Bain Capital Socially Valuable, Even Layoffs, Break Ups, and Sell Offs

Jan. 11, 2012 3:55 PM ET2 Comments
Josh Dowlut profile picture
Josh Dowlut's Blog
46 Followers
Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Contributor Since 2009

Regarding a fractional reserve banking system, the Rothschild brothers once said "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." I tutor graduate level economics, have read the original works of Smith, Marx, and Keynes for fun, and probably understand more about economics than is healthy for any person to. But most of what I have learned has not been from a textbook or a classroom, but from trying to eek out a living as a small business owner, starting from scratch, in a heavily anti-competitive, almost mercantilist industry that is overtly hostile to the new or little guy. The following are my 10 principles of economics: The Path to Prosperity Many of the policy decisions that impact our lives are made based on mistruths about and misunderstanding of what it takes to create prosperity. I’ve compiled a list of the truth antidotes to some of the most notorious of these. Some of my principles can be found in textbooks. Some cannot. Some directly conflict with what is in most textbooks. Nevertheless they are all based on sound theory, on historical evidence, on common sense, and on independent critical thinking to answer the key question: “How do we create the most prosperity for the most people?” 1. Falling prices are natural; falling prices are good. Fighting this steals from the working class and gives to the investor class. 2. Your contribution to society is what you produce, not what you consume. Paris Hilton is not the model citizen for creating prosperity. 3. Paying a man not to work does not create wealth; it only transfers it. 4. Business regulations help big business and big government at the expense of small business, consumers, and workers. 5. A tax cut on another man helps you when compared to no tax cuts for anyone. But when compared to a tax cut for yourself, the choice is clear which is better for you. 6. Tomorrow’s prosperity comes from today’s savings, regardless of who is doing the saving. 7. Central planner policies that help sellers and producers do so by hurting buyers and consumers. 8. Public money should not be spent on private consumption. 9. To privatize profits but socialize losses is to steal. 10. There is no shortage of jobs. There is only a shortage of money to pay for those jobs. To cure this shortage we need to stop wasting money on jobs that do little to no good for us, and we need to allow more people to do what the bottom-up power of the free markets want as opposed to what the top-down power decree of government wants. For every young man fighting an unnecessary war, there is one less man who can teach 3rd grade and coach little league. For every MVA worker, there is one less worker available to pickup trash or plug potholes. For every genius who goes into accounting to demystify our tax code, there is one less genius to go to engineering school. We will never hit our goals if we keep aiming at the wrong targets.

Mitt Romney has received much criticism over layoffs from some of his Bain Capital leveraged buyouts.  This criticism is unwarranted, especially from anyone who fancies himself to be a proponent of the free market system.  The legitimate goal of economic policy or managers of scarce resources is not to create jobs, it is to create prosperity, and the Bain case study perfectly demonstrates this concept.

A WSJ article contends that Bain actually increased employment on the whole when you consider its venture capital component that started such companies as Staples, or its leveraged buyouts that did not result in bankruptcy, such as the turnaround of the Sports Authority, or the expansion of a steel mill.  But this argument completely misses the main point.

Even if all Bain did was buy-up companies at less than book value, break them up, and sell off the pieces for more than they paid, laying off everyone in the process, they would still be playing a critically important, and socially valuable role in a market economy.  They would be playing a role very similar to pulling valuable pieces off a wrecked car at a salvage yard, a process that when you think it through, destroys jobs because every usable transmission or head unit that can be salvaged, is one less that some worker has to build from new.  Salvaging clearly reduces the demand for labor of those who manufacture that which is salvaged.  But I doubt anyone would call an auto salvager socially irresponsible.  Perhaps it is the grotesque compensation Bain received, and to the extent that Bain’s compensation came from government policies that limit competition, this is a warranted criticism, but that only means we need more companies that can do what Bain does to compete away their supernormal profits, not that Bain’s activities themselves merit criticism.

Bain essentially fired bad managers.  Sometimes they tried to replace them and turn the company around, and given the fact that most capital is a specific factor of production with limited transferability that must be discounted if sold, and most labor has a unique skill set that has the built-in equity of the time invested to train it, this would be the first choice. Labor saving restructuring (layoffs) happened, but getting more from less is the most basic definition of economic progress and is a major reason why life today is far more comfortable than life 100 years ago.  The problem is when the worker who is laid off cannot find a replacement source of income, and that comes from a deeply rooted, complex set of problems far beyond the scope of Bain.  

But sometimes the market simply did not want what the company was producing and the most socially responsible use of the company’s land, labor, and capital was to sell them to an entity that could make better use of them, and it is this sales component that most critics find offensive, but they shouldn't.  If the overall market is mostly competitive, then the sales of these assets is how the most people get what they want most, or in other words, how you do the most good for the most people.

For example, if United Widget Makers (UWM) has $10 million of fixed assets, but is currently operating at a loss, what that means is that consumers do not place enough value on the widgets to cover the fixed costs of owning those assets, plus the variable costs of operating them (such as wages demanded by workers).  More specifically and completely, it means society as a whole would prefer those workers and that capital be employed making something else.  Given that a worker’s ability to demand a wage is primarily a function of his other job prospects, if workers are unwilling to negotiate to a low enough wage level that price can exceed average total cost (ATC), then it is because they have better prospects elsewhere, which is to say consumers would prefer they produced something else.  The same concept applies to the hard assets.  If the creditors of the hard assets are unwilling to renegotiate lending terms to a cost that fits ATC under price, it is because they believe they would fair better in a default/liquidation sale scenario, but this conclusion is ultimately reached because of the desires of two separate groups of consumers, the consumers of widgets, and the consumers of capital goods.  A default/liquidation of capital happens because consumers value the capital good itself more than they value the consumer good it was making, and have some viable means of re-purposing it.

Given the assumption that our overall economy is still closer to the perfect competition side than the perfect monopoly side of the spectrum where consumer choice is allowed to function (and this is for at least the moment a reasonable assumption), then rational, self-interested actors who are parting out companies will facilitate a result that is most in-line with what society as a whole desires.  It is proper to criticize the maelstrom of regulatory, monetary, tax, and IP policy that ultimately limits competition from competing away Bain’s profits, as well as limit saving and wealth building for the average worker, and even work against and contribute to the failure of some of the smaller, and/or newer companies that Bain took over, but it is not proper to criticize trying to get more output from the same or less input, for while that does lead to layoffs, it also leads to real economic growth and progress which is the truly legitimate goal of economy policy and managers of capital, nor is it proper to criticize the break up and sell off of entities that society as a whole desires an alternative use of.

The parable of the earthen dam, replacing shovels with spoons:

There was an American businessman touring China who visited the work-site of an earthen dam being made by 100 workers using hand shovels.  The American asked his guide, “why not just have one man with a bulldozer do this in a day?”  The guide replied, “because then we would have 99 men out of work.”  The American responded, “I thought you were making a dam, if it is jobs you are making, why not take their shovels away and give them spoons?”

Recommended For You

Comments (2)

To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.