• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Silly McSilly Face said:
Because its generally about buying an underperforming business, turning it around and selling for a profit. That is literally the point. So they do give a f*ck. Obviously the improvements often involve lean protocols, efficiences and that includes staff cuts.
Click to expand...

So they literally don't give a fudge other than profit...............could not be more contrary with you opinions if you tried
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Because its generally about buying an underperforming business, turning it around and selling for a profit. That is literally the point. So they do give a f*ck. Obviously the improvements often involve lean protocols, efficiences and that includes staff cuts.
Click to expand...
Yes they give a fudge about profit.
Everything is geared towards that, including your 'improvements' lol. That's the way they choose to skin the cat.

Is it all bad, no. But, when it goes bad, they're first off the sinking ship.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
You are looking for a black and white situation. PE improves businesses. If they didn't, the funds would go down the toilet. Is it dometimes ruthless? Yes. Is the alternative worse for the business in question? Almost always, yes.
Click to expand...

No he isn't. He's looking for you to answer a simple question. If your answer requires caveats such as 'this isn't a black and white situation', then so be it. But that isn't on him.
 
thfcsteff said:
Here's some thoughts on private equity which I think comfortably fly over the 'lazy generalisation' label...

https://businesslawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/dark-side-private-equity#:~:text=Profit%20Pressure%2C%20Societal%20Harm%2C%20and%20Regulatory%20Failure,-TOP&text=The%20PE%20investment%20model's%20short,creditors%2C%20communities%20and%20the%20environment.
Click to expand...
Well it doesn't fly over the lazy generalisation, because the article focuses on "the dark side" and the healthcare sector in the US and does not balance with the turnarounds and rescues only made possible by PE buyouts.

I could equally find a tonne of articles looking at the poorer health outcomes we have in this country compared to America.

Also, i don't think the article is without bias - one of their initial conclusions is that there is a greater level of failure. As PE almost always invests in failing or underperforming businesses, this conclusion is a bit like an article on a drug given to patients with cancer concluding "patients given this drug had a far higher mortality rate than the general population". Its a nonsense conclusion.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
I think its pretty unfair that you are unable to ignore staff.
Click to expand...

You choose to respond. But genuinely you make a point and it's totally wrong and then you reframe it slowly and then pretend you don't know what the question is. Really it's a cycle of you saying things as fact that are not facts. Also you've had more job titles than Spurs have had bad days it seems so I question whether you just make stuff up.
 
LutonSpurs said:
You choose to respond. But genuinely you make a point and it's totally wrong and then you reframe it slowly and then pretend you don't know what the question is. Really it's a cycle of you saying things as fact that are not facts. Also you've had more job titles than Spurs have had bad days it seems so I question whether you just make stuff up.
Click to expand...
Def SillyGBT, every post reads like it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back