UK: Why Bain matters

The Economist

Barack and Bain

A president's background training matters 

May 23rd 2012, 17:45 by M.S. 

Obviously, being the head of a private-equity investment house is a different sort of job from being president. People's background training matters. It grounds their instinctive philosophical and economic convictions and determines the kinds of skills they develop. Perhaps this helps explain why so many presidents have been lifelong politicians, while so few have been former business executives. Or why those whose chief pre-political experience was in business have largely made lousy or forgettable presidents. (Presidents with extensive experience in business: Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman and George Bush pere and fils. Presidents with extensive experience as labour or community organisers: Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.)

If there were no possible contradiction between ensuring firm profitability and ensuring the welfare of most Americans, then the fact that Mitt Romney is, by background and conviction, overwhelmingly dedicated to the pursuit of profits at the expense of wages and employment would not matter. Perhaps in some universe it is always the case that maximising firm profit also maximises the public good. In this universe, however, there are conflicts between the welfare of companies and the welfare of their workers, their customers and the rest of the citizenry. There are conflicts between the profitability of the financial sector and the general welfare of the country. There is a powerful argument going on in American politics, perhaps the central argument at the moment, in which a large number of Americans claim on solid grounds that the increasing profitability of the financial sector has come at the direct expense of the general welfare. While my colleague may feel it is silly for the president to address how interactions between corporations and "natural persons" work in America, last I checked, promoting the general welfare was in fact part of the government's remit. It's even in the constitution. Obviously "promote the general welfare" shouldn't serve as an excuse for the government to take control of literally every aspect of life, but I think I'm on solid ground in saying that the president does exert some influence on the economy and how actors within it function, and that this is appropriate. If it weren't, there would certainly be no reason to elect a businessman president.

For the article:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/barack-and-bain