profit or you haven't. Government doesn't operate that transparently. People pointed out correctly, that your original statement is only rarely at most correct. It simply doesn't happen that a decision rolls through to immediately effect the bottom line. You've now adjusted from "decision" to "announcement" and continue on as if there is no distinction between the two. And for the record, a P&L statement is historical looking. A decision made at 9AM will not affect nor effect the P&L at 5PM that day in any materially significant way. An announcement made on a particular day can quite likely effect stock price that same day. Though where the stock goes in the long term will be dependent upon the implementation of that announced decision and not the announcement itself. Stock price is forward looking. And oddly enough, an "announcement" by the President will be treated similarly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 So what do you think of Iacocca's point? You may have run (and turned around) businesses comparable to Ford and Chrysler like he has. In that case, I may defer to you. Otherwise... So if a CEO decides to make a business-related announcement about a matter, that won't affect profits and losses that day? Think this through... You never made an argument to make a comparison. You threw around some insults and then talked about how Obama traveled a bunch as if that belies the point about Romney. Again, you never made an argument to make a comparison. Incidentally, I agree with you. Obama traveled a bunch and liberals construed that as cool and "worldly." So the !@#$ what? Lube up and give it another whirl. You buying drinks? All aboard mother!@#$ers! The point was that you bandy about the charge that Romney is / business leaders are "automatons" as if they don't live in the real world and aren't impacted by very human problems. You can continue with the canard that these machines need to lube up, but it only means you're the one who has to go through life as a reductive * who has to looks through the lens of stereotype to be able to see anything. You are painting with so broad a brush (Academics vs. Businessmen) that you're discounting personhood. When you're dealing with a set of 44 examples, each of whom was a product of his time, from which to make inferences, what the !@#$ do you hope to prove? Because Hoover was a "businessman" but didn't live in a 24/7 CNN world, he made decisions based on day-to-day profits? That long-term thought and strategy isn't something 'non-academics' can get? He didn't realize the concept that the machination in any process takes time to produce something? Romney doesn't get this? Because you say so? Who the !@#$ do you think you are, pretending to know how these men thought/think and calling them automatons? you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts