Remember the White House “jobs summit?”
By Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 4, 2009President Obama’s jobs summit was aimed at producing ideas to battle a surging unemployment problem exacting ever greater economic and political toll, but the event only highlighted the tough dilemma he confronts.
Obama says he does not have the money for the plan many of his liberal supporters say packs the biggest employment punch — direct federal investment in job creation. Instead, he came close to embracing a to-do list for the private sector that sounded rather familiar: weatherization, small-business incentives, regulatory and other help for exporters, and tax credits for employers who hire new workers.
Obama said the proposals could create jobs immediately, while providing long-term benefit at a relatively small expense to the federal government. “Overall, we generated a lot of important ideas,” he said. “Some of them, I think, can translate immediately into administration plans and, potentially, legislation.”
Speaking to 130 business leaders, union chiefs, economists and others summoned to the White House for the forum, Obama reassured his audience that some of the ideas he cited are under close consideration as his administration grapples with ways to improve the bleakest labor market in a generation.
Constrained by the staggering $1.4 trillion federal deficit, the president has been reluctant to endorse a specific job-creation plan, especially as about half of the $787 billion in stimulus funds remains unspent.
Fox News noted that a good many of the people invited to the jobs summit were Obama supporters and campaign donors. And The Washington Times pointed out that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, both of which have been critical of President Obama’s policies, were not invited:
Confirmed attendees include liberal economists credited with shaping the $787 billion stimulus package, union leaders, environmental advocates and executives from Google and other blue-chip firms.
“He’s going to get lots of recommendations to spend more money,” said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. “These are the very same people who gave us the stimulus package. My feeling is we’re not going to get what we need, and that’s a complete change in direction on economic policy.”
Preaching top the choir? Robert X. Cringely noted that the jobs summit was a sham from start to finish:
This White House event was a sham, a photo opp meant solely to influence public opinion without actually doing anything, according to attendees. This can be seen, for example, in the coverage by USA Today, which proudly quoted statements by the President about what had been accomplished in the sessions, yet USA Today said their interview took place two hours before the event even started.
How could Obama know in advance what would be accomplished?
I was watching a History Channel feature on the Presidents today. One part noted that President Herbert Hoover, a brilliant man and learned economist, was dumped by the voters because he didn’t seem to care enough about the Depression and people being out of work. Yet the man who was elected to replace him, President Franklin Roosevelt, didn’t have a significantly better record at ending the Depression; it was only the war materiel production required by World War II that generated an industrial recovery. The difference was that President Roosevelt was seen as really caring about the common man, and President Hoover wasn’t. It didn’t hurt that Mr Hoover was blamed for the Depression, and Mr Roosevelt seen as having inherited it.
Perhaps that’s the same thing on which President Obama counts; he inherited a recession from President George W Bush, and may be given a lot more latitude by the voters in “fixing” it.
But ignored in all of this is the fact that the government doesn’t “fix” recessions and the government doesn’t create jobs. Also attending the jobs summit were some leading corporate CEOs, because they are the ones who will be taking the economic decisions for their respective companies concerning expansion — and thus new jobs.
Economically, it’s pretty simple: jobs will be created when business owners and prospective entrepreneurs see a potential for profits in expansion. Each will take their decisions separately, and each will have his own set of ideas on what conditions are and the probabilities of success. And some will take their decisions based on poor information, on perceptions which may or may not be true, and even a few wholly irrationally. Some will be right, and some will be wrong.
Realistically, the only thing that the President can do here is to try to create a perception that his Administration will be friendly to and supportive of business. If the Administration doesn’t try to impose large new taxes, the probabilities will increase that business owners and prospective entrepreneurs will foresee a business climate in which they can make a profit. If, on the other hand, the Administration is seen as pushing increasing business and industrial regulations, and imposing new costs on businesses — and the health care initiative is a big, big issue in this — the very people on whom the President counts to create new jobs are more likely to doubt the probability of realizing a profit from expansion and job creation.
We still don’t know what the final form of the health care reform bill will be, but every package I’ve seen so far would have a mandate that employers provide access to a health insurance package for their employees, or pay an additional tax to the government if they do not; some very small firms would be exempt. It doesn’t matter whether you like the idea of nationalized health care coverage or not: for a business which doesn’t currently provide health insurance, or one simply in the planning phases, health care reform is an added cost of doing business, and may well be the point on which prospective entrepreneurs calculate whether they can make a profit worth the risk of investing, or not.
Hillary Clinton famously said, when she was supposed to be constructing the health care package for her husband, that she couldn’t be responsible for every undercapitalized business out there. That was, for her, a moment of unusual honesty: she acknowledged that for some small businesses her health care plan would have been the added burden which would make them fail.
President Obama seems to be too shrewd to be that honest, but the reality is the same: imposing a heavy new burden on small businesses will cause some to fail, and others to never be started. Yet he also believes that jobs must be created, to end the recession.
These two things are mutually contradictory! Absent pre-existing strong jobs growth, we cannot expect much in jobs growth if such an expensive new cost on business is going to be added. For businesses which already provide health care coverage, there will have to be a waiting period while they see, through experience, whether the health care reform bill increases their costs.
Perception is reality. It may be, it will be, that some businessmen will miscalculate the effects of health care reform: some will judge that it will be less expensive than it is, and some will figure that it would be impossibly expensive, regardless of the information they are given. In Economics 101, you learn theories which assume that people are rational actors with perfect information; in Real World 101, you learn that such assumptions are great for teaching theory, but don’t represent the real world in the slightest.
The President and his so called economic advisors have no concept of small business. They are big business colaborators who never met a business too big to fail they didn’t love. Small businesses have no lobbyists like big business does. No unions to woo. No friends in the EPA, HHS, AMA or Bar Assn. The Feds consider a small business as one which employs fewer than 500 employees. Most guys I know employ between 2 and 20 employees. Most programs are aimed at those which employ 200-500. I’m referring to SBA.
The funny thing is as you stated “perception is reality”. Here is the perception: the government does not care about nor understand small business. There, I said it.
We small guys don’t want anything from the government! What we do want are fixed rules that everyone must play by. We don’t like being targeted as greedy, corrupt capitalists. Or targeted for taxes, fees or regulations that do not apply to or have little effect on big business. I don’t like to see the government bailing out mismanaged companies with the tax money taken from my well managed company and my employees. I don’t like feeling threatened by or coerced by bureaucrats.
The other perception (and this is the most important to small businessmen) is UNCERTANTY. Our perception now is that there are a group of leaders with socialist tendancies, with zero business experience who want to dictate to us how we should do things. And if they don’t like the outcome in a year or two, they will just change the rules. That’s fine for their friends who stnd in line for bail-out or stimulus money, but no good at all for us, the guys on the front lines.
It is because of this uncertanty that my wife and I have decided to sell out of our restaurant. It’s also the reason my friend in the nursery business told me this will be his last Christmas. Another buddy in the window manufacturing business is planning a move out of the country. He wants to manufacture out of Mexico and use distributers here in the US. There go about 150 jobs but he’s not too big to fail.
By the way, we are the experienced guys. The ones who have been around 30 or 40 years. We aren’t rookies. When we start projects you can believe they generally succeed. And they create jobs. That’s what this country is killing off in favor of a bunch of Harvard MBA types who have no experience. I don’t want to sell my business and in a year or two my home and move. But my wife insists that at 58 years old I don’t need the headaches. But it’s not the headaches that bother me. It’s the uncertanty. Will I be hit with Card Check? Or energy taxes? Or health care mandates and fees? Will they change the rules in a year, or two years making all my efforts and decisions a moot point? Will they pass new environmental laws adding new burdens onto the others? If I wait to sell and retire will there still be a market in which to sell? The percetion is reality and that perception is uncertanty.
You really hit the nail on the head.
Obama needs to quit worrying about “creating jobs;” he needs to worry about “creating” an economic environment in which new jobs are needed and are thus “created” by that need.
The thing is, John, your finances are at such a point where you can afford to sell your business and retire, with no worries.
I understand your point about ‘uncertainty’, but I don’t think you understand that the bulk of the middle class and all of the poor have been living lives of uncertainty growing worse for decades now, because the free market free enterprise system, the collusion between government and big business, has sucked the wealth and opportunity out of these people, and along with it, a hope for a more prosperous future. Therefore, what you feel is what millions of Americans feel.
You want to pin it all on the government, and the current government in particular. Here is where I think you are wrong. The primary blame is on the wealthy powerful, who through bribes have in effect almost completely taken over our government. A good example is how we see big Pharma, big banks and big Insurance take over control of the health care debate in Congress, especially in the Senate.
Another glaring example is how the large financial institutions have taken over the White House, in the names of Geithner, Summers, Froman, Furman, and the ghost of Rubin, and shifted tax payer dollars to make successes and bonuses for the large Wall Street financial behemoths. On this subject you ought to read Matt Taibbi’s scorching indictment of the current WH big business moguls, with whom Obama has become a weak-kneed idiot, much to the surprise of progressive thinkers.
My point, John, is that your sudden ‘uncertainty’ is nothing new, it’s just that it has finally reached you and your enterprises. You are fortunate that you can step out and escape. For most, that is not possible. Good luck!
Noting that even Obama is proving to be weak-kneed against these forces, causes me to think that we are in a prolonged national decline that might bring chaos sooner than we realized. A primary strength of ours has been a robust middle class, who have been cut down gradually ever since Reagan’s supply side economy took hold, enabling the wealthy elite to gain more power. Our military power/military industrial complex is not going to rescue us from this tyranny of the wealthy elite, because we face a war within, and we are losing this one, I am sorry to say!
I gotta say the more I read Perry, the more I realize Perry is lost to reality. Reagan’s economic policy destroyed the Carter Recession and allowed the middle class to grow. And we have some of the richest poor people in the world, due to free market free enterprise, not in spite of it.
No, Perry, I don’t want your “equally impoverished” socialism.
Perry, I fervently believe that true Marxist statism is the collusion of big business with big government. Business cannot pass laws and government produces nothing, therefore they need each other to maintain power over the people and the economy. I don’t “pin” it on this government. Quite the contrary, this has been developing for decades and has only begun the rapid acceleration recently. The free market, free enterprise system does not create this. FM/FE creates economic opportunity and has shown to grow the underclass and the middle class better than any other system. I ask you are the poor in America as poor as they are in North Korea? Is the middle class in America worse or better off than that of China?
I can point to North Korea as a stark example of the superiority of our system. And I can do it from experience; I’ve been there. NK has about 23 million people, the south about 48 million. The north is Marxist; the south emulates the American FM system. Which country can’t feed it’s own? Which country are people trying to escape? Which country has a poverty of over 40%? Which has the higher suicide, mortality and disease rate? The capital of NK is the only real city that can compare even minimally to the west. All cities in SK look like you were driving up I95 on our own east coast. Yes, there are poor in SK. Yes, they have problems just like we and every other country has. But because they have Freedom and Free Markets their future is brighter than those in the north could possibly dream of.
“My point, John, is that your sudden ‘uncertainty’ is nothing new, it’s just that it has finally reached you and your enterprises. You are fortunate that you can step out and escape. For most, that is not possible.”
Perry, there is always a certain amount of risk when you undertake an enterprise. That risk by definition is uncertainty. Mine is sudden because in business the risk was always a market risk. Will people buy my product? Can I deliver the service? Now the risk is a governmental risk. Will they change the rules? Will they outlaw my product like they did with light bulbs as an example? Will they impose taxes that drive me out of business and cause me to loose everything? Remember, the government is FORCE. I can deal with the market and respond to it’s demands. But little guys like me rarely beat the government.
I am not fortunate to be able to “step out and escape”. Fortune has little to do with it. I planned it this way since I returned from Nam. I worked my whole life to get here. It didn’t just happen. I was slapped down many times and I whined and cried about it….to myself. Not to the government. I then began to rebuild asking for nothing from the government but to get out of my way and let me go. I pay a shit load of taxes and that does not bother me. But I don’t want to “escape”, I want to improve. I still have a few good ideas in me and now I have the wherewithal to do them. But with what I perceive as anti-free market people running the government, I think it unwise to invest in a new enterprise. As Scott said above, it’s the lack of a secure economic environment that hurts.
My wife says I should quit. Escape, if you will. Many of my friends and associates are doing so. We have interests in restaurants in Korea, which will assure me a profitable retirement. BUT I’M NOT DONE YET! I have more I can do and I want to do it here, in the good ole USA. Not Korea, not Mexico, not Cancun, not Bermuda, not the Caymans. Here. This is my home. Mrs. John C wants me to go to Korea and expand our restaurants to China. I don’t want to live in Korea or, God forbid China. How long do you think a loud mouthed, liberty-loving A-hole like me could stay out of prison in China. I give it about a week before they deported me. The way I think I’d cause an international incident.
I just wish there were some way I gould convince you guys on the left that guys like me aren’t the enemy. I want everyone to succeed. But I realize everybody either can’t or won’t. That does not mean the rest shouldn’t. It also doesn’t mean the ones who do should feel guilty for doing so. But just because some or even many won’t succeed we can’t build a system that impedes ALL from suceeding. Big business and big government are opposite sides of the same coin. Both can be destructive but neither has to be if we rope them in. But don’t rope opportunity in just because these guys have abused it. That’s all I’m saying. And I’m sorry, but I’m lousey at spelling.
Actually, what you have is a man of principle, Joe Lieberman, standing up to a bunch of statists who want to impose more government power and control over a populace that wants none of it.
That article was from Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone!! I mean, if I wanted to read about the latest doings of some ultra rich rock star, I’d read that magazine. If I wanted serious policy analysis, I’d definitely go somewhere else!
“A good example is how we see big Pharma, big banks and big Insurance take over control of the health care debate in Congress, especially in the Senate.”
Perry, this is the natural course of events when big companies join with big government to force out everyone else. Opposite sides of the same coin needing each other to control the people. So I ask you: is it smart to grant them the power to create a whole new Big Government Controlled Health Care Company, INC?
PS I forgot to use the “Blockquote” function on my earler post. Apologies for that. It should read:
What a bunch of left wing twaddle! It’s Reagan’s fault! It’s rich people’s fault! There’s the usual paranoid rants about the “Military industrial complex”!
Honestly Perry, you’re starting to sound like Blu. Trust me, that’s not ground you want to tread!
JohnC wrote:
Your points are well taken, and you have made your case yourself.
If we reflect on it for a moment, we can see that political uncertainty and price shocks and social turmoil all work to the left’s benefit, insofar as it hinders private planning, and instead encourages people to look for salvation to the political authorities. The ownership of businesses, private property, inheritance income, savings, all tend to make people less tractable, more independent minded, and less interested in submitting to the social management dictates of a political class that sees humans as fungible social elements, there to be directed and shaped and winnowed in accordance with their supposedly “superior” ideological perceptions and tastes.
“
I agree. Big business, really large corporations, constitute the field where the statists of the political left and the corporatists of the “private sector” meet to strike deals. Recall Galbraith’s views on the supposed research and technological necessity of ever larger corporations as engines of progressive development.
The welfare state left also needs these large corporations as “jobs machines”; for not every potential and willing client of the state can find a roost in a federal or municipally funded niche.
Government mandates and pressure, to which interstate behemoths are uniquely politically susceptible, can also ensure “private marketplace” featherbeds for numerous others of the termitic kind who will then be periodically reminded of the beneficent role of the state in helping to fill their feed bowls with government sponsored love.
Thus, with the businesses serving as the geese that lay the golden tax eggs, the left is also willing to allow the private sector corporatists,( who, rather than entrepreneurs run these companies, and who are basically non-governmental mirror-images of the lefties) to personally profit; just as long as some mutual back-scratching arrangements can be worked out.
And, as the class of “large corporations” becomes increasingly populated by finance and communications companies, rather than goods producing companies, the companies themselves are, we see, increasingly run by members of the left-leaning nomenklatura.
[As evidenced by the identities and campaign contribution records of so many top level executives of those finance companies that reached or crossed over the brink of ruin during the last financial and credit debacle. Or, say, as revealed by the identities and affiliations of those jailed during the previous telecommunications scandals]
Perry says he is afraid the house may burn down, and we will be left with anarchy, unless even more central direction is put in place.
But is anarchy of a kind, really all that much worse than being locked in a hot airless room filled with state dependents?
DNW said:
“And, as the class of “large corporations” becomes increasingly populated by finance and communications companies, rather than goods producing companies, the companies themselves are, we see, increasingly run by members of the left-leaning nomenklatura.”
And those large corporations which do produce goods are the procurers of huge government grants and contracts. You would think that government would seek out the little guys for contracts to increase employment since by definition larger companies already have large payrolls. But no, they slide money to their boys with the lobbyists. Payback comes later when a politician or bureaucrat “retires”, or is indicted and forced to leave government “service” and we find he suddenly is a vice president of some large corporation with whom he had “dealings” for years shipping our money to their bottom line. Coincidence? I think not.
Large corporations are the golden parachutes of corrupt politicians.
DNW:“Perry says he is afraid the house may burn down, and we will be left with anarchy, unless even more central direction is put in place.”
No, DNW, I said nothing about more central direction needing to be in place, although I agree, that is just what we need, to get us out of the mess that JohnC so well described re his own situation.
Until we diminish the influence of the moneyed interests in our government, we will continue to decline. I had hoped that Obama was going to be the vehicle for actuating this kind of a change, but now, after a year, I don’t see it happening.
I am beginning to feel that we are too far gone, that the moneyed elite in the corporations and government are too powerful, therefore could resist any measures put in place against them.
Here is what we need to try to do:
1. Reduce taxes on the middle, raise taxes on the wealthy.
2. Reduce taxes on small businesses.
3. Simplify tax laws.
4. Generate robust campaign financing and lobbying reforms.
5. Reduce election campaigns to say 3 months.
6. Wind down the military industrial complex.
7. End the two wars. Invest in homeland security.
8. Invoke single payer health care with negotiated provider fees.
9. Enable importation of foreign prescription drugs.
10. Invest in education and retraining.
11. Invest in energy independence.
You can add or subtract, but we need a plan.
Big government in itself is not the problem, as South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, and Germany can teach us something about that. American arrogance and power have inhibited us from borrowing on the successful ideas of others.
My hope would be that when we get traction on the issues that face us, the GDP will grow, and we can reduce the size of government. There is too much needing to be done right now, so we need big government in order to consolidate our efforts, without the undue influence of money.
We need a big change, otherwise we keep losing ground; but we must be patient for significant outcomes, because it is the equivalent of a peaceful revolution that we need, so it will take a long time, perhaps at least one generation. Do we have the patience and intestinal fortitude to put together a program that will work on our priorities? I hope so!
The bigger the government, the more influence money will have. Big government means tons of government spending, which will draw lobbyists like shit draws flies.
PJ O’Rourke put it best:
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation,
The first thing to be bought and sold are legislators.
JohnC:“Large corporations are the golden parachutes of corrupt politicians.”
Right, and too many of our politicians are on the take, as we see in the health reform debate in the Senate, both the so-called Left and Right.
This is a bipartisan issue. Let us proceed with our two-party bi-cameral, three branch system, weeding out the corruption that is so dominant, starting with our parties at the local level.
1. Reduce taxes on the middle, raise taxes on the wealthy. Define “Middle Class” & “Wealthy”
2. Reduce taxes on small businesses. OK
3. Simplify tax laws. Good Idea
4. Generate robust campaign financing and lobbying reforms. Good luck with that one (see above). PS. We tried it with McCain-Feingold. Didn’t work out too well, eh?
5. Reduce election campaigns to say 3 months. Dumb idea. Will allow more lousy candidates to slip through.
6. Wind down the military industrial complex. Paranoia
7. End the two wars. Invest in homeland security. Give up on offense, play defense only. Good way to lose!
8. Invoke single payer health care with negotiated provider fees. Ask doctors what they think of this.
9. Enable importation of foreign prescription drugs.
10. Invest in education and retraining. We already do
11. Invest in energy independence. Let the oil companies do this, get off their backs and let them drill domestically, and we’ll have all the energy independence we need!
Perry said:
“No, DNW, I said nothing about more central direction needing to be in place, although I agree, that is just what we need, to get us out of the mess that JohnC so well described re his own situation.”
So big government in conjunction/collusion with large corps. are squeezing the life out of the middle class and society. And what will cure it is…..bigger big government?
On the issue of your eleven point plan for reform; some I can see and agree with, some partial and a few I disagree with completely. As usual negotiation would be in order. But that’s another thread.
JohnC wrote:
Yes, it’s a scandal that has long been in the making. Career military, for example, (and not to just pick on some Colonel from the Pentagon) wind up as consultants, or if they are high enough ranking, as board members.
You mention procurements being directed to large companies; and I think you are right though I have not made a study of it in particular. What I do know is that virtually anyone can try to bid on government contracts and that there are published lists of these that are available. But that as in with anything dealing with the government, social policy and conformance to those policy regulations play a role in who will be actually considered for the work.
Just building the best high velocity rifle, won’t necessarily qualify your firm to get the contract.
And as far as raw size goes, we have seen the amazing spectacle of our own Federal Government exempting defense contractors from anti-trust regulation (think Clinton Administration) and encouraging them to consolidate on the basis that high tech military development programs were ostensibly too expensive for any single firm to bear alone – given that they were expected to bear the development costs of an unsuccessful bid.
Perry:
I didn’t quote you as saying that more government was the solution, I attributed that view to you.
You then objected to what I did not do, only in order to affirm that the predication itself was correct!
What the hell is wrong with you, anyaway?
DNW questions: What the hell is wrong with you, anyaway?
DNW, I quoted you in that post. If you cannot remember what you wrote, that’s on you!
Pery entirely misses the point:
It almost seems as though you are saying that it’s good that small business owners are catching up with the problems of working employees.
If John’s business fails — either while he owns it or fails after someone else buys it — then the people employed by that business are out of work.
Without quoting all of your comment, what I see is a diatribe against big business, against businesses trying to maximize their profits. This, it seems to me, is a major logical flaw in the philosophy of our friends on the left: too many of them see business as the enemy.
But businesses, large, medium and small, employ the vast majority of working Americans: harm business, and you throw their employees out of work.
Employees take lesser risks in our economy. If the business fails, they lose their jobs, but they don’t have their life savings tied up in the business, they don’t have their homes mortgaged to get the business started.
Employers take the greater risks: when their businesses fail, not only do they lose their income, but they often lose their property, property mortgaged to get a business started, sometimes the business building, the equipment, etc. They wind up with huge debts they can’t pay. But in taking the greater risks, they hope to reap the greater rewards: financial success beyond what they could expect earning a wage working for somebody else. That is a reasonable exchange, and I certainly don’t begrudge them higher rewards.
One of our greatest Presidents, Calvin Coolidge, got it right: “The business of America is business.” It is capitalism, organized in businesses, which has been the only economic system which has lifted more than a small minority of its people above the subsistence level.
Perry also wrote:
Perhaps you didn’t read what John wrote. The things he listed as uncertainties in possible increases in the cost of doing business were:
Not a single one of those things is being pushed by “big Pharma, big banks and big Insurance.” The last thing that those industries want is more government regulation; they want to be left with as few regulations as possible, because additional regulations mean some opportunity lost to make money. All of the things Mr C mentioned are being pushed by government, or by special interest groups who don’t care a bit about businesses.
Mr C left a business related comment on the This blog open on Thanksgiving Day thread. He wrote:
That’s nothing but a burden, imposed on a small business owner, because someone thought that, oh, how terrible it is that some people are discriminated against. Mr C will have to take a day away from his business — meaning that he has to pay someone else to work in his stead — pay an attorney, travel to Harrisburg, the whole deal, because, as a business owner who had a discrimination complaint filed against him, he is presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent. It wasn’t “big Pharma, big banks and big Insurance” who got those laws passed; it was the do-gooders in government, the people who have absolutely no experience or understanding about what it takes to run a business.
Thank you Dana Pico. I didn’t think anyone even read that little tid-bit of mine. Your timing is impeccable, this Thursday is the hearing. My business attorney cut me a break and is charging me $1200 for the day (win,loose or draw).
I’m well documented but you never know how these things work out. My wife wants to go to show them in her cute broken English/Korean that I’m not a racist. I told her that won’t matter as the complaintant is black, not Asian.
I’ll let you guys know the results. Thanks for remembering.
Oh, I read it, and remembered it. It has often been said of me that I have a mind like a foam rubber trap.
Sounds like a PETA mouse trap.
Actually, we once did have a (sort of) PeTA mousetrap, one of the catch-’em-alive traps when we had a few mice (but no cats) at the Llama Palace in Delaware. We caught one, and Mrs Pico wanted me to kill it, but I couldn’t do that! So, since we couldn’t release the mouse anywhere close to the house, the younger Miss Pico and I walked across the field — the Llama Palace sat on 3¼ acres — until we were closer to the houses in the Hockessin Green subdivision, and released the mouse there.
Our current mousetrap:
Looks like an effective mouse trap to me.
At 9:54 am Perry wrote
Then, at 1:57 pm I wrote in responding to JohnC:
And then following that post, at 3:21pm Perry posted another message in which he asserted:
DNW said: “Perry says he is afraid the house may burn down, and we will be left with anarchy, unless even more central direction is put in place.”
Confusion, confusion! I did not say that, but here is what I did say: “No, DNW, I said nothing about more central direction needing to be in place, although I agree, that is just what we need, to get us out of the mess that JohnC so well described re his own situation.”
Also, please note that I did not mean to use that link; I have made the correction in that 6:00pm post, a quote, not a link.
The problem we have is that the “central direction” we now have is contaminated by the fact that too many of our representatives in Congress are accepting campaign contribution bribes and bills written by special interest lobbyists, some of them even previously members of Congress. This corruption is totally unacceptable. In effect, our Congressional representatives are not representing our interests, instead they are representing the interests of the special interest fat cats. Therefore there is no reliable and honorable central direction available from Congress, or even from the Executive Branch, as per what I said in my first post in this thread: “Another glaring example is how the large financial institutions have taken over the White House, in the names of Geithner, Summers, Froman, Furman, and the ghost of Rubin, and shifted tax payer dollars to make successes and bonuses for the large Wall Street financial behemoths.”
We the people are pretty much out of the loop!
Perry,
You ever had a full course in logic? Serious question.
If so, do you remember which texts you used? If so, I may be able to point you to some relevant passages on the doctrines of implication and the use of the square of opposition.
Dana takes issue:“Without quoting all of your [my] comment, what I see is a diatribe against big business, against businesses trying to maximize their profits. This, it seems to me, is a major logical flaw in the philosophy of our friends on the left: too many of them see business as the enemy.”
Yes, I definitely see big business as the enemy, but not all big business, but too many: Enron; AIG; the big investment banks and commercial banks; Moody’s; IndyMac; WaMu; United Health Care; Cigna; Blue Cross Blue Shield; Exxon; …. Each one has a story that puts them in a bad light wrt their behavior.
And what about the many large corporations who have not been rewarding employees for their productivity increases, instead reward their executives, whose take hope pay has been increasing in the double digits year after year? Middle incomes have been stagnant for several decades. Yes, I blame big business for these problems.
And then we have the overseas headquarters to avoid paying taxes, and the offshoring of American jobs, the unwillingness to invest in American workers, the opposition to minimum wage legislation, anti-union activities, ….
Maximizing profits is the end that justifies all these means, so that the overall result has been to disenfranchise the productivity and compensation of the American eemployee. I’ve known better times, and they are disappearing, much of it due to corporate greed and manipulation of our federal government. ‘Tis a crying shame!
DNW:“You ever had a full course in logic? Serious question.”
Never have, although logic with a different application than that which you have in mind, is certainly used in the application of the scientific method, in which I have been immersed for my entire lifetime.
I am not familiar with the “doctrines of implication” or “square of opposition”.
Ok, Perry.
Rather than deal with conditional propositions and the various senses of implication, just look up the “Square of Opposition” and the phrase “immediate inference”, and then take a look at some of the things you have said regarding the free market, bearing in mind the definition of the free market.
Mr C wrote:
When Mrs Pico was out of town for a few days last August, Pluto was very concerned that I wouldn’t get enough to eat, so she brought in an assortment of mice, birds and even a baby bunny for me.
This was a stimulus job, but it’s finished. Since it was paving, the workers are out of work now. And the sign is gone.
http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=6574
No, make that inevitable. Don’t know if you saw my previous post, but the fact is: The bigger and more powerful government is, the more “Lobbyists” are going to want to influence it. The NRA has been for years one of the most effective lobbies in America; they raise money from their members and give it to Congressmen who vote their way. And, as a former NRA member, I say “Hurray” for that, since it reduces the power of the gun-grabbers and increases Americans’ rights and freedoms.
The best way to cut down on lobbying and “Interest groups” is to reduce the size, power, and expense of government.
Perry stated:
“Yes, I definitely see big business as the enemy, but not all big business, but too many: Enron; AIG; the big investment banks and commercial banks; Moody’s; IndyMac; WaMu; United Health Care; Cigna; Blue Cross Blue Shield; Exxon; …. Each one has a story that puts them in a bad light wrt their behavior.”
These, all of these, large corporations you listed are in bed with and “regulated” by the government. So I ask you: Is it really big business that’s the problem, or is it the “exceptions” and favors bestowed upon these clowns by government which is the real culprit? Again, you are pissed at big businesses that only did what the government told them to do. They gamed the system. Ain’t their fault, its human nature. You can’t crawl in bed with the guys you are supposed to be regulating. That would be like me screwing one of my waitresses. How am I to control her if she’s “special”?
“And then we have the overseas headquarters to avoid paying taxes, and the off shoring of American jobs, the unwillingness to invest in American workers, the opposition to minimum wage legislation, anti-union activities, ….”
Overseas HQ’s and oversea banking are because we have a tax structure unfriendly to capital accumulation. I bank offshore and my profits from Korea never enter the US. If our nation is supposed to be so free, why do we need to hide our money from our government? Because if you bank offshore the government can’t seize you assets in a dispute, that’s why. The first thing they do is freeze you cash, then say “go hire a lawyer and fight”. With what? They already took your money. And if you win the seizure is considered a civil action and you have to hire another lawyer to get your assets back. The same goes for a lawsuit in the US. They can freeze you assets. Foreign governments don’t do that.
Plus, if you bring into the US money earned overseas the IRS hits you with 20-35% tax ON THE NET! We could have trillions of dollars sitting in US banks for our people and our businesses to borrow and use but instead it is being used by foreigners to save taxes and liability exposure. You wanna fix something? Fix that. People don’t bank in Zurich and the Caymans because they want to, but because it’s prudent to do so.
Minimum wage hurts the entry-level worker. It helps the unions. Look up Thomas Sowell’s latest column on the subject. The balance between hiring and training employees, wages, unions and profit is very thin. I don’t know any business owner who has a problem with training employees. Hell, that’s what I spend most of my time doing. But if it is proper to compete on product prices it is proper to compete on wages. Unions have priced out minorities, teens, entry-level workers by endorsing minimum wage which gets them unscheduled raises. So what do people do? They hire illegals. Why? Cause they compete for wages like business competes on prices. These are not excuses, just reasons.
You don’t like the big businesses but they are regulated by our wonderful government. You want minimum wage, but it’s hostile to minorities and the young. You don’t’ like offshore companies but you attitude indicates to me you would be very likely to encourage asset seizure, so they stay away.
You can’t have it both ways: Hostile to business and wealth accumulation and demanding everyone be taxed to the hilt and regulated out of existence, then complaining when companies and wealthy individuals refuse to play ball on your court and move offshore or relocate out of the US.
[...] Submitted By: The Colossus of Rhodey – Common Sense Political Thought – the Jobs Summit [...]
JohnC:“They [big business] gamed the system.”
I had a Political Science Professor who repeated this statement frequently: “You can’t have a functional government unless the people consent to be governed”.
For whatever reason, we are becoming a country of folks who refuse to be governed. We want to do our own thing in our efforts to maximize profits, and hope that the law doesn’t catch up with us, either new laws or lack of enforcement of laws already on the books.
People are less likely to be governed if they distrust the government. This is where ideology comes into play. Simply, the Right is against big government, the left is for big government, within limits. So we are in a constant battle over this issue, as it relates to the multitude of individual issues/laws that we perceive to impact us negatively.
This is why governing from the center is so important, since it requires the exercise of compromise. At this point in time, the Right does not know how to compromise, the Left is begrudgingly learning how, for example, the health reform initiative, in which everyone is dissatisfied and angry. This is actually a good sign, because it means we are engaged, intent on passing a bill.
Getting back to governing and consent to be governed, the problem we face currently is that corruption is rampant in DC, to the point where we have become unbalanced wrt pay for performance. People are working hard to just get by, others are working hard and are making millions per year. Thus, we are in a period of instability that can lead to chaos. To prepare for an ‘uncertain’ (There’s your word, John.) future, people feel more motivated to get all they can get now, which only increases instability.
The only entity that can regulate these imbalances and put us on track for future stability is the government. Unfortunately, as you so well put it: “You can’t crawl in bed with the guys you are supposed to be regulating.”
My hope has been that Obama is the one to come in and work to change our system back to what the people require. Because of the circumstances of the day, the wars and the near economic collapse, his priorities are these two issues. On the corruptions in government and business, I don’t know whether Obama or anyone else has the power to redirect this ship from the current unsustainable course, toward a more sustainable less corrupted direction.
The only way that Obama or anyone else can make progress is by the consent of the millions of ordinary Americans. But we are terribly polarized, and being fed on a daily basis by people who, perhaps unintentionally, are promoting more polarization. My hope is that this happens before severe chaos erupts!
On the subject of an out of control and corrupt government, Diane Rehm had an interesting guest on her 11am show today, George Parker, whose latest book is entitled: “The Assassins Gate” Here is her web page summary: “New Yorker staff writer George Packer on his post-nine-eleven travels through war zones, the pitfalls of idealism and the Obama administration’s challenge of moving from rhetoric to policy.” And here is where you can view the video of the show.
Perry admits his bias:
And if you see these businesses as the enemy, what happens to their employees if they fail? In just the companies you mentioned, how many employees are there?
You don’t like Blue Cross/Blue Shield? Most, though not all, BC/BS companies are non-profit companies!
Perry wrote:
The cost of a product is the sum of the labor, materials, taxes and overhead required for its production, and transportation from the factory to the point of sale. Coming out of World War II, we had little competition: some 45% of the world’s industrial plant was in the US. Now industrialization has spread across the world, and the damage of the war has been repaired. This means that foreign competition is possible.
And that’s where we get into the costs of production. The costs of transportation from Mexico or Vietnam or South Korea to the United States simply do not outweigh the much higher labor and overhead costs on American-manufactured items. You want to impose yet another environmental regulation, because you think it will benefit society in the long run? Fine, but remember that new environmental regulation is just another overhead cost, one not imposed on the plant in South Korea, so that regulation simply makes the US plant even less competitive.
You want to see higher wages for American workers? Fine, but that simply increases the labor costs for American manufacturers, making foreign manufactured goods less expensive.
American consumers have shown a marked tendency to choose based on price. If the foreign-produced goods are less expensive, the rational consumer will buiy foreign. Everything you have said you favor would just further skew this equation toward foreign products.
I can tell you for a fact that one of the business owners that went to the Allentown summit is a conservative republican that supports local PACs etc. etc. So maybe there were some liberal folks, but I also know that the audience and idea givers where infrastructure/sustainability minded people.
and stop citing the Washington Times for gods sake. Just go to Newsbusters! They are the best for wing nuts. Christ almighty you don’t even try to hide your bias.
I saw a wild-caught Alaskan Salmon fillet, 3 pounds for 60 bucks. Right beside it was a Salmon fillet from China, 3 pounds for 16 bucks. I didn’t buy either because I strongly prefer not to buy from China. But I couldn’t plop down 60 bucks for a hunk of fish. Not in my budget.
US corporate tax is among the highest in the world. Why would anyone in their right mind subject himself to that if he could avoid it? Don’t blame corporations for doing the logical thing. Blame liberals in Congress and the White House for causing the logical thing to be “get the heck out of Dodge.”
US corporate tax is among the highest in the world.
Back in the real world, you’re talking rubbish. Would you care to back that assertion up with figures based on amounts actually paid rather than nominal rates, or are you going to play your usual game of never backing up your bullsh1t?
Let’s see, amounts actually paid would be based on amounts the US can get its grimy hands on, wouldn’t it? And those amounts would be deleteriously affected by corporations moving as much as possible outside US jurisdiction, wouldn’t they? Why don’t you come back and try again when you have a leg to stand on? Or better yet, come back when you are willing to admit truth.
[...] Submitted By: The Colossus of Rhodey – Common Sense Political Thought – the Jobs Summit [...]
That’s okay John Hitchcock. Libs think companies leave the US or bank outside tha US because the taxes here are TOO LOW and they desire to pay more.