Ron Paul shuts down New Gingrich

[RL...]

but what if the business model ISNT PROFITABLE? Sometimes a business is just BAD. Take a restaurant. The owner is facing bankruptcy because his business is failing (could be from bad management, bad menu, bad location, whatever). Hes going under no matter what. Someone could come in, buy him out, liquidate his assets , lay people off (Who were going to be laid off anyway), and walk away making money (which is the goal of any business). What is wrong with that? Maybe the guy with the money doesnt want to own a restaurant and just wants to make money. SO WHAT?

If 10 people cant feed their children next week, guess what, they werent going to feed their children ANYWAY when the business gets repoed by the bank, or creditors, whatever.

There is NOTHING wrong with liquidating a company an making a profit , even if layoffs occur.

Who are we to tell people who are investing THEIR money what they can do with it, how many jobs they HAVE to save, etc? What they do with THEIR MONEY is THEIR BUSINESS. People get fired or laid off everyday, boo hoo. Find another job. IVE BEEN LAID OFF, it sucks, but , i moved on.

In your world you want to dictate how to make profit, how much profit is "ok", and no one ever gets laid off. That is simply a fantasy land.

PEOPLE GET LAID OFF, COMPANIES DOWNSIZE, ITS PERFECTLY OK.

This train of thought is logical, but it's this mentality that breeds corruption. Money above morals, screwing over other people to make a quick buck. While I believe money is very important, I could never say it is OK for people to get laid off.

[Vteckidd]

This train of thought is logical, but it's this mentality that breeds corruption. Money above morals, screwing over other people to make a quick buck. While I believe money is very important, I could never say it is OK for people to get laid off.

define OK

Its not a moral argument, its a dollars and cents argument. You either trim the fat and excess, or you continue doing what GM does, which is continue paying higher than normal wages and employing 1000s of people they DONT NEED. Theyll continue being bankrupt and having to be bailed out. Their work force is subpar and overpaid, they NEED To lay people off, fire people who underperform, and pay people the normal competitive wage. But the unions wont let that happen. So GM sends their business to China.

No one WANTS layoffs, because layoffs mean you arent expanding. But sometimes LAYOFFS HAVE TO HAPPEN , its just part of business. If you dont lay people off, then you raise your prices, and make yourself even more uncompetitive.

[RL...]

define OK

Its not a moral argument, its a dollars and cents argument. You either trim the fat and excess, or you continue doing what GM does, which is continue paying higher than normal wages and employing 1000s of people they DONT NEED. Theyll continue being bankrupt and having to be bailed out. Their work force is subpar and overpaid, they NEED To lay people off, fire people who underperform, and pay people the normal competitive wage. But the unions wont let that happen. So GM sends their business to China.

No one WANTS layoffs, because layoffs mean you arent expanding. But sometimes LAYOFFS HAVE TO HAPPEN , its just part of business. If you dont lay people off, then you raise your prices, and make yourself even more uncompetitive.

Business is just as much about money as it is business ethics. But yes, in that example would be understandable and logical. Of course layoffs have to happen here and there, but like I said I don't think it's OK. When you say that something is OK it sounds like you mean it's a positive thing, atleast that's how I take it.

[Vteckidd]

this aint showfriends its showbusiness :P

Some people are cutthroat and are like Gordon Gecko, they buy just to liquidate. But theres no law saying you have to have compassion.