President Obama's Job Creation Initiative Framework Speeches

[Cats Cats Cats]

Kind of on the side . . . I always think it's weird that we try to make those good/bad distinctions about participants in the economic system.   Capitalism is amoral -- the only real judgement of any sort within the system is whether an entity is profitable or not.  Within that framework, the megacorps in question have succeeded to the highest order.  By capturing politicians and regulators, forcing loopholes into the tax structure, litigating regulation into oblivion, and setting up financial-corporate feedback loops . . . these  are simply companies using market leverage to remain successful.  Why are people surprised by this?  Why is SARAH PALIN surprised by this?

Actually, a company doesn't need to be profitable.  You can also do things like, take money from the city for the lofts, pay yourself a crap ton of money and then have the property forclosed on.  You don't need to make money to make money.

[we vs us]

Now I see he quoted the article directly.  I thought she wrote and opinion piece specifically and he paraphrased but those weren't his words.

I figured.  But even if it's an accurate paraphrase (which I assume it is) she's jumped way out into left field.

[we vs us]

Actually, a company doesn't need to be profitable.  You can also do things like, take money from the city for the lofts, pay yourself a crap ton of money and then have the property forclosed on.  You don't need to make money to make money.

Well yes, but I include that as using whatever resources are around you -- including gov subsidies -- to make money.  And you're right, the company itself doesn't have to prosper . . . only the shareholder(s) does/do.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I figured.  But even if it's an accurate paraphrase (which I assume it is) she's jumped way out into left field.

I think she is using an actually smart campaign tactic.  Everybody already knows she is pretty far right about everything.  As everybody running for the Republican is trying to go more and more fringe she is doing the opposite.  Besides the few candidates bucking the trend she has a better shot.

[Gaspar]

It is what it is..  Its definitely not some form of morality as some try to assign to it.  That somehow it "looks out" for anybody.  Its all about making money.  That is it.  I believe back in the earlier days companies had some loyalty to employees as necessary to the growth of a company.  Now employees are a necessary liablity that hopefully some day can be discarded completely.

I think sometimes it's the other way around.  Most of the companies I have worked for legitimately care about their employees and promote innovation and work ethic as a means to advance.  In these same companies where I have done very well, I have had co-workers that do nothing but groan and moan about how the boss doesn't care about them or how they never get a raise.  Especially with younger workers, many of which get out of school and join the workforce expecting to be "cared for" with fancy benefits plans and promotions for meeting the expectations of their job description.  

As for the employees that I have hired to work for me, I have become very good at spotting candidates that I will not hire.  After getting burned more times than I wish to recall, it becomes very simple to identify the fundamental personality traits that will deliver a productive employee and co-worker.  

I think companies want to limit liability, but they don't view employees as a liability unless economic circumstances make it that way, or the employee in question shows no capacity to advance beyond his/her current station.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I think sometimes it's the other way around.  Most of the companies I have worked for legitimately care about their employees and promote innovation and work ethic as a means to advance.  In these same companies where I have done very well, I have had co-workers that do nothing but groan and moan about how the boss doesn't care about them or how they never get a raise.  Especially with younger workers, many of which get out of school and join the workforce expecting to be "cared for" with fancy benefits plans and promotions for meeting the expectations of their job description.  

As for the employees that I have hired to work for me, I have become very good at spotting candidates that I will not hire.  After getting burned more times than I wish to recall, it becomes very simple to identify the fundamental personality traits that will deliver a productive employee and co-worker.  

I think companies want to limit liability, but they don't view employees as a liability unless economic circumstances make it that way, or the employee in question shows no capacity to advance beyond his/her current station.

I agree this is true of small companies.  But larger companies don't operate the same way. Which companies will get larger and larger.  Smaller companies bought out, etc etc.  Apple right now could probably buy every manufacturer in certain industries (if they chose).  Without anti-monopoly regulation we will eventually have one company.

[Gaspar]

I agree this is true of small companies.  But larger companies don't operate the same way.

I was actually going to add that I've worked for some large companies and you are correct.  When you get that many people you get politics beyond the philosophy of the company.  You get individual layers of varying ethical responsibility.  That's why some of these companies try to focus on "mission statements" and "corporate culture development" to try to get everyone on the same page when it comes to the value of the workforce.  In many cases this does not work.

[Conan71]

There's a wonderful "gotcha" in that plan for GOP incumbents.  It will be presented as a jobs bill but includes tax increases on the wealthy.  Vote against the bill and your Democrat opponent says you voted against jobs.  Vote for it and your primary challenger says you voted for tax increases.  It's brilliant as a political tool and is timed far enough out that Obama's operatives believe the short attention span of most voters will allow them to forget any other details of the legislation other than their rep was fer tax increases or agin jobs.  You can bet there will be all sorts of unrelated parasites attached to the bill which will make it even more of a pile to Republicans.

I worry about the cut in payroll taxes and how it will impact the stability of the SS trust funds.  I honestly don't see how the trust fund won't be impacted unless that part will be filled in by increases in cap gains and dividend rates.

Finally, I like part three or the pathways back to work.  That's not terribly unlike what we've discussed here before.  One of the problems we've got in jump-starting the economy is with an unemployment check, the government is investing in "non-productivity" rather than productivity.  Get something in return for that unemployment benefits check instead of that check simply converting back to purchasing gasoline, groceries, and dry goods at Walmartz.  

Overall, he's put items in there which should appeal to both sides of the aisle.  Now we'll see if Boehner and McConnell will play ball instead of simply trying to hi-jack or torpedo every single proposal that the President brings them.

Oh and the leader of SarahPAC or whatever her PAC is, is one to talk when it comes to lambasting the moneyed interests paying for influence in Washington, though I don't disagree with her assessment of the "ruling class".  The two party system simply acts as a foil so they can take turns at raiding the treasury and point the anger in the opposite direction.  I'm reminded of the part of Goodfella's where Paulie is brought in as a partner of the Bamboo Lounge.  His crew pillages the place and milks it for all it's worth until all credit resources are used up then they set fire to the place.  Wasn't their money to begin with and they sure had a fun time looting the place as long as they could.

[Conan71]

I mean the end game of capitalism is 1 company that owns everything.

No it's not.  That's socialism/communism only the last standing "company" is the government.  Capitalism thrives on diversity and competition.  If one company does manage to dominate, it will necessarily create competition eventually.

[Cats Cats Cats]

No it's not.  That's socialism/communism only the last standing "company" is the government.  Capitalism thrives on diversity and competition.  If one company does manage to dominate, it will necessarily create competition eventually.

Thats why you either 1) buy them when they are small  or 2) pass regulation blocking them or 3) sue them.  It is a little harder with "ideas" but alot easier with natural resources and other larger capital ventures.  Given an infinite amount of time one company will own everything and all competition will be purchased or squashed.

[we vs us]

No it's not.  That's socialism/communism only the last standing "company" is the government.  Capitalism thrives on diversity and competition.  If one company does manage to dominate, it will necessarily create competition eventually.

Socialism/Communism?  pancakes?  That interpretation is allll you.  

He's right about the 1 company, though it's theoretical.  Markets respond to leverage and the bigger you are the more leverage you have to tilt the market in your favor.  It's a positive feedback loop.  More money equals more leverage and more leverage equals more money.  It also means that it's a negative feedback loop for your competitors.  Less money means less leverage means less money, etc.

That's a recognized feature of capital-based free markets, which is why -- all the way back in Teddy Roosevelt's day -- he was busting up monopolies (which are simply expressions of this leverage feedback loop).  

[Gaspar]

There's a wonderful "gotcha" in that plan for GOP incumbents.  It will be presented as a jobs bill but includes tax increases on the wealthy.  Vote against the bill and your Democrat opponent says you voted against jobs.  Vote for it and your primary challenger says you voted for tax increases.  It's brilliant as a political tool and is timed far enough out that Obama's operatives believe the short attention span of most voters will allow them to forget any other details of the legislation other than their rep was fer tax increases or agin jobs.  You can bet there will be all sorts of unrelated parasites attached to the bill which will make it even more of a pile to Republicans.

That's why it wasn't released on or before the speech.  I also don't think the people are going to buy that any more.  You can only cry wolf so many times, but he does need the blame game for his campaign.

I worry about the cut in payroll taxes and how it will impact the stability of the SS trust funds.  I honestly don't see how the trust fund won't be impacted unless that part will be filled in by increases in cap gains and dividend rates.

Again, there is no indication as to how "100% of this is paid for," and he did touch on reform for SS without any details.  Of course may simply be another trap to lay on congress, so that later he can claim that he cannot sign the bill.  Remember, the most important thing for him going into the election is the ability to blame.  He cannot campaign on his record, so he must campaign on blame.

Finally, I like part three or the pathways back to work.  That's not terribly unlike what we've discussed here before.  One of the problems we've got in jump-starting the economy is with an unemployment check, the government is investing in "non-productivity" rather than productivity.  Get something in return for that unemployment benefits check instead of that check simply converting back to purchasing gasoline, groceries, and dry goods at Walmartz.  

Unemployment checks do not "create" jobs, but they do buy votes.

Overall, he's put items in there which should appeal to both sides of the aisle.  Now we'll see if Boehner and McConnell will play ball instead of simply trying to hi-jack or torpedo every single proposal that the President brings them.

I think they will genuinely try to work with the president.  I think it will be harder to get the president to sign anything immediately, because he MUST develop some new blame for the unemployment rate going into his re-election.  Without that, regardless of a jobs bill, he will not be re-elected.  The republicans may have to eat some blame for the sake of the american people.

Oh and the leader of SarahPAC or whatever her PAC is, is one to talk when it comes to lambasting the moneyed interests paying for influence in Washington, though I don't disagree with her assessment of the "ruling class".  The two party system simply acts as a foil so they can take turns at raiding the treasury and point the anger in the opposite direction.  I'm reminded of the part of Goodfella's where Paulie is brought in as a partner of the Bamboo Lounge.  His crew pillages the place and milks it for all it's worth until all credit resources are used up then they set fire to the place.  Wasn't their money to begin with and they sure had a fun time looting the place as long as they could.

The Tea Party has decided the Republican party, now we need a group of reasonable people to divide the Democrat party.  I'd like to see about 5 or six political parties, because I think there are diverse political philosophies out there that all have contributions to make.

[Conan71]

I figured.  But even if it's an accurate paraphrase (which I assume it is) she's jumped way out into left field.

Not really, she's simply stating a more of a pragmatic view which is based in reality.  Let's use GE for an example:  Jeff Immelt poses in the public eye arm-in-arm with our president as a CEO who cares about American jobs, all the while exploiting tax codes they helped write or at least had help lobbying for which has kept their corporate tax burden low.  They also support free trade agreements which have allowed them to move jobs overseas where they can further drive down their cost of doing business.  The saving grace of this behavior is that they do create and maintain many jobs here in the states which bolsters our GDP and tax revenues both on their payroll as well as payrolls and corporate taxes for a network of suppliers and service jobs which are created by the expenditures of GE employees and the employees of their vendors and suppliers. 

Anyone other than people who are so entrenched in political dogma can see this.  When you get as big as GE or GM, you must rely on the government to help keep you competitive and profitable since everyone seems to have lost their appetite for tariffs even toward countries like China who compete on an entirely different playing field. 

No, I've not gone full-blown lefty.  It's a fact of an evolving global economy.  Instead of the government collecting revenue in protection of U.S. corporations, they are lowering revenues it to protect and keep them competitive now.  As far as the ultimate cost being higher to the consumer with tariffs, the ultimate cost will be higher when the day of reckoning comes to deal with our massive pile of debt.  Either individuals can pay higher tax rates so corporations enjoy a global advantage, or you raise tariffs and you see a direct increased cost in durable and consumer goods to the end user.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Socialism/Communism?  pancakes?  That interpretation is allll you.  

Well, I think that one company that will exist will become the new government anyway (they employ all the people that have jobs, etc).  So he is right, it will be a communist state but run by a company.

[Teatownclown]

Obummer may have checkmated Rethuglicans as the Party of No.